Upsc Book Political Science

Ce el 0
POLITICAL
SCIENCE
for Civil Services Main Examination
About the Author
N D Arora was an Associate Professor in PGDAV College,

University of Delhi. He has more than four decades of experience
in teaching graduate and post-graduate classes and was a guide
for MPhil and PhD scholars who obtained their degrees under his
able supervision. There are more than twenty books to his credit,
in addition to scores of articles published in academic journals.
Presently, he writes books for competitive examinations.
POLITICAL
SCIENCE
for Civil Services Main Examination
N D Arora
Formerly of PGDAV College
(University of Delhi)
New Delhi
Mc
Graw
Hill
Seer
McGraw Hill Education (India) Private Limited
NEW DELHI
McGraw Hill Education Offices

New Delhi New York St Louis San Francisco Auckland Bogota
Caracas Kuala Lumpur Lisbon London Madrid Mexico City Milan
Montreal San Juan Santiago Singapore Sydney Tokyo Toronto
Elsi McGraw Hill Education (India) Private Limited
Published by McGraw Hill Education (India) Private Limited,
P-24, Green Park Extension, New Delhi 110 016.
Political Science for Civil Services Main Examination, 2e
Copyright © 2016, 2010, McGraw Hill Education (India) Private
Limited.
No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any
form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, or otherwise or stored in a database or retrieval system
without the prior written permission of the publishers. The program
listings (if any) may be entered, stored and executed in a
computer system, but they may not be reproduced for publication.
This edition can be exported from India only by the publishers,
McGraw Hill Education (India) Private Limited.
ebook ISBN(13) : 978-93-5260-490-6

ebook-ISBN(10) : 93-5260-490-3
Information contained in this work has been obtained by

McGraw Hill Education (India), from sources believed to be
reliable. However, neither McGraw Hill Education (India) nor its
authors guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any
information published herein, and neither McGraw Hill
Education (India) nor its authors shall be responsible for any
errors, omissions, or damages arising out of use of this
information. This work is published with the understanding that
McGraw Hill Education (India) and its authors are supplying
information but are not attempting to render engineering or
other professional services. If such services are required, the
assistance of an appropriate professional should be sought.
ebook Creation : Alok Ranjan

Cover Designer: Rajesh Pandey
visit us at: www.mheducation.co.in

To
My Wife
Who deserves much more than mere gratitude
Preface to the Second
Edition
It is a privilege, indeed, to have a second edition of one’s book

come out, since it testifies to the students’ need and desire to
have a better version of the work. | am extremely glad of the
response this work has seen so far, and | have attempted, along
with the publisher, McGraw Hill, to revise, adapt and update the
book so that it may continue to remain relevant in its field. The
revised second edition of the Political Science for Civil Services
Main Examination comes with updated content, changes in almost
every chapter, and new questions added to Practice Questions at
the end of chapters. The last section consisting of eight chapters
on_ International Relations and Foreign Policy have been
completely revised and are in tune with the latest developments in
Indian and world politics.
| hope that this serves as a comprehensive textbook for Civil
Services Main and state civil services preparation and is
successful in its primary aim—to cover the entire syllabus of
Political Science in great detail, and yet in a language that is easy
for the aspirants to grasp. Individual modules of the syllabus are
covered in separate chapters, with author's notes provided in
boxes.
| remain grateful to many of my friends and also extend my
sincere thanks to the McGraw Hill Education team, comprising of
Tanmoy Roychowdhury, Shukti Mukherjee, Abhishek Kumar,
Gargi Bhattacharya and Medha Arora for their efforts to refine the
book.
The author may be contacted at ndarora15@hotmail.com
N.D. ARORA
Preface to the First Edition
An endeavour to write for competitive examinations such as for

the civil services is, indeed, no easy a task. The attempt would not
have been dared but for the constant (and sometimes critical)
encouragement received through students, colleagues and friends
for the author’s earlier work on the civil services preliminary
(Political Science) examination ( published by Tata McGraw Hill
Education Private Limited).
Writing on Political Science for the main examination with a
syllabi as diverse as Political Theory and Political Thought, Indian
Political System, Comparative Politics and International Relations,
has been a challenging exercise. The author has been vacillating
between what has been analytical and argumentative (relating to
theoretical formulations in theory), what has been critical and
suggestive (relating to Indian political system) and what has to be
the most informative and latest (relating to problems of
international and global concerns).
Working on a manual related to competitive examinations is
very different than writing a textbook for graduate and post-
graduate students. In civil services examinations, one has to be
(a) concise and precise on the contents,
(b) analytical and yet presentable in dealing with questions,
(c) critical to the extent of being evaluative while summing up
the answers, and
(d) avoid what is repetitive, irrelevant and redundant.
While preparing this manual, a conscious attempt has been
made to keep all these aspects in mind.
This study covers the discussion of what is prescribed in the
civil services examination syllabus. All the chapters (48 in all)
have been thoroughly updated so as to include all the latest
developments in the subject.
The manual is a small yet sincere effort to help the civil services
aspirants do their best in their examinations. An exhaustive list of
references also lies dispersed in these pages.
f— ~
From a competitive examination perspective, the author has

sought to include:
(a) narrative description of all the available facts required
herein;
(b) lucid presentation of the related material:
(c) scientific formulations of what is needed to make the
answer as systematic as possible;
(d) major points, logically ordered, in each and every topic,
and
(e) pratice questions to induce the reader to write his/her
answer himself/herself.
\. y,
| am greatly indebted to many friends and colleagues, in

particular Dr. Sunder Raman and Dr. Ramesh Singh who have
rendered valuable help in the preparation of this work. The author
also extends his gratitude to Biju Kumar, K.N. Prakash, Abhishek
Sharma, Anupma Rai, and Medha Arora of Tata McGraw Hill
Education Private Limited for their constant and continuous
support to make this work see the light of the day.
The author can be contacted at ndaroralb@hotmail.com
N.D. ARORA
CONTENTS
Preface to the Second Edition

Preface to the First Edition
. Political Theory: Meaning and Significance

Introduction
Political Thought, Political Philosophy, Political Theory, Political
Science
Political Theory: Meaning, Definitions
Political Theory: Nature
Evolution and Growth of the Discipline
Political Theory: Classical, Modern, Contemporary
Political Theory: Significance and Utility
Summing Up
Practice Questions
. Political Theory: Approaches, Debates, Trends

Introduction
Approaches
Great Debates
Trends in Political Theory
Practice Questions
3. Theories of State
Introduction
State: Definitions
Practice Questions
4. Justice: Rawls’ Theory of Justice

Introduction
Etymology, Meaning, Development
Justice—lIts Dimensions
Justice and Its Relation with Liberty and Equality
Conceptions of Justice—Different Perspectives
Justice: Types
Libertarian Justice—Hayek, Rawls, and Nozick
A Word on Distributive Justice—Theories
Practice Questions
5. Equality: Types, Forms, Relationship with Freedom, and

Affirmative Action
Introduction
Meaning of Equality
Equality: Evolution and Growth
Types of Equality
Forms of Equality: Social, Political, Economic
Relationship Between Equality and Freedom
Affirmative Action
Protective Discrimination: Reservation Policy in India
Practice Questions
6. Rights and the Concept of Human Rights

Introduction
Rights: Meaning, Nature, and Characteristics
Evolution of Rights and Related Theories
Analysis of Rights: Wesley Hohfeld and Lawrence Becker
Kinds of Rights
Functions of Rights: Will (Choice) Theory and Interest Theory
Concept of Human Rights
Practice Questions
7. Democracy:Representative, Participatory, and Deliberative

Introduction
Democracy: Meaning and Definitions
Democracy: Evolution and Growth
Theories of Democracy
Models of Democracy
Practice Questions
8. Concepts: Power, Hegemony, Ideology, Legitimacy

Introduction
Concept of Power
Concept of Hegemony
Concept of Ideology
Concept of Legitimacy
Practice Questions
9. Political Ideologies: Liberalism, Socialism, Marxism,

Fascism, Gandhism, Feminism
Introduction
Liberalism and its Variants
Socialism and its Variants
Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Third Way, Anarchism
Fascism and Conservatism
Gandhism
Feminism
Practice Questions
10. Indian Political Thought I: Dharmashastra, Arthashastra,

Buddhist Tradition, and Sir Syed Ahmed Khan
Sources of Ancient Indian Polity
Nature of Polity—Dharmashastra, Arthashastra, and the
Buddhist Tradition
Polity in Dnharmashastra, Arthashastra, and the Buddhist
Tradition
Sir Syed Anmed Khan
Practice Questions
11. Indian Political Thought Il: Sri Aurobindo, M.K. Gandhi,

B.R. Ambedkar, M.N. Roy
Introduction
Sri Aurobindo
M.K. Gandhi
B.R. Ambedkar
M.N. Roy
Practice Questions
12. Western Political Thought I: Plato and Aristotle

Introduction
Plato
Aristotle
Practice Questions
13. Western Political Thought Il: Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke,
Niccolo Machiavelli: 1469-1527

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
John Locke: 1632-1704
John Stuart Mill: 1806-73
Practice Questions
14. Western Political Thought Ill: Marx, Gramsci, Arendt

Karl Marx: 1818-83
Antonio Gramsci: 1891-1937
Hannah Arendt: 1906-75
Practice Questions
15. Indian Nationalism: Strategies and Perspectives

Birth of the Indian National Congress
Strategy: Constitutionalism
Strategy: Extremist-Militant, Revolutionary
Strategy: Non-Cooperation and Civil Disobedience Movements
Peasants’ and Workers’ Movements in India’s Freedom
Struggle
Indian National Movement: Different Perspectives
Practice Questions
16. The Making of the Indian Constitution

Constitutional Development
Legacy of the British Rule
Legacy of the National Movement
The Constituent Assembly
The Constitution: Its Making
Practice Questions
17. Salient Features of the Indian Constitution

Sources of the Constitution
Preamble of the Constitution
Major Features of the Constitution
Territory
Citizenship
Practice Questions
18. Indian Constitution: Amendment Procedure and Basic

Structure Doctrine
Amendment: Meaning and Definitions
Why Amendment?
Procedure of Amendment in India
Amendments made in the Constitution
Constitutional Amendments and the Shifting Judicial Stance
Constitutional Amendment and Social Change
Basic Structure Doctrine
Practice Questions
19. Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and

Fundamental Duties
Debates in the Constituent Assembly
Fundamental Rights
Directive Principles of State Policy
Fundamental Duties
Practice Questions
20. The Executive in India: The President, The Prime Minister,

and the Union Cabinet, The Governor, the Chief Minister and
the State Cabinet
The President of India
The Vice President of India
The Council of Ministers (The Cabinet) and the Prime Minister
The Government of States
Administration—National Level
Practice Questions
21. The Legislature in India: Parliament of India and

Legislatures in States
The Indian Parliament
State Legislatures in India
Practice Questions
22. The Judiciary in India: The Supreme Court, the High

Courts, etc.
The Supreme Court of India
The High Courts in India
Judicial Review
Judicial Activism
Subordinate Courts
Lok Adalat
Free Legal Aid and Public Interest Litigation
Judicial Reforms
Practice Questions
23. Grassroots Democracy: Urban and Rural Government

(Municipal Administration and Panchayati Raj)
Urban Local Administration in India
Urban Administration and the 74th Amendment: Municipal
Bodies
Panchayati Raj: Historical Overview
Rural Administration and the 73rd Amendment: Panchayati Raj
Institutions
District and Metropolitan Planning
Practice Questions
24. The Statutory Institutions/Commissions

The Election Commission
Comptroller and Auditor-General of India
Finance Commission
Union Public Service Commission
National Commission for Scheduled Castes
National Commission for Scheduled Tribes
National Commission for Women
National Human Rights Commission
National Commission for Minorities
National Commission for Backward Classes
Other Commissions
Practice Questions
25. Federalism in India

Nature of the Indian Federalism
Federal Features oflndia’s Union ofStates
Asymmetrical Federal Features in India
Unitary Tendencies in India’s Federation
Union-StatesRelationsinindia
Centre-State Relations’ Commission
Tendencies: Integrative, Regional, Inter-State Disputes
Practice Questions
26. Planning and Economic Development

Development: Meaning and Implications
Development: Gandhian and Nehruvian Perspectives
Indian Planning: Nature and Role
Role of Public Sector
Green Revolution
Agrarian Relations and Land Reforms
Liberalisation and Globalisation
Economic Reforms in India
Neoliberalism of Modi’s Government
Practice Questions
27. Party System and Pressure Groups in India

Evolution of Party System in India
Political Parties in India
Lok Sabha Elections: 1952 to 2014
Electoral process in India
Nature of the Indian Party System
Regional Political Parties in India
Political Parties: Ideological and Social Bases
Coalitional Politics in India
Pressure groups in India
Electoral Behaviour and Legislators’ Profile: Trends
Practice Questions
28. Caste, Religion, Ethnicity, Social Movements in India

Caste in Indian Politics
Religion in Indian Politics
Ethnicity and Politics
Social Movements
Practice Questions
29. Comparative Politics: Nature, Approaches, Perspectives

Comparative Politics
Comparative Politics: Approaches
Comparative politics: Perspectives
Comparative Method and Its Limitations
Practice Questions
30. The State in Comparative Perspectives

The State: The Twentieth-Century Notion
The Changing Nature of the State in the Capitalist Economies
The Changing Nature of the State in the Socialist Economies
Nature and Role of the State in Advanced Industrial Societies
Nature and Role of the State in the Developing Societies
Developed and Developing Nations: A Comparison
A Word About the Minimal State
Practice Questions
31. Representation, Participation, Party Systems, Pressure

Groups, Social Movements
Representation: Forms and Theories
Electoral System and Elections
Political Participation
Party Systems
Pressure Groups and Interest Groups
Social Movements
Practice Questions
32. Globalisation: Perspectives

Globalisation: Meaning, Definitions, Nature
Globalisation: Evolution
Globalisation: Theories, Forms and Essence
Globalisation: Effects and Critique
Globalisation: Responses from Developed and Developing
Societies
Practice Questions
33. Approaches to the Study of International Relations
Traditional Approaches
Modern Approaches
Practice Questions
34. Key Concepts in International Relations

National Interest
Security and Power
Balance of Power and Deterrence
Transnational Actors and Collective Security
World Capitalist Economy and Globalisation
Practice Questions
35. Changing International Political Order

Rise of the Superpower
Bipolarity
Post Cold War World: Theories
Cold War, Arms and Nuclear Threat
Practice Questions
36. Non-Alignment Movement, Soviet Disintegration,

Unipolarity
Non-Alignment Movement
Collapse of the Soviet Union
Unipolarity: American Hegemony
Practice Questions
37. International Economic System: WTO, CMEA, NIEO

Development of Economy: Mercantilism, Capitalism,
Globalisation
Socialist Economies and the Council for Mutual Economic
Assistance
Developing Nations: New International Economic Order
Summing Up
Practice Questions
38. The United Nations System

The United Nations: General
United Nations Specialised Agencies
Independent Bodies under United Nations
United Nations: Strength and Limitations
United Nations: Reforms
Practice Questions
39. The Regionalisation of World Politics: EU, ASEAN, APEC,

SAARC, NAFTA
European Union
The Association of South-East Asian Nations—ASEAN
Asia-pacific Economic Cooperation—APEC
South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
North American Free Trade Agreement—NAFTA
Practice Questions
40. Contemporary Global Concerns (Democracy, Human

Rights, Environment, Gender Justice, Terrorism, Nuclear
Proliferation)
Democracy
Human Rights
Environment
Gender Justice
Terrorism
Nuclear Proliferation
Practice Questions
41. India’s Foreign Policy and Its Role in NAM

What is a Foreign Policy?
India’s Foreign Policy and Its Determinants
Phases of India’s Foreign Policy
India’s Prime Ministers and Their Foreign Policy Visions
Foreign Policy: Old and New
India and the Non-Alignment Movement
Practice Questions
42. India and South Asia

Introduction
South Asia: India and Its Neighbours
Regional Cooperation: SAARC
Impediments of Regional Cooperation
India’s “Look East” Policy
India-ASEAN Relations
Practice Questions
43. India’s Relations with Neighbouring States (Pakistan,

Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka)
India-Pakistan Relations
India-Nepal Relations
India-Bangladesh Relations
India-Sri Lanka Relations
India Afghanistan Relations
Practice Questions
44, India and the Global South (Africa and Latin America)
Africa: Pre-Colonial, Colonial and Post-Colonial
Latin America: Colonial and Post-Colonial Era
India-Africa Relations
India-Latin America Relations
India, WTO and NIEO
Practice Questions
45. India and the Global Centres of Powers (USA, EU, Japan,
China, Russia, France, etc.)
Relations between India and the United States
India and European Union (EU) Relations
India-Japan Trade Relations
India-China Relations
Sino-Indian War
Indo-Russia Relations
India-France Relations
Relations between India and other Countries
Practice Questions
46. India and the United Nations System

India’s Role is the United Nations System
The UN Peace-keeping Operations
India and UNPeace-keeping
India’s Demand for UN Security Council’s Permanent Seat
Practice Questions
47. India and the Nuclear Question

India: National Interest and the Nuclear Question 47.17
The Evolution of India’s Nuclear Policy 47.3
India’s Nuclear Policy
Nuclear Doctrine 47.7
Practice Questions
48. Recent Developments in Indian Foreign Policy
India’s Position in the Near North-West: Afghanistan
India’s Position on the Crisis in Iraq
India and the West Asia and Central Asia
India-USNuclearDeal
India and the Gulf War (1990-91)
India and Israel
South China Sea Issue
Present situation between ASEAN and China
India’s stand on South China Sea
India and the Vision of a New World Order
Practice Questions
Political Theory:
Meaning And Significance
I. INTRODUCTION
uman beings are different from all other living
creatures. The other living creatures depend, for
most part of their life and living, on conditions not
made by them, and hence, do but little in changing them
through their efforts. Human beings too, though, find
themselves in a situation not made by them but do or can at
least do a lot in changing the atmosphere they live in. This
was what Marx meant when he said that man is both the
product of history as well as the maker of history. Indeed,
there were times when human beings, like all other creatures,
lived at the mercy of nature and developed in accordance
with the law of natural evolution and as such, were powerless
to make changes. But as they developed, they became
conscious of their environment and set themselves to explain
and plan modifications and improvements. Human beings,
due to their more developed mental faculties, were able to do
much more than the other living creatures who remained, and
still remain, at the initial stage of their intellectual
development.
The highly developed mental faculties of human beings
helped them to investigate, understand, comprehend, explain,
define, and refine both the physical and social environment.
As human beings began to know nature, learn its laws, bring
its power under control as far as possible, and utilise its
resources to their own benefits, they began to question their
beliefs, customs, institutions; to examine their nature and their
authority, and finally to plan deliberate changes and progress.
All early social institutions, we must remember, brought forth
unintentionally and for a long time kept developing
unconsciously. It was only gradually that human beings
realised their existence and the possibility of directing or
improving it through their intentional efforts.
The state, among all the social institutions, has been the
most important, the most universal, and the most powerful. It
must have emerged and its authority must have been
asserted at the time when human life would have come to
stay. In the process of human development and at its very
early stage, people must have begun investigating about the
institutions of the state, must have attempted to discover its
origin, must have thought to question and uphold its authority;
people must have disputed over the proper sphere of its
functions, dwelt over issues relating to the relationship
between the governors and the governed along with the
powers of the former and the rights and liberties of the latter.
It would have been about this time, indeed at very initial
stages, that assumptions and beginnings about politics must
have arisen. It would have been from this time onward that
political activities, political phenomenan, and political issues
would have come under discussion, debate, examination, and
scrutiny. Indeed, politics existed much before its study as an
academic field.
ll. POLITICAL THOUGHT, POLITICAL

PHILOSOPHY, POLITICAL THEORY, POLITICAL
SCIENCE
This is not an attempt to investigate the details of what came
first and when: politics, political thought, political philosophy,
political theory, political science, or with whatever name one
likes to address it, but a clear distinction, and if possible
relationship be highlighted to emphasise that something
relating to politics has always been on the rise. We can
assume, for reasons more of conviction than of belief, that it
is political theory which is continuously rising, political thought
that is related to politics, or political activity and/or what is
rising is that which is relevant to politics as George Sabine (A
History of Political Theory) very aptly says political thought,
we may say, refers to the systematic reflection of the
practices and institutions of political life. It is about political
life, about politics. It is not about society, and hence is not
social thought, but is about society in relation to politics as is
social life in relation to political life. It is not about economy,
and hence is not economic thought, but is about the impact of
economics on politics or vice versa. It is not about ethics,
although it does contemplate about ideal political institutions
and about political life.
Political thought is not orderly reflection of the political
institutions and political practices; about how people live
under a political authority, obey it, challenge it if it does not
conform to what they think is proper dispassionately; about
how it is influenced by the external world and how it is
influenced by the world around; about how does it work as a
system and it is related to subsystems under it and other
systems of which it is only a part.
Political thought signifies, as traditionally understood, at
best, political philosophy. When we speak, for example, of the
history of political thought, we generally focus on the classic
texts of political philosophy in Plato’s Republic, Hobbes’s
Leviathan, or say Marx’s Economic and_ Philosophic
Manuscripts. These classics deal with the broad-ranging
explorations of politics which relate politics to the general
conditions of life and experience. Plato elaborated, we must
remember, the nature of relationship between knowledge,
practical life, and philosophic understanding; Hobbes related
the necessity of the State to man’s demand for an assuredly
peaceful life; Marx highlighted the importance of materialism
in our social life as well as in nature. Political philosophy
becomes the political thought of a particular philosopher of a
particular time. But it is not political thought only, or merely.
So regarded, it is more than political thought in the sense that
it also reflects a political concept which exists over a long
period of time and circumstances. The concept of “justice”, for
example, from Plato to Rawls, is a part of political philosophy,
covering, thus, the theorisation of the concept of “justice” as
travelled through the writings of numerous philosophers.
Political thought and political theory are related to each
other in so far as thought has a measure of theory and theory
has some amount of thought. The two are really inseparable:
thought and theory go together, the two supplement each
other. And yet there is much that is un-common between the
two. As we seek to change a phenomenon into abstraction,
we attempt to build a theory. This leads us to assume that
political theory admits a measure of theoretical assumption
but political theory does not end up here. In fact, starting from
this position political theory covers a wide range of practical
political activities, and in the process, interprets, examines,
and relates them with one another. This is to say that political
theory is as much related to theory as to the practice of
politics. Political theory is a pure theory as well as a practice,
an inspiration as well as a goal. So widely understood,
political thought like political philosophy is one part, though a
significant part, of political theory. Political thought is tied to a
particular time frame; political theory is above time, above all
times. Political thought, by nature, is both temporary and
permanent; political theory, by nature, is one that is future-
oriented as well as developmental, and to that extent, has a
measure of ideology. Political thought is related to history as
well as politics; political thought provides political theory with
the necessary data in which it contemplates and acts. Political
thought is the complete philosophy of a philosopher. Hobbes’
political thought, for example, is the complete philosophy of
Thomas Hobbes. Political theory is concerned with, so far as
Hobbes is concerned, a larger question of the Hobbesian
thought—“why do the people need a State or why do they
obey the law?”
Political Science (the Americans regard it very
comprehensive of which political theory is a part, its sub-field)
and political theory share a lot. Both deal with matters related
to politics; both are scientific in their discussion or
understanding on what is related to politics; both take the help
of history in so far as the latter helps in understanding politics.
But there is much which sets them apart. Political Science is
more a science than theory; political theory is more a theory
than science. Political Science adopts scientific methods for
its study; it is empirical, positivistic, observational, and clinical;
political theory is all that Political Science is, and it is
something more as well: it is normative, philosophical, and
idealistic. Political Science abhors what is ideological and
value-laden; political theory is both ideological and value-
laden. Accordingly, Political Science is direction-free, if not
direction-less, while political theory is with a direction, with a
definite aim. It proceeds on theory and it also creates theory.
Political theory is not only a theory of/about politics, it is
also the science of politics, the philosophy of politics at that.
As a theory, Bluhm explains, “political theory stands for an
abstract model of the political order a guide to the systematic
collection and analysis of political data” (Theories of Political
System). Andrew Hacker, enlarging the point of view, says
that political theory as a “theory, in ideal terms, is
dispassionate and disinterested. As science, it will describe
political reality without trying to pass judgement on what is
being depicted, either implicitly or explicitly. As philosophy, it
will describe rules of conduct which will secure good life for all
in the society... ” (Political Theory: Philosophy, Ideology,
Science).
Political theory is not fantasy, though it may contain an
element of political vision. It is not politicking, though it does
take into account political realities for its study and analysis. It
is not all scientism, though it seeks to reach the roots of all
political activity analytically and systematically. It is not
ideology, though it attempts to justify a political system and
condemns another. It is theoretical, scientific, philosophical,
and, at the same time, dynamic with a clear objective of
attaining a better social order. It, thus, has, in varying
degrees, elements of “theory”, “science”, “philosophy”, and
“ideology”.
Political theory is all about politics. It is an overview of what
the political order is about. It is a symbolic representation of
what is “political”. In its nature, it is a formal, logical, and
systematic analysis of processes and consequences of
political activity. It is, in its method, analytical, exposi-tory, and
explanatory. It is, in its objective, an attempt to give order,
coherence, and meaning to what may be referred to as
“political”.
lll. POLITICAL THEORY: MEANING, DEFINITIONS

The meaning of political theory necessitates the meaning of
theory; to know what political theory really is to know, first,
what is theory? Originating from the Greek word theoria,
theory means or at least, may mean a well-focussed mental
look taken at something in a state of contemplation with the
intention of grasping or understanding it. Arnold Brecht
(“What is Theory”) refers to both the broader and the
narrower meaning of the word “Theory”. In the broader sense,
he says, theory means, “A thinker’s entire teachings on a
subject’, including the description of facts, his explanation, his
conception of history, his value-judgements, and the
proposals of goals, policies, and principles. In the narrower
sense, he says, theory means “explanatory” thought only or at
least primarily. In his book, Political Theory, Brecht uses
theory in the narrow sense, saying, “... explaining is the
function of theory.” Thus, for him, theory means a proposition
or a set of propositions designed to explain something with
reference to data or inter-relations not directly observed or not
otherwise manifest. Theory has to be scientific; without the
quantum of science, it is unthinkable. But theory, without
philosophy, is as meaningless as it is without science. Theory
is a combination of elements characteristic of both science
and philosophy. Theory is not practice because doing too
needs thinking. Theory involves a theoretical frame which
practice really lacks. Theory is not merely “description”
because “describing” is only a part of “thinking”; its other
parts, for example, include “discovering”, “determining”,
“augmenting”, “explaining” and “framing” a phenomenon.
Theory is not hypothesis, for hypothesis denotes a tentative
assumption of facts and, therefore, lacks what theory really
has — “definiteness”. Thought is not philosophy because
while theory is about “something”, philosophy is about
“everything”. Theory is not thought because it is a thought
about thought, and not an entire thought itself. There is,
indeed, much that is common between thought and reason,
for both have a claim on being scientific, yet theory looks
beyond reason, beyond science.
Theory, we may sum up with Karl Deutsch (The Nerves of
Government, 1963), attempts to explain, order, and relate
disjointed data, identifies what is relevant and therefore,
points out what is missing in any phenomenon; predicts on
the basis of observable facts. Theory is a guide to practice,
adds much to what is merely description, clarifies hypothesis,
and as a part of theory, explains an issue which meets the
requirements of both reason and vision.
Theory implies both science as well as philosophy. It is,
against this background, that one may say that a theorist is
both a scientist and a philosopher; a theorist is more than a
scientist; he is more than a philosopher. To understand theory
when applied to politics would mean understanding politics as
a theory, as a science and also as a philosophy. Bluhm
would, thus, explain political theory as “an explanation of what
politics is all about, a general understanding of the political
world, a frame of reference. Without one we should be unable
to recognise an event as political, decide anything about why
it happened, judge whether it was good or bad, or decide
what was likely to happen next. A theory helps us identify
what is happening in a particular case of politics... It helps us
to explain why an event occurred and to predict future events
. Theory also is a tool for evaluating what is happening and
for guiding our political choices.”
The job of the political theorist is really important. Brecht
(Political theory) makes a note of it saying “It is the function of
the political theorist to see, sooner than others, and to
analyse, more profoundly than others, the immediate and the
potential problems of the political life of society; to supply the
practical politicians, well in advance, with alternative courses
of action, the foreseeable consequences of which have been
fully thought through; and to supply him not only with brilliant
ideas, but with a solid block of knowledge on which to build.”
When political theory performs its function well, he continues,
“it is one of the most important weapons in our struggle for
the advance of humanity”.
Some of the definitions of Political Theory may be given as
under:
1. Broadly, it means “as anything about politics or relevant
to politics” and narrowly, “as the disciplined investigation
of political problems.” (Sabine)
2. “Political theory is an explanation of what politics is all
about, a general understanding of the political world, a
frame of reference. It is one without which we should be
unable to recognise an event as political, decide anything
about why it happened, judge whether it was good or bad
or decide what is likely to happen next.” (Bluhm)
3. Political theory is “a combination of disinterested search
for the principles of good state and good society on the
one hand, and a disinterested search for knowledge of
political and social reality on the other.” (Andrew Hacker)
4. Political theory is “a network of concepts and
generalisations about political life involving ideas,
assumptions and statements about the nature, purpose
and key features of government, state, and society and
about the political capabilities of human-beings.” (David
Held).
5. “A body of thought that seeks to evaluate, explain, and
predict political phenomena. As a sub-field of political
science, it is concerned with political ideas, values, and
concepts, and the explanation of prediction of political
behaviour. In this broad sense, it has two main branches:
one is political philosophy or normative theory, with its
values, analytic, historical, and speculative concerns.
The other is empirical theory, with its efforts to explain,
predict, guide, research, and organise knowledge
through the formulation of abstract models and
scientifically testable propositions.” (Political Science
Dictionary).
The above definitions indicate the following:
1. The area in which political theory works extends to the
realms of politics only — political life of a citizen, his
political behaviour, his political ideas, the thought he
establishes and the tasks the government performs.
2. The methods, which political theory applies, include
description, explanation, and investigation of any political
phenomenon.
3. Though political theory is all about what is “political”, yet
it attempts to understand “political” in relation to “social”,
“economic”, “psychological”, “ecological”, “historical”,
“moral” and the like.
4. The object of political theory is to ultimately build a good
state in a good society and in the process create
processes, procedures, institutions and structures, that
are historically tested and rationally attuned.
5. As a body of thought, political theory seeks to explain,
evaluate, and predict political phenomena, and in the
process build not only scientifically testable models but
suggest value as rules of human conduct.
6. Political theory is both prescriptive as well as
explanatory. Political theory is, thus, an overview of what
the political order is all about. It is a symbolic
representation of what is “political”. It is a formal, logical,
and systematic analysis of the processes and
consequences of political activity. It is analytical,
expository, and explanatory.
If politics means what relates to “political”, then political
theory may rightly claim to be a disciplined investigation of
what constitutes “political”. If political theory deals with what
relates to the domain of “political” then its subject-matter is
bound to vary from time to time. From the early Greeks to
about the end of the eighteenth century, political theory
concerned itself mostly with what politics “ought to be’.
Almost during the whole of nineteenth century and the first
half of the twentieth century, political theory largely dealt with
the nature and structure of government as a decision-making
body. Then came a period when some of the American
Political Scientists, under the influence of scienticism,
declared the death of political theory as against those, mostly
the British traditionalists, who kept advocating the value and
usefulness of political theory as guide to political action. With
the culmination of debate about the decline and resurgence of
political theory, the two sides came to realise the process and
the purpose of political activity. As such, the concern of
political theory today has been both the nature and proper
ends of government.
Political theory, as a disciplined investigation of political
problems, implies the discussion of those problems which are
associated with the institution of government. Indeed, political
theory is closely related to the study of what and why of a
government, but it is, on the other hand, associated
inescapably with the relationship between the government
and the outer world. Political system is a part of social system
and social system exists within a particular environment. The
environmental bearings are to be understood to the extent
they influence the social system. The social system,
encompassing in itself the whole variety of social sciences,
moulds and gets moulded by the political system. Political
theory, while examining any political phenomenon, has to
take account of what is non-political —be it economic, moral,
geopolitical, cultural, ecological, or what not. We need to
place political theory within the realm of political system;
political system within the realm of social system; social
system within the environment it breeds. If political theory,
David Held says, is concerned with “what is really going on” in
the political world and, thereby, “with the nature and structure
of political practices”, then a theory of politics today must take
account of the place of the polity within geopolitical and
market processes, that is, within the system of nation-states,
international law, and world political economy.
Political theory does not, and in fact, should not exist in
isolation. It exists within a context. To understand political
theory is to understand the context.
Political theory includes understanding of what is really
“political”, to link political within what is non-political, and to
integrate and coordinate the results of the numerous social
sciences for knowing its own nature. Its scope is not limited to
what it constitutes but to what exists in the periphery and
beyond. Political theory is what goes on in the political world.
Accordingly, the basic components must be determined.
Arnold Brecht refers to some units of political theory,
especially the following:
1. Group and not the individual is the real basic concept in
political theory.
. As political theory deals with group, it is natural that there
should be clash of interests not only among the
individuals but also among the numerous groups. As a
result, equilibrium or reconciliation of opposing interests
has to serve the other components of political theory.
. The group life, in the realm of politics, lies at the heart of
political theory. Accordingly, the concepts with which it
concerns itself are, or should be, power, influence,
control, legitimacy, justice, and the like.
. Another unit of political theory is action. Political theory is
not all philosophy, it is philoso-phy associated with
action. Any political theory not connected with action or
policy can hardly be a political theory.
5. To understand political theory is to know its agents and
its actors. In politics, they are called the elite. The elite,
therefore, constitutes another component of political
theory.
6. Choice and decision-making are also the units of political
theory because they help know the seat where the power
rests.
Suggesting that the task of defining what is political as a
continual one, Sheldon Wolin includes the following in the
contents of political theory:
(a) A form of activity centering around the quest for
competitive advantage between groups, individuals,
or societies.
(b) A form of activity conditioned by the fact that it
occurs within a situation of change and relative
scarcity.
(c) A form of activity in which the pursuits of advantage
produces consequences of such magnitude that
they affect, in a significant way, the whole society
or a substantial portion of it.
IV. POLITICAL THEORY: NATURE

To know clearly as to what political theory really is, is to know
its nature. Political theory is said to be political thought and
that is why there are some who describe political theory as
denoting the works of numerous thinkers. But it is not what
political thought is. There are others who equate political
theory with political philosophy. It is true that political theory
constitutes a part of political philosophy, but it is only a part; a
part can never be a whole, and as a part, it remains only a
part, a part of the whole. There are still others who are
incorporating science in politics and who prefer to call it
Political Science. But those who insist on a science of politics
refuse to admit if there ever had been a history of politics or a
culture of politics. Brecht, therefore, would say: “Political
philosophy, political theory, and political science are no longer
interchangeable terms.... With the emphasis placed on
science and a distinction from political philosophy, political
science now refers to efforts limited by the use of scientific
methods, in contrast to political philosophy, which is free to
transcend these limits. Likewise political ‘theory’ when
opposed to political ‘philosophy’ now is usually meant to refer
scientific theory only in distinction from political human-
beings. Any speculative thesis that is proposed by political
philosophy can be part of (scientific) political theory only as a
‘working hypothesis’, an auxiliary in the scientific kit, and
not.... or not yet.... as a piece of scientific knowledge.”
Political theory is not all history but it is history in the limited
sense; it is not all philosophy but it is philosophy in some
degree; it is not all science but it is science in so far as it
responds to reason. A political theorist has to be a part
historian, a part philosopher, and a part scientist.
(a) Political Theory as History
That political theory is history has been emphatically
advocated by scholars like George Sabine, but all history is
not political theory just as all political theory is not history.
Political theory without history is a structure without a base. In
studying and analysing politics, what we learn to understand
is a political tradition, and a concrete way of behaviour. It is,
therefore, proper that the study of politics should essentially
be a historical study. History, we should know, is more than
the tale of the dead and the buried; it is a storehouse of
experience and wisdom; successes and failures; of what has
been achieved and what has been lost. It is the sum-total and
simultaneously the formation-head of a new development,
something, as Professor L.S. Rathore says, “Eternally
significant and_ instructive, inseparably linked with
contemporaneity in the perpetual progress of mankind.”
“Ignore History,” he warns, “and the delight of political theory
is never to be retrieved.”
Political theory as history defines what has lost its value.
No one cries now that the state has been a divine creation or
the result of a contract in the state of nature. As history,
political theory conserves what has significance and helps
posterity to cherish it for a long time to come. Concepts such
as justice, liberty, equality, obligation, as evolved through the
annals of time, are being held high by political theory today
and shall continue to be so in future. Indeed, history seldom
repeats itself but it can hardly be ignored. In the attempt to
divorce itself from history, political theory loses its own
significance for there can be no fruits without roots as Seeley
had said long ago. It is through history that political theory
explains what is what. One can never understand a text
without its context. Plato’s communism was significantly
different from what is claimed to be Marx’s communism, and
one can understand communism of each by understanding
the history of their respective times. It is one’s age that
prompts and propels one’s political theory: history shapes and
reshapes political theory. How can then political theory ignore
its one aspect—the historical aspect? Sabine writes that great
political theory excels in both—‘“an analysis of a present
situation and in suggestiveness for other situations”. As such,
“a good political theory,” Professor S.P. Varma (Modern
Political Theory, 1987), writes, “even though it is the outcome
of a peculiar set of historical circumstances, has a
significance for all times to come. It is exactly this universal
character of political theory which makes it respectable”. (See
George H. Sabine, “What is Political Theory?” Journal of
Politics, Vol. 1, No.1, February 1939).
Political theory is history in the sense that it seeks to
understand the time, the place, and the circumstances in
which it evolves. If it ignores its historical context, it loses its
strength, its focus, and its message. Any political theory has
to have facts as the basis (the factual-historical factor as
Sabine would say), circumstances in which it develops (the
casual factor as Sabine describes it), and the message, i.e.,
political theory (the valuational factor, as Sabine would insist).
Political theory is not merely or only history (the statement of
facts on which it works and has worked in the past, i.e.,
history), it is a science in so far as it is not understood in
isolation and also a philosophy in so far as it motivates.
(b) Political Theory as Philosophy
That political theory is a philosophy has been very well
enunciated by scholars like Leo Strauss (“What is Political
Philosophy?” Journal of Politics, XIX, August, 1967) but all
philosophy is not political theory as all political theory is not
philosophy. Philosophy as an abstract study encompassing
the whole universe in general and morals, norms, and values
in particular, is the sum-total of general laws governing the
whole world. It has served political theory well through the
ages as its valuational factor as Sabine has said. Philosophy,
as Kant says, has answered three questions:
e “what can | know?”,

e “what must I do?”, and
e “what can | hope for?”,
and this is what makes philosophy a lodestar of life. With

philosophy, no political theory can ever hope to exist; without
an eye on future, no present can ever afford to stay as no
present stands without its past.
Political theory is a philosophy for it not only seeks to know
the nature of things but also attempts to explain as to why
things really exist. One understands an action or a thought
only by evaluating it. Evaluation is a part of understanding.
Philosophy as distinct from theory is a “quest for wisdom” or
as Strauss holds the view, “quest for universal knowledge, for
knowledge of the whole”. Political theory as philosophy is “the
attempt truly to know both the nature of political things and
the right, or the good, political order” (Strauss). Politics is not
what one assumes or opines. In fact, a political theorist is
expected to possess more than an assumption or an opinion;
he has to have knowledge. Philosophy emerges when
opinion/assumption attains the heights of knowledge, and that
is what exactly is the task of political theory. Political theory
as philosophy is an “attempt to replace opinion/assumption
about the nature of political things by knowledge of the nature
of political things” (Strauss).
Values, Strauss believes, are an indispensable part of
political theory as they are of philosophy. Every political
philosopher has to be a teacher in his own right: he must
profess; he must teach; he must persuade. Professor Varma,
therefore, writes that the object of persuasion is always there
before the political theorist. “What some of the modern writers
have described as ‘folk-lore of political philosophy’, or more
specifically ‘ideology’, is vital for the understanding of political
theory.” Political theory not only explains, but also
influencess, favourably or adversely. Evaluational aspects of
a political activity are as important as its factual aspects. It is,
in this sense, that values and facts form an integral part of
any political theory.
(c) Political Theory as Science
That political theory is a science has been forcefully
emphasised by scholars from Arthur Bentley (The Process of
Government, 1908) to George Catlin (The Science and
Method of Politics, 1927); David Easton (The Political
System, 1953) to Robert Dahl (Modern Political Analysis,
1963); but all science is not political theory just as all political
theory is not science. Political theory is not science in the
sense Chemistry or Physics or Mathematics is a science. It is
not as exact a science as these natural or physical sciences
are because there are no universally recognised principles,
no clear cause-effect relationships, no laboratories and no
predictions are made in political theory the way these are
found in natural and exact sciences.
It is a science in so far as it admits concepts and norms
which are both observable and testable, and in so far as it
responds to the requirements of reason and rationalism. The
American social science researchers in general and the
behaviouralists in particular, sought to create a science of
politics and in the process, indulged in what may be called
reductionism. Political theory is a science in so far as it can,
and in fact, is applied to a social gathering and the definite
rules of the exact sciences are applicable within the
limitations as in any social science. Political theory as a
science is only a social science. It is a science, a prime
science as conclusions are drawn after study, observation,
experiments,—features which go along with any normal
definition of science. There is no need to go a long way to
make a science of politics, and to find techniques, and tools
to make politics an exact politics, no matter whether there
remains, in the process, any political theory or not. The role of
science in political theory should be limited to the extent that it
helps understand a political phenomenon, and to that extent,
science should have an entry in the realms of political theory.
Political theory admits objectivity in association with
subjectivity, facts together with values, research with theory.
Political theory as science generates neutral, dispassionate,
and objective knowledge (See, Colin Hay, Political Analysis,
2002).
There are limits of social sciences. In contrast, the rules of
the game (that of the exact sciences) do not change with
time. The laws of physics, for instance, can be assumed to
pertain to all situations at all times - past, present, and future.
But this is not true of the social sciences. “The nature of the
‘economic’ and the ‘political’ is,” Colin Hay says, “different
after Keynes and Marx in a way that the ‘physical’ and the
‘natural’ is not after Newton and Einstein.” We must
remember that
i. “Social structures, unlike natural structures, do not exist

independently of the activities that govern.”
ii. “Social structures, unlike the natural structures, do not
exist independently of the agent’s conceptions of what
they are doing in their activity.”
iii. “Social structures, unlike natural structures, may be only
relatively enduring.” (See R. Bhasker, The Limits of
Naturalism, 1979)
This is where the social sciences are different from the

natural sciences. The limits of political theory are worked out
within the ethics of political analysis.
V. EVOLUTION AND GROWTH OF THE DISCIPLINE

While the study of politics can be traced back to ancient
times, its rise as a discipline has a late arrival in the 1870s.
The first institution dedicated to the study of politics, the Free
School of Politics Science, was founded in Paris in 1871,
though Herbert Baxter Adams is accredited with coining the
phrase “Political Science” while founding the John Hopkins
Historical and Political Science Association in 1877. The first
journal, the Political Science Quarterly, was inaugurated by
the School of Political Science (Columbia) in 1885 for
scholarly writings on the subject. The American Political
Science Association came into being in 1903, and its journal,
American Political Science Review in 1906. The International
Political Science Association was founded, under the
auspices of UNESCO in 1949. The /ndian Journal of Political
Science appeared in 1939, reflecting the aims and tradition of
its parent body, the Indian Political Science Association.
The study of politics in the Western tradition is first found in
ancient Greece. However, the discipline has a clear set of
antecedents such as in moral philosophy, political philosophy,
political economy, history, and other fields concerned with
normative determinations of what ought to be and with
deducing the characteristics and functions of the ideal state.
In each historic period and in almost every geographic area,
we can find someone studying politics and increasing political
understanding.
In ancient India, the antecedents of politics can be traced
back to the Rig Veda, Samhitas, Brahmanas, and Buddhist
Pali Canons. Chanakya (c.350-275 BC) was a teacher of
political science at Takshila University, and later the Prime
Minister of Mauryan emperor Chandragupta Maurya.
Chanakya is regarded as one of the earliest political thinkers,
and is also known as the Indian Machiavelli. He wrote
Arthashastra, which was one of the earliest treatises on
political thought, economics, and social order, and can be
considered a precursor to Machiavelli's The Prince.
The antecedents of Western politics can also be traced to
their roots even earlier than Plato and Aristotle, particularly in
the works of Homer, Hesoid, Thucydides, Xenophon, and
Euripides. Later, Plato analysed political systems, abstracted
their analysis from more literary and history-oriented studies,
and applied an approach we would understand as closer to
philosophy. Similarly, Aristotle built upon Plato’s analysis to
include historical empirical evidence in his analysis.
During the times of ancient Rome, famous historians such
as Polybius, Livy, and Plutarch documented the rise of the
Roman Republic and the organisation and histories of other
nations while statesmen like Julius Caesar and Cicero
provided us with examples of the politics of the republic and
Rome’s empire and wars. The study of politics during this age
was oriented towards understanding history, methods of
governing, and describing the operation of governments.
With the fall of the Roman Empire, there arose a more
diffused arena for political studies. The rise of monotheism
and Christianity brought to light a new space for politics and
political action. During the Middle Ages, the study of politics
was widespread in the churches and courts and works such
as those of Augustine of Hippo (The City of God) and Thomas
Aquinas (Suma Theologica) synthesised current philosophies
and political traditions with those of Christianity, redefining the
borders between what was religious and what was political.
In the Middle East and later other Islamic areas, works
such as the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam and Epic of Kings by
Firdawsi provided evidence of political analysis while the
Islamic Aristotelians such as Avicenna and later Maimonides
and Averroes continued Aristotle’s tradition of analysis and
empiricism by writing commentaries on Aristotle’s works.
During the Italian Renaissance, Niccolo Machiavelli
established the emphasis of modern political science on
direct empirical observation of political institutions. Later, the
expansion of the scientific paradigm during the Enlightenment
pushed the study of politics beyond normative determinants.
With the beginning of the 16t9 - 17th centuries,
traditionalism with its speculative and normative analysis of
political system and political concepts began losing ground,
though historical and comparative methods of understanding
politics were still in vogue. In the meantime, the empirical-
scientific approaches started gaining importance. The focus
on politics began to shift from the description of political
institutions/concepts to their structures in the latter part of the
eighteenth century when the constitutions and _ the
governmental organs were discussed together with their legal
and constitutional obligations—the approach now being
descriptive—legal, though it was relatively more practical. The
nineteenth century study of politics, besides debating on
questions such as merits and demerits of varying forms of
government, came to lay emphasis on the study of facts and
on the functioning of the political systems, i.e., from the study
of institutions to their working (James Bryce, American
Commonwealth, 1888 and Modern Democracies, 1924).
With Arthur Bentley (The Process of Government), Graham
Wallas (Human Nature in Politics), and later Charles Merrim
(New Aspects of Politics) and his Chicago School, the
departure from the traditional political science to the modern
one was complete when:
i. the process aspect came to be regarded as important,

ii. human behaviour came to be seen as the basic unit of
study,
iii. facts and data, and the interdisciplinary thinking, came
to be described as realistic for analysing political
phenomena.
The approach that came to be recognised for political

analyses was no more historical, legal-formal, or evaluative.
The scientific, empirical, positivistic approaches with their
varying degrees came to be pursued by the behaviouralists
and post-behaviouralists during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.
The dialectical-materialistic method of the study of politics
was common in the Marxian writings.
From 1980s, the discipline entered its contemporary period
when phenomena such as substantive democracy, social
justice, human rights, feminism, environmentalism,
development, terrorism, global warming, and globalisation
caught the attention of political theorists. Contemporary
Political Science has a full agenda of challenges before it,
seeking to meet it with approaches, both traditional and
modern, i.e., normative-empirical-strategic and with tools
such as consensual and _ conversational. Additionally,
contemporary political theory needs to resolve the dilemma
between normative, philosophical analysis, between the
philosophical and behaviour analysis, as also the re-
emergence of ideological divisions as coming through John
Rawls (1971) and Robert Nozick (1974) and the rise of
feminism and emergence of “New Left and New Right” and
“communitarianism’”.
VI. POLITICAL THEORY: CLASSICAL, MODERN,

CONTEMPORARY
(a) Classical Political Theory
Political theory, in a traditional form, emerged in ancient
Greek culture, largely in the writings of Socrates, Plato, and
Aristotle and continued until the beginning of the late 18th and
early 19th centuries. The classical paradigm, according to
Sheldon Wolin (Politics and Vision), has the following
features:
i. The classical political therory is related to the practice of

systematic enquiry so as to acquire reliable knowledge
about matters relating to the people, especially those
concerning their political life.
. Asa philosophical pursuit, the classical political theory
sought to establish a rational basis for belief, and as a
political pursuit, a rational basis for action.
The classical political theory attempted to identify the
political with common involvements, which men shared
as partners. The Greek polis, the Roman respublica, the
mediaeval times usage of commonweal, all denoted a
sharing of what is common.
The basic unit of analysis relating to the classical
political theory has always been the political whole —
The state, the idea of a system, an order, and the
resultant conception of balance, equilibrium, stability,
and harmony. That was why that the classical political
theorists always tried to analyse the sources of conflicts,
anarchy, instability, and revolution, and on them,
attempted to enunciate the principles of justice and
morality, of duties and obligations.
The classical political theory thrived on the significance
of comparative studies for supplying a more
comprehensive explanation and a wide range of
alternatives. That was the reason why the classical
political theory developed a classification of political
forms (e.g. monarchy, aristocracy, democracy, and their
variants) and a set of concepts such as law, citizenship,
and justice.
Vi. The classical political theory had largely been ethical in
nature. Its response was rooted in a moral outlook—
Plato advocated the ideal state; Aristotle, a state that
can achieve the best possible; St. Augustine, the city of
God.
vii. The classical political philosophers by projecting the
best form of polity as the ideal, revealed the boldness
and radicalism of classical theorising, though some
dismissed such ideas as utopian and visionary.
(b) Modern Political Theory

Modern political theory encompasses in itself a host of
diverse trends which include the _ institu-tional-structural,
scientific, positivistic, empirical, behavioural, post-behavioural
and even the Marxist. Thus, when one talks of modern
political theory, one talks of all these trends — trends which
dominated the greater part of the 20* century. It is since the
1960s-70s that contemporary political theory starts.
The classical political theory, by and large, was
philosophical, normative, idealistic and to some _ extent,
historical. Ideologically, modern political theory can be
classified into two divisions — the /iberal including the
individualists, the elitists and the pluralists on the one hand,
and the Marxists including the dialectical-materialists on the
other. The liberal tradition, beginning from 15th-16th centuries,
arose as a reaction against the classical political theory and
after traveling through its institutional-structural voyage
reached scientific-positivist-empiricist goals so to make way
for the behavioural and the post-behavioural political theory.
The Marxist political theory offered a diametrically opposite
view to the one advocated in whole of the West.
Having found the classical political theory sufficiently
inadequate to answer the questions posed by the changing
times of the 18th-19th centuries in the West, the modern
political theory, as it came to be expressed in the institutional-
positivist, empiricist-behavioural, and post-behavioural trends,
dubbed the whole classical tradition as dull. Their advocates,
from Merriam and Key and down to Dahl, Lasswell, Easton,
deplored the historical-evaluative tradition of the classical
political theory. Instead, they laid emphasis on the scientific-
empirical-behavioral study as the most plausible one to
understand the intricacies of politics. They sought to lay
stress on present rather on past; living rather on dull;
immediate rather on remote; objective rather on subjective;
analytic rather on theoretical. They attempted to build a
science of __ politics-objective, Clinical, value-free,
observational, measurable, and operational.
Historically stated, modern political theory as it arose in the
West, emerged from the shadow of positivism-empiricism.
Until then, political theory, mostly classical, was confined to a
marginal role, being conceived at best, as a body of classic
texts of mostly historical interest, and usually found in
philosophy, history, and logic. Positivism-empiricism denied
the early political theory the status of a legitimate form of
knowledge and enquiry. According the positivist and
empiricist outlooks, all knowledge is found in sensory
observation; concepts and generalisations represent only the
particulars from which they have been abstracted; values do
not play any role in the formation of knowledge. As the
meaning of concepts and theories, the positivists-empiricists
believe, is directly tied to empirical observations, therefore,
value judgements should not be accorded the status of
knowledge. Accordingly, the normative statements of political
theory are characterised as mere declarations. Though,
positivism and empiricism did not last long, their legacy
thrived for a long time, particularly in North America. This
legacy was scienticism. The influence of scienticism on the
emerging behaviouralism and post-behaviouralism was both
apparent and real. Behaviouralism, on its own, had certain
features: it encouraged the systematic introduction of
quantitative methods of analysis as the supreme methods of
inquiry; it sought to displace the theoretical framework of
normative political theorists by the development of empirical
theory; and it decisively rejected the history of political theory
as the primary source of interpretation. Post-behaviouralism
was an extension of behaviouralism which added the credos
of action, relevance and values to behaviouralism. Thus, the
challenge to behaviouralism came from within, from post-
behaviouralism.
Modern political theory of the western shade, as it
developed over time, had certain features, particularly the
following:
i. Facts and data constitute the bases of study. Facts are

accumulated, explained, and used for testing
hypothesis.
ii. Human behaviour can be studied and regularities of
human behaviour can be expressed in generalisations.
ili. Subjectivity gives way to objectivity; philosophical
interpretation to analytical explanation; purposive to
procedural; descriptive to observational; and normative
to scientific.
iv. Facts and values are separated. While in the early
period, the facts were given all values, the values had
no place in research, yet in the later period, values
came to make the facts as relevant as possible.
v. The methods adopted for research and studies are to
be self-conscious, explicit, and quantitative.
vi. Political activity is an activity influenced by numerous
other activities — social, economic, religious, moral,
psychological, ecological, and the like. Hence, inter-
disciplinary synthesis is bound to yield rather better
results.
vii. "What it is” is more important than either “What it was”
or “What it would be” for the present is nearer to either
past or future.
viii. Realism holds more weight than what is du// or what is
utopian. What and how and why a State does is more
relevant than what it had been doing or is likely to do.
ix. Values are to support facts; substance, to forms; theory,
to research. This is the theme of post-behaviouralism.
x. The journey from behaviouralism to post-behaviouralism
is a journey from status quo to social change.
The modern Western political theory combines the merits of

its empirical, formal, and normative shades. It is concerned
with both facts and values, both description and prescription,
both explanation and valuation.
At the other end of modern political theory stands the
Marxist political theory. The Marxist political theory, also
called the dialectical materialist or the scientific-socialist, is
one which describes the general laws of motion in the
development of all phenomena. Its importance lies in change
through the struggle between opposites: between relations of
production and productive forces with a view to have a better
mode of production; development from the lower stage to the
higher one: from, say, capitalistic to socialistic and from
socialistic to communistic. The dialectical-materialist theory
provides a systematic and scientific framework of analysing
and explaining, say, for example social and political change. It
is a method of interpreting the past, understanding the
present, and projecting the future.
(c) Contemporary Political Theory
The political theorists after the 1960s and 1970s have
demonstrated the need of political theory in this fast changing
world of ours. That is why the interest in political theory is
constantly growing in our times. This is partly because
behaviouralism and post-behaviouralism, with their too much
emphasis on science, have led us nowhere close to realities
on the one hand and partly because of the failure of the
Marxist model in some parts of the world on the other. Soon,
it was realised that political theory is more than a philosophy
as it is also more than a science. Its mere reliance on
philosophy robs it from being relevant and its too much stress
on science obviates it from serving as a vision. It is not that
we are parting away from our immediate past but it is as if we
are attempting to build on it.
If the task of political theory is, as it had been, to make us
understand the political phenomenon, then it becomes
necessary that it should confine itself to the explanation,
investigation, and ultimately comprehension of what relates to
politics — concepts, principles, and institutions. This is what
contemporary political theory is doing. Brian Barry (Political
Argument, 1965), while seeking to reconstruct and rediscover
the role of political theory, attempts to “study the relation
between principles and institutions,” explanatory task of
political theory should not lose sight of what existed in the
past. John Rawls (A Theory of Justice, 1971) refers to
another task of contemporary political theory — a continuous
search for truth, and suggests that the attempt can be made
alongside the scientific-empirical methods. R. Nozick
(Anarchy, State and Utopia, 1970) while rejuvenating on the
recovery of political theory from its virtual demise, reverts to
the individualist model of minimal State and believes that
contemporary political theory can solve many political
problems by combining the classical ends with empirical
means, travelling through, the great debates of the end of
ideology (Bell, Galbraith, Lipset) and the end of history
(Fukuyama). The consensus, for example, (John Plamenatz;
Democracy and Illusion, 1973) is that the empirical analysis
and reflections of a logical and moral character can co-exist in
political theory. Highlighting the characteristic features of
contemporary political theory, David Held refers to the
following:
Contemporary political theory has been renewed as the

history of political thought involving an attempt to
examine the significance of text in their historical
context.
. Contemporary political theory has sought to revitalise
the discipline as a form of conceptual analysis and in
the process finding political theory as a systemic
reflection upon, and classification of the meanings of the
key forms and concepts such as globalisation,
democracy, justice, and the like.
Contemporary political theory has been developed as
the systematic elaboration of the underlying structure of
our moral and political activities — the disclosure,
examination and reconstruction of the foundations of
political value.
Contemporary political theory has been revitalised as a
form of argument concerned with abstract theoretical
questions and particular political issues.
Contemporary political theory has been championed as
a critique of all forms of foundationalism either post-
modernists or the liberal defenders. It, accordingly,
presents itself as a stimulant to dialogue and to
conversation among humanbeings.
Vi. Contemporary political theory has been elaborated as a
form of systematic model-building influenced by
theoretical economics, rational choice theory and game
theory, it aims to construct formal methods of political
processes.
vii. Contemporary political theory has developed as the
theoretical enterprise of the discipline of political
science. As such it attempts to construct theory on the
basis of observation and makes empirical
generalisations.
Summing up, David Held offers a number of distinct tasks

of political theory “first, the philosophical-concerned, above
all, with the conceptual and normative; second, the empirical-
analytic-concerned, above all, with the problems of
understanding and explanation; and third, the strategic
concerned, above all with an assessment of the feasibility of
moving from where we are to where we might like to be.”
To these, one may add the historical, the examination of
the changing meaning of political discourse—its key
concepts, theories, and concerns — over time.
The post-1970s, while witnessing new developments in
political theory, gave rise to four distinct views:
i. With Rawls, political theory, as branch of moral

philosophy has been described as essentially
normative. Accordingly, the task of political theory is not
only to develop general principles for evaluating the
social structure, but also to design appropriate
institutions, procedures and policies, [See Ackerman,
Social Justice in the Liberal State (1980); Barry, A
Treatise on Social Justice (1989); and Beitz, Political
Theory and International Relations, 1979].
ii. Political theory is primarily contemplative and reflective
enquiry concerned to understand human existence in
general. So understood, as was really viewed in its
older form, it is neither a branch of moral philosophy nor
normative in its orientation [See Taylor, Philosophical
Papers (1985); MacIntyre After Virtue (1981); Connolly,
Political Theory and Modernity, (1988)).
iii. Political theory is primarily concerned to articulate the
self-understanding of a particular community, and that it
is necessarily municipal in its scope and interpretive in
its orientation. (See Walzer, Sphere of Justice, 1983).
iv. Political theory needs to be tentative, exploratory,
conversational, open-minded, ironic, and sensitive.
Such scholars draw inspiration from post-structuralist
and post-modernistic writers. (See Rorty, Contingency,
lrony and Solidarity, 1989).
Vil. POLITICAL THEORY: SIGNIFICANCE AND

UTILITY
Political theory is no easy and simple enterprise. It is an
elaborate and a consistent exercise, aiming to achieve a
better world of politics. Philosophy and science have no
privileged cognitive status in political theory. All political
philosophy makes claims about the operation of the political
world—claims which require detailed examinations within the
model of enquiry which go beyond those available to
philosophy alone. All political science raises normative
questions which a dedication to the normative-explanatory
does not eliminate. Political theory requires the philosophical
analysis of concepts and principles and the empirical
understanding of political processes and structures. Neither
philosophy nor science, in their individual capacity, can easily
replace the other in the projection of political theory. This is so
because systematic political knowledge embodying
generalisations about patterns of political life is possible and
the efforts to achieve it are, rather should be, the major tasks
of political theory.
Political theory is more than a discipline; it is an intellectual
exercise as also an activity. It is needed as a philosophy just
as it is needed as a science. Germino very aptly writes
“Turning his back to _ distortions, over-implications,
sloganeering and demagoguery, the political theorist speaks
out with honesty on the perpetual problems confronting man
and his existence in society. Political theory as a philosophy
will always attempt to find out the truth in every situation, and
as a science, will always reach the truth.”
Plamenatz holds the view that political theory is not fantasy
or the parading of prejudices, nor an intellectual game. Still
less it “is a linguistic analysis,” but, “is an elaborate, rigorous,
difficult, and useful understanding,” and “as much needed as
any science.”
John Plamenatz, in his essay entitled “The Uses of Political
Theory” does not agree. As he puts it: “Political philosophy
(meaning here political theory) is dead, | have heard men say,
killed by the logical positivists and their successors who have
shown that many of the problems which exercises the great
political thinkers of the past were spurious, resting in
confusions of the sight and the misuse of the language.”
According to him, political theory has its uses which may be
stated as under:
i. Political theory is a serious and difficult intellectual

activity and the need for this kind of exercise in modern
times is indeed much greater.
ii. It is a study of values, norms, and goals, though it does
not produce the same kind of knowledge as empirical
political theory does.
iii. It is a study of theories which have, historically,
powerfully influenced men’s images of themselves and
of society, and profoundly determined their social and
political behaviour.
iv. Ithas an element of socially conditioned ideology. This
ideology may be an illusion, and yet, unless man had
these illusions, the course of social development would
not have been what it is.
v. It produces a coherent system of political principles
which can guide us to an appropriate political action. Its
political theorists, as Plamenatz says, “do not, like
honest shopkeepers, display a large variety of goods,
describing them all accurately and leaving it to the
customer to choose what pleases him most. They
produce a hierarchy of principles, and try to explain how
men should use them to make their choices... They are
not mere purveyors of ideas; they are the preachers and
the propagandists.”
C. Wright Mills (The Marxists, 1962) writes, “Political

philosophies are intellectual and moral creations. They
contain high ideals, easy slogans, dubious facts, crude
propaganda, and sophisticated theories.”
He describes the significance of political theory, saying:
i. Firstly, it is itself a social reality; it is an ideology in

terms of which certain institutions and practices are
justified and others attacked; it provides the phrases in
which demands are raised, criticisms made,
exhortations delivered, proclamations formulated, and at
times, policies determined.
ii. “Second, it is an ethic, an articulation of ideal, which, at
various levels of generality and sophistication, is used in
judging men, events, and movements and as goals and
guidelines for aspirations and policies.
iii. “Third, it designates agencies of action, of the means of
reform, revolution, and conservation. It contains
strategies and programmes that embody both ends and
means. It designates, in short, the historical levels by
which ideals are to be won or maintained after they
have been won.
iv. “Fourth, it contains theories of man, society, and history,
or at least assumptions about how society is made up,
and how it works. It tells us how to find out where we
stand and where we may be going.”
Political theory aims at comprehending the world in which it

comes into being. It tries to identify its salient character, to
understand its crisis, and it assesses its capacity to resolve
that crisis. Political theory contributes to the capacity of man
to understand himself and after himself, his polity and history.
It exhorts man to take command of his own common affairs.
In short, it explains, illuminates, understands, evaluates,
enlightens, and alters.
By way of conclusion, one may say that political theory
builds a model of the highest political order, serves as a guide
to the systematic collection and provides an analysis of
political data. As a science, political theory describes political
reality without trying to pass judgement on what is being
depicted. As a philosophy, it describes rules of conduct which
help secure good life.
SUMMING UP
Political theory has in its elements of history, science and
philosophy. In relation to history, political theory is the
outcome of a peculiar set of historical circumstances and as
such has significance for all times to come. This makes the
character of political theory as an attempt truly to know the
nature of political things along with what is right, and good in
them. In relation to science, political theory seeks to strive
knowledge, as of facts or principles, gained by systematic
system. Political theory, so understood, is philosophical as
well as scientific, normative as well as empirical, evaluative
as well as explanatory, historical as well as analytical.
Contemporary political theory is more of continuity than of
change. When the political scientists in the West were trying
to bring in scienticism and empiricism, they were not rejecting
all that was the essence of traditional political theory. To an
extent, they were developing it to what is considered political.
In a way, they were liberalising political theory from its
descriptive-interpretative shackles. They did realise the utility
of knowing what political had been at a particular time and
under a particular situation. They did acknowledge the
teachings of a particular political philosopher and his legacy.
As such, they did not dismiss anything as worthless in all
these philosophies. Seen in this perspective, the empirical-
scientific (behaviouralism and post-behaviouralism including)
trend in political theory was not a change but a continuation of
normative-philosophical tradition.
Likewise those who attempted to look at political theory
more from a sociological point of view (de Tocqueville,
Graham Wallas, Bagehot, and others) or more from a
psychological point of view (Hobbes, for example), were
merely adding numerous dimensions so as to understand
political theory more clearly. Understood as this, the
emphasis laid by the American scholars during the greater
part of the post-war period, in the interdisciplinary approach in
politics was not an attempt to denigrate it but was an
endeavour to give politics a full meaning, making it more
understand-able and relevant.
Similarly, recent efforts to reject scientific jargons, purely
empirically drawn conclusions, and _ technique-oriented
models are measures to set the worthlessness of political
theory aright. Contemporary political theory is_ not
condemning all empiricism or behaviouralism. Its science
element has been retained to point out the benefits of social
sciences as its philosophical content useful for understanding
sciences related to society. So understood, political theory is
not, and has never been, a break with the past, but is one that
is in the state of constant continuity. We may conclude with
Isaiah Berlin, in a rather lengthy statement: “Neo-Marxism,
neo-Thomism, nationalism, historicism, existentialism, anti-
existential, liberalism and socialism, transportation of
doctrines of natural rights and natural laws into empirical
terms, discoveries made by skilful application of models
derived from economic and related techniques to political
behaviour and the collusions, combinations, and
consequences in action of these ideas indicate not the death
of a great tradition, but, if anything, new and unpredictable
developments.”
Political theory is an attempt of all times. It explains,
examines, and investigates problems where it exists and
suggests, as a corollary, the solutions to them.
David Easton mentions three useful functions of political
theory:
i. To identify the significant political variables and describe

their mutual relations. To ensure this, an analytical
scheme is essential. This would render-research
meaningful and arranges facts leading to generalisation.
ii. The existence, and wide acceptance of and consensus
by workers in the field, on a theoretical framework,
would enable the results of the various researches to be
compared. It would help in the verification of
conclusions drawn by the earlier researches and may
also reveal the area of research which require more
empirical work.
iii. Finally, the existence of a theoretical framework, or at
least, a relatively consistent body of concepts, making
research more reliable.
But this is what a theory does as a science. Though such

functions of political theory, in themselves, are, indeed,
important, yet they help in understanding the phenomena, not
the phenomenon; the whole and not a part.
Theory is not merely a science it is a philosophy as well;
not a phenomenon but phenomena as well; not a part but a
whole as well. Indeed, political theory does make people
understand as to what the present is and for what the present
exists. But it does more than that. Accordingly, it rises above
being the attendant of the status quo; it deals with larger
functions of how the present has come to stay, on what
assumptions does it exist and where would it, in future, lead
to. Political theory, no doubt, arises from a specific context,
but its significance extends beyond that. It, to a great extent,
contributes to the capacity of man to understand himself, his
system, his society, and his history. Its job is not merely to
understand the system around him but is one through which
he is to take the command of his own affairs himself.
Political theory serves as a teacher, a guide and a
philosopher of human-beings, in general, in their attempts to
comprehend and control the whole environment—both social
and natural.
Practice
Questions
1. Distinguish between Political Thought

and Political Philosophy. (200 words)
2. Distinguish between Political Thought
and Political Theory. (200 words)
3. What do you mean by the word theory?
(200 words)
4. Political Theory is not an escape
mechanism but an arduous calling.
(John Plamenatz) (700-800 words)
(2014)
5. Write an essay on the nature relevance
of Political Theory. (700-800 words)
6. What content of sciences political theory
have? (200 words)
7. Evaluate Political Theory as History or
as Philosophy. (200 words)
8. Bring out the highlights of classical
Political Theory. (700-800 words)
9. Write an essay on the characteristic
features of modern or contemporary
political theory. (700-800 words)
9. That is the significance of the study of
UV
a
Political Theory? (200 words)

Political Theory:
Approaches, Debates, Trends
Il. INTRODUCTION
A pproaches are roadmaps which deal with how politics

is studied and how understanding about political
phenomena, political institutions, and __ political
theory/thought is acquired. These may be broadly classified
into traditional (based on ideals, norms, history, law,
philosophy) and modern (based on facts, data, science,
empiricism approaches). Major traditional approaches are
philosophical, normative, historical, legal-formal, institutional,
and, to a degree, comparative while the modern approaches
are experimental, empirical, scientific, rational choice,
behavioural, post-behavioural, and dialectical-materialistic.
ll. APPROACHES
ll. (A) Traditional Approaches
Almost all traditional approaches are related to one another.
The philosophical approach does have a measure of
idealism, history, and comparison while the historical
approach, too, has in it some degree of normativism idealism
and comparison. What separates each of them is their
relative emphasis associated with a particular approach. The
major traditional approaches are:
(a) Comparative
The comparative approach which drawing generalisations
from comparisons helps in relating events, establishing
causes and effects, and in arriving at general principles. It
emphasises on gathering a multiplicity of phenomena with
regard to political systems, institutions, and legislatures;
arranging them in order; and relating elements to them. John
Stuart Mill (1806-73, On Liberty, Considerations on
Representative Government, The Subjection of Women,
Utilitarianism) refers to three forms of comparison:
e through the process of difference (the USA and India,

for example, are both democratic and yet the USA has a
capitalistic economy while India, a mixed economy)
e through the process of indirect difference (United
Kingdom and Peoples’ China, for example, are both
different in so far as the former is a bi-party system and
the latter, communist party-dominated party system,
and still the UK pursues a monarchical-democratic
system and China, the authoritarian one respectively)
e through the process of agreement (the USA and the
former USSR, for example, were different in so far as
the USA was a capitalist nation and the erstwhile
USSR, a communist, and yet both had a federal system
of government).
The comparative political has the following limitations:
e resemblances and differences are not taken into

account;
® vague generalisations usually creep in;
e analogies and identities are not adequately
distinguished;
© comparisons often result in superfluity and thus appear
faulty.
Among the advocates of the comparative approach, one

may mention Aristotle (Politics), Montesquieu (The Spirit of
the Laws), de Tocqueville (Democracy in America), and Bryce
(Modern Democracies).
(b) Historical
The historical approach seeks to lay emphasis on the use of
historical evidence for a proper study of political phenomena.
Every political phenomenon, for example, is the construction
of a time, some place, and circumstances. One can
understand an institution in the light of its origins and growth.
Political theory, we must take note of, has thrived in times of
immense historical situations:
e the ancient Greek times (of Plato and Aristotle) gave the
two great streams of Western Political Thought: Political
idealism and Political realism;
e the English Civil War of the 179 Century produced
Hobbes and Locke.
e We can understand a philosopher through the times he
lived. It is no use evaluating a philosopher of ancient
times from the present day standards. Every political
philosopher uses history in explaining his political
philosophy to demonstrate the practicality of his
perception. George Sabine (A History of Political
Theory) is a prominent advocate of the historical
approach. Its other advocates are Seeley (“Political
Science without History has no roots and History
without Political Science has no fruits”) and Freeman
(“Politics is current History and History is past politics’),
Machiavelli, Montesquieu, and Henry Maine had used
the historical method in their studies. In fact, history
provides us an experimental approach, is corrective in
its objectives; it is inductive in so far as it provides facts
and observation; it is teacher in so far as it explains
past, and a guide in so far as it helps politics build
future; it is factual, casual, and evaluational as Sabine
remarks. Michael Oakeshott (“Political Education”) had
said: “... a genuine historical study is indispensable for
political education. “
It may, however, be remembered that all history is not

politics as all politics is not and can never be all history: we do
not step in the same wave twice at the same time. The
American scholars, Charles Merriam (1876-1935, New
Aspects of Politics, Political Power) and David Easton (The
Political system), condemn the historical approach and calls it
historicism, a term Karl Popper (1902-94, The Poverty of
Historicism, The Open Society and Its Enemies) had
popularised.
What is Historicism?
Historicism refers to philosophical theories that say there is

an organic succession of developments, and that local
conditions and peculiarities influence the results in a
decisive way. The elements of historicism appear in the
writings of Hegel as also in those of Marx. Popper attacked
the term along with the determinism and holism which he
thought of them as its root. New Historicism is said to have
some connections with Hegelianism and anthropology as
the post-structuralists believe.
\ J
History is not merely an event; it is a social event— an

event that had occurred with certain causes helping it to
occur. If the event is a social event, the causes must also be
social. Whatever happens leaves behind some impact, some
lessons for the future? History is not merely an event to be
discarded; it is something of an event, which has to be
evaluated as a lesson. History is a teacher, a guide, and a
philosopher. As Watkins (“Political theory as a doctrine of
political Science”) points out, “By studying political thought as
an integral part of a total historic context; the historical
approach sets ideologies in meaningful relationships to all the
other political and social forces operating at a given time and
place. By placing these events in a moving stream of
historical development, it provides the basis for an estimation
of the possibilities of future change’.
(c) Philosophical
The philosophical approach dates back to the days of Plato in
the West. As against Aristotle, Plato’s disciple, Plato was
always interested in what states ought to be or should be,
rather in what they actually are. The philosophical approach is
prescriptive, essentially normative, one that relates all
knowledge and reality to certain underlying principles. It
seeks to replace opinion about the nature of political things to
the knowledge of the nature of political things. Beginning with
abstract concepts, the philosophical approach attempts to
harmonise them with actual facts and in the process becomes
speculative. Deductive as this approach is, it lands up in
becoming ideological, subjective, and partisan. It leads to
utopian conclusions. The philosophical approach can be
traced to philosophers like Plato, St. Augustine, Rousseau,
Hegel, and Leo Strauss. Leo Strauss (What is Political
Philosophy?) says, “Philosophy, being the quest for wisdom
or quest for universal history, for knowledge of the whole ... is
the attempt truly to know both the nature of political things
and the right, or the good, political order.”
The philosophical approach is not so much concerned with
revealing truth in the manner of science as with asking
questions about how knowledge is acquired and about how
understanding is expressed. Philosophy is the study of reality,
knowledge, and ethics (i.e. metaphysics, epis-temology, and
ethics and its methodology is to approach these through
ideas). That is the reason that philosophy is dubbed as the
science of ideas —reaching reality, Knowledge, and ethics
through ideas. This has made philosophy and philosophical
approach as_ normative, speculative, imaginative, and
deductive; normative questions like the following attract this
approach:
e why should one obey the law?

e what a state ought to do?
e who should rule?
e what should be the limit of individual freedom?
So all the philosophers including the political philosophers

seek to prescribe and evaluate what they have to sermonist.
4 ~
The Philosophical Approach
It is essentially an ethical approach. In nature, it is both

normative and prescriptive. It is concerned with “what
should or ought to be” rather that with “what it is. “ It is
related with whole rather than with parts of the whole.
Principles and norms are more important with this approach
than the techniques or processes. It is, thus, a future-
oriented approach which looks beyond the _ present.
Accordingly, it is idealistic and therefore, impracticable and
imaginative.
(d) Normative
The normative approach, like the philosophical one, describes
how things should be, the ideal type. It needs to be
distinguished from philosophical approach in the following
way: while the normative approach is idealistic, dealing with
ideals and norms primarily, the philosophical approach is
idealistic, dealing with ideas, beliefs, and opinions primarily
and through reasoning (deductively as well as inductively at
times) taking them all to the knowledge of things. The
normative approach has to be distinguished from the
descriptive approach. The descriptive approach is saying
what the case is while the normative approach is saying what
the case ought to be. The normative approach can be (i)
minimalist, and (ii) maximalist. In the minimalist approach, the
minimum standards are formulated below which no
phenomena (political including) ought to fall. In the maximalist
normative approach, ideal standards are formulated which no
phenomena would ever achieve. The normative approach in
political theory is theorising values in politics. It provides
politics a direction, a purpose, a vision, or a frame of
reference, which guides all normative enquiries. This is why
none of the normative theorists (Plato, Rousseau, Hegel, and
the like) have never lost sight of projecting the ideal form of
government. Idealism forms a part of normative commitment.
Most of the earlier political thinking has been normative in its
approach. It may, however, be made clear that without
normative precepts, one may move towards a visionless
direction, giving rise to conflicts that would destroy the
community. Like the philosophical approach, the normative
approach is speculative, either justifying a system that once
existed in the past or propose a system that may, hopefully,
dawn in some remote future. The political philosophers
following normative approach are either conservative (Burke,
Oakeshott) or idealists (Plato, Rousseau, Hegel).
The Normative Approach
The normative approach is evaluational in so far as it seeks

to theorise political thinking of political phenomenon in
ethical terms. Obviously, it avoids conflictive trends,
condemns “revolution”. Conversely it is concerned with
stability and order. This approach is undoubtedly or can
rightly be called a practical art. It does view facts
scientifically, but views them from moral and _ ethical
perspectives. The normative approach lays emphasis on
continual classification of objectives as also the discovery
of means for their realisation. In the absence of normative
objectives, politics degenerates rapidly into purposeless
notions and transactions. The purpose is not what the
states do, but rather is as Lord Acton once remarked, what
the states ought to do.
(B) Modern Approaches

Almost all modern approaches are closely related to one
a nother. The empirical approach, for example, does have a
measure of behavioural approach. The post-behavioural
a pproach is not the negation of the behavioural approach but
is its corrective.
(a) Empiricism
The term empiricism has a dual etymology. It comes from the
Greek word, the Latin translation of which is experiential, from
which we derive the word experience. It also derives from a
more specific classical Greek and Roman usage of empiric,
referring to a physician whose skill derives from practical
experience as opposed to intuition in theory.
( a
Empiricism and Rationalism
Empiricism is a theory which holds that the origin of all

knowledge is sense experience. The term also refers to the
method of observation and experiment used in natural
science. The empiricists are not rationalists. The empiricists
tend to emphasise the tentative nature of knowledge while
the rationalists tend to be dogmatic when they assert that
they have found a method to discover absolutely certain
knowledge. The rationalists (Plato, Descartes, Spinoza)
assert that they had the vision of a knowable universe, of
laws governing all the parts of the whole, of a unified whole,
of minds made for knowing this universe. On the other
hand, the empiricists (Locke, Berkeley, Hume) had the
vision of subjective perceptions limiting knowledge, of the
need for faith to believe anything beyond immediate
perceptions, of minds incapable of knowing much of
anything of dire skepticism. Thus, the rationalists had the
vision of science, the empiricists had the vision of anti-
science seen from the rationalists’ point of view.
\ J
In philosophy, empiricism is a theory of knowledge that is

practical rather than abstract, and asserts that knowledge
arises from experience rather than revelation.
Empiricism is one view held about how we know things,
and so is part of the branch of philosophy called
epistemology, which means theory of knowledge. Empiricism
emphasises the role of experience and evidence, especially
sensory perception, in the formation of ideas while
discounting the notion of innate ideas.
In science, empiricism emphasises those aspects of
scientific knowledge that are closely related to evidence,
especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental
part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories
must be tested against observations of the natural world
rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or
revelation. Hence, science is considered to be
methodologically empirical in nature.
The advocates of empiricism include Francis Bacon (1561-
1626), John Locke (1632-1704), George Berkeley (1685-
1753) and David Hume (1711-76). They relate all knowledge
to be derived from experience through the following ways:
i. experience, the only basis of knowledge;

ii. all hypotheses and theories to be tested by the process
of observation;
iii. facts to be examined objectively: collected, arranged,
classified, categorised, and explained;
iv. scientific and inductive method;
v. research to be related to theory, and theory, to the facts.
The empirical approach in its emphasis on experience

becomes irrelevant in the face of varying experiences where,
therefore, objectivity is usually not possible. It lays over-
emphasis on facts and scientific methodology, it often boasts
of: Its rejection of values (which is its plank) robs it of all basis
of evaluation.
( '
Behaviouralism and Marxism
It is usually argued that the behavioural approach rose as a

response to the Marxian approach. The popularity of
Marxism forced the liberal-pluralist stance in the West,
especially in the USA, to argue against the Marxian
thinking. The behavioural approach sought to explain the
political behaviour of the people in the manner as followed
in the naturalistic sciences. As against the Marxian class-
oriented stance, the behaviouralists came forward with the
individual-oriented focus. As against the economic-
materialistic factor, the behaviouralists sought to explain
political behaviour sociologically and psychologically. The
ideological fervour in the Marxian approach did not attract
the non-historicists and the behaviouralists.
NX
(b) Behaviouralism
The behavioural approach to the study of Political Science is
a newer method of analysing men’s political behaviour.
Easton does not regard it a movement at all, interpreting it as
a revolution in Political Science, to say the least. The term
came not from those who thought of themselves as the
behaviouralists but from those who were opposed to the term
behaviouralism. So, Easton says, behaviouralism was defined
by some “as an attempt to apply the methods of natural
sciences to human behaviour. “ Others scholars, he
continues, “define it as an excessive emphasis upon
quantification, others, as individualistic reductionism. From
the inside (mentioned above were all outsiders), the
practitioners were of different minds as what it was that
constituted behaviouralism.” In terms of its commitments,
behaviouralism may be defined, John Dryzek (Revolutions
Without Enemies: Key Transformations in Political Science),
says:
i. a research focus on political behaviour;

ii. a methodological plea for science, and
iii. a political message about liberal pluralism.”
Robert Dahl refers to six inter-related factors which, as S.T.

Akindele and A. Adebo (A Revisitational Assessment of the
Rise of Behavioural Approach in Political Science) tell us,
influenced the rise of behavioural approach:
i. Chicago School, under the leadership of Charles

Merriam, emphasised on the science of social
behaviour, doing for political science what science had
done for the hard core sciences.
ii. Influx of the European scholars into the United States,
encouraging the use of sociological and even
psychological theories for the understanding of politics.
iii. InNadequacies of the conventional approaches for
describing reality much less for predicting in any given
situation.
iv. The growth of the social sciences research committees
helped the entire focus of the discipline of the behaviour
of the individual as the empirical unit of analysis.
v. The development of the “survey” method as a tool in the
study of politics.
vi. The influence of the philanthropic foundations and the
nature of the American polity and culture.
The behavioural approach to political science is one in

which explanations are
i. based on people’s observable and expressed

behaviour;
ii. behaviour, facts, and data can be scientifically and
empirically tested;
iii. politics can be a science and hence value-free;
iv. individual and group behaviour can be influenced by
other disciplines.
Its advocates include Robert Dahl, Karl Deutsch, David

Easton, Harold Lasswell, Almond and Powell, Kaplan, and
Shils. Behaviouralism—a_ reaction against traditionalism:
better to be wrong than vague — in itself has inherent
defects: behaviour can not be measured, too much
scienticism, objectivity not possible and in nature apathy
towards values. Post-behaviouralism is corrective in nature
and an extension of behaviouralism. Its credo is: action and
relevance; and better to be vague than irrelevant.
Its features are: substance with techniques, purpose with
process, social change with status quo, and values with facts.
Easton’s criticism did not fall on deaf ears. It has been
taken to heart by many contemporary theorists. Robert Dahl,
Charles Lindblom, Christian Bay, and Benjamin Barber have
demanded a radically value-oriented or egalitarian agenda for
behavioural research. These authors call for “full procedural
democracy” or “substantative justice” as the goal for US
political science. In their view, true liberty requires economic
and social as well as political equality.
( '
The Vienna Circle
The Vienna Circle (in German: der Wiener Kreis) was a

group of philosophers who gathered around Moritz Schlick
when he was called to the Vienna University in 1922,
organised in a philosophical association named Verein
Ernst Mach (Ernst Mach Society). Among its members
were Moritz Schlick, chairman of the Ernst Mach Society,
Gustav Bergmann, Rudolf Carnap, Herbert Feigl, Philipp
Frank, Kurt Godel, Hans Hahn, Victor Kraft, Karl Menger,
Marcel Natkin, Otto Neurath, Olga Hahn-Neurath, Theodor
Radakovic, Rose Rand, and Friedrich Waismann. With the
exception of Godel, members of the Vienna Circle had a
common attitude towards philosophy, characterised by two
main beliefs: first, experience is the only source of
knowledge; second, logical analysis performed with the hel
symbolic logic is the preferred method for solving
philosophical problems.
(c) Other Approaches

(i) Marxist, i.e., dialectical materialist approach:
(a) Emphasis on the economic basis of human society
(b) Class as the fundamental division in society and a
belief in the possibility of human betterment.
(c) Politics as a superstructure built on the material
base.
(d) A two-way relation between human beings and the
material world.
(e) Over-emphasis on material factor and
underestimation of the potentialities of the other
factors.
(ii) New-institutional:
(a) People’s choices are shaped by institutions within
which people find themselves.
(b) Political behaviour is embodied in_ institutional
structures of rules, norms, and expectations.
(c) Key idea is that the state is not only affected by
society but also affects it. Olson and Marsh are its
advocates.
(iii) Rational Choice:
(a) It is drawn mainly on the methodology of
economics.
(b) It regards individuals as the key political actors.
(c) It states that collective behaviour stems from
individual behaviour which alone is important.
(d) It regards individuals as the utility maximisers.
(e) Its drawback is that it takes an over-optimistic view
of the individual.
(iv) Post-modernism and Critical Theory: These are broad
rubrics for intellectual movements rather than specific
theories but they are essential parts of social semiotic
analysis. Post-modernism drives from _ Post-
structuralism and Deconstruction Maximisers, which
were initially criticism of the structuralist movement of
the 1960s. Critical theory derives from neo-Marxism
and Feminist theory extended to include post-colonial
theory and queer theory.
(v) General Social Theory: A general social theory usually
identifies the categories of persons constructed by the
practices of a community, and specifies the relations
among these categories in terms of power, prestige,
and specialised functions within the community. It
then tries to explain how these categories and
relationships function, how they come to be
established historically, what keeps them going, and
how they are always changing. An ideal theory relates
the global-scale phenomena of the community to the
local-event scale phenomena (e.g. gender and class
to conversation and action). All existing macro-social
categories are subject to radical critique and should
not be taken as absolute, merely as indications of the
existence of macro-social phenomena. The principal
useful social theories and their basic principles and
formulations are:
(a) Neo-Marxism: class-based analysis: K. Marx, L.
Althusser, A. Gramsci;
(b) M. Foucault: discursive formations, archaeology,
power relations in historical context;
The Chicago School and the Frankfurt School
The Chicago School: The significance of the University of

Chicago School (1920-40) lay in its demonstration through
concrete, empirical studies that a genuine enhancement of
political knowledge was possible through inter-disciplinary
research strategy, the introduction of quantitative
methodologies and through organised research support.
The school which Charles Merriam founded in the 1920s
was staffed in part with his own students. It made a
quantum leap in the empirical investigative rigour and in
institutional innovation.
The Frankfurt School is a school of neo-Marxist critical
theory, social research, and philosophy. The grouping
emerged at the Institute for Social Research (Institut fur
Sozialforschung) of the University of Frankfurt in Germany
when Max Horkheimer became the Institute’s director in
1930. The term Frankfurt School is an informal term used
to designate the thinkers affiliated with the Institute for
Social Research or influenced by them. It is not the title of
any institution, and the main thinkers of the Frankfurt
School did not use the term to describe themselves. The
Frankfurt School gathered together dissident Marxists,
severe critics of capitalism who believed that some of
Marx’s followers had come to parrot a narrow selection of
Marx’s ideas. The School was influenced by Kant, Weber,
and Freud as well.
(c) P. Bourdieu: habitus, structuration, capitals, fields;
comprehensive except for historicity;
(d) B. Latour: actant networks, heterogeneity of types
and scales; very sophisticated;
(e) N. Luhmann: Systems theory, discourse; more
cybernetic than self-organisational; and
(f) C. Geertz: thick descriptions, hermeneutic
ethnography: phenomenological approach
lll. GREAT DEBATES
(a) “Decline of Political Theory” Debate (Traditionalism

vs. Behaviouralism)
Many scholars talk of the decline of political theory, many
others make claims about its revival. If there is a Brogan to
doubt “whether any such academic discipline as _ political
science exists, “ there is a Germino who insists that “this
thesis is seriously in error. “ If there is a Verney to share the
view that “politics has reached its dead end”, there is a Berlin
who believes that “political theory will not wholly perish from
the Earth. “ If there is a Dah/ who declares that in the
Englishspeaking world “political philosophy is dead”, there is
a Plamentaz to emphasise that political theory “is much
needed as any of the sciences”. If there is an Easton who
condemns political theory declining into “historicism’, there is
yet another Easton to favour an evaluative or value theory in
political science. Las/ett and Runciman in 1956 deplored the
death of political philosophy in 1962, the same men claimed
“a modest revival in political philosophy. “ In 1963, a Friedrich
wrote a book titled An Empirical Theory of Politics,, and
stated the importance of political philosophy to the
“observable phenomena’ and the same author in 1967, writes
another book called An Introduction to Political Theory and
examines “perennial issues” through the writings of the
political philosophers.
The traditional political theory lays stress on the state as a
moral society. The classical political theory concerned itself
with “the moral evaluation of political theory” as Alan Gewirth
informs us. The normative political theory seeks, as Derek
Crabtree believes, “to answer the question what is the end or
the good at which the State should aim.” It was against this
mood that a revolution to change the perspective of political
theory was in the offing. Men like Burgess, Lowell, and
Merriam in the first quarter and Herbert Simon, V.O. Key,
Robert Dahl, David Easton, and Harold Lasswell in the later
period of the 20th century, rose against the classical political
theory. These writers deplore the historical, normative, or the
evaluative approach to the study of political theory which has
hitherto adopted and emphasised instead on the behavioural,
objective, scientific, or the empirical approach. They seek to
lay stress on present rather than past; living rather than dull;
systematic rather than interpretive; immediate rather than
remote; objective rather than on ‘subjective’; ‘general’ rather
on ‘particular’; ‘analytic’ rather than on ‘philosophic’; ‘ex-
planatory’ rather than ‘descriptive’; ‘evaluative’ rather than on
‘moral’; ‘process-oriented rather than on ‘ideal-orientead’,
‘scientific’ rather than on ‘theoretical’. They think the ancient
role of the political theory is irrelevant. In place of it, they seek
to build a science of politics, as objective, clinical, value-free,
observational, measurable and operational as any mutual or
exact science can ever be. What was dead was political
theory. What was born out of it was political science.
The arguments, as stated by the empiricists, positivists,
and behaviouralists in the 1950s and 1960s include
i. historicism;
ii. more relativism;
iii. hyper factualism;
iv. technological revolution;
v. inadequacies of traditional theories.
These arguments apart, a general tendency, to cease

thinking about society in terms of political theory as Cobban
says has been the prevailing mood all around particularly
among some of the Americans. This has forced men like C.B.
Macpherson to raise a voice for a rethinking with regard to
normative theory of political science. While a “rethinking” over
the normative theory was much required and it actually
should have helped much in understanding as to how politics
is changing, the apologists (those who insist on its revival)
chose better to contest the positivists and the empiricists on
their own grounds. They condemn their critics on the following
grounds, to mention a few among many:
(a) undue importance on facts;
(b) false conception of scientific approach wherein man
is related to a chemical or a matter;
(c) false conception of the relationship of the observer
and his observations where the _ observer’s
detachment is claimed to be highly objective;
(d) isolation of facts from the realities of life;
(e) separation of means from the ends; and
(f) over-emphasis on methodical processes which put
a mask on man’s imagination. McCoy and Playford
would accuse the behaviouralists of having
“concocted their own ivory tower out of jargon and
scienticism.” No school of positivism can lead,
Germino is convinced, to anything but a
retrogression in the history of political and social
thought. “ All this makes him conclude that at the
moment “a truly creative flowering” and “a
renaissance of political theory in the grand manner”
are in the offing and that like the proverbial phoenix
“political theory is today rising from the ashes of its
own destruction.”
(b) “The End of Ideology” Debate

Ideology is usually described as the science of ideas. The
French scholar Destutt de Tracy (1754 - 1836) was the first to
use the term. In his work, Elements of Ideologies (his another
work was Treatise on Political Economy), he termed ideology
as ideas personified. Drucker (The Political Uses of Ideology,
1974) calls ideology “the correction of ideas about society. “
Karl Marx (1818-1883, the German Ideology) defines ideology
as a process achieved consciously but with a_ false
consciousness. Karl Mannheim (1893-1947, Ideology and
Utopia) says that all social knowledge is determined by social
structure; the ideology of an individual and a group is shaped
by the status of the indi-vidual/groups. Jorge Larrain (The
Concept of Ideology) draws attention to its meaning, including
exposition of the world-view (positive sense), a false
consciousness (negative sense); its subjectivity and _ its
relationship with science as its anti-thesis.
Numerous definitions of ideology (Felix Gross, European
Ideologies 1948; Lyman Sargent, Con-temporary Political
Ideologies, 1969; Martin Seliger, /deology and Politics, 1976;
Bluhm, /deologies and Attitudes, 1974 bring to the fore its
following characteristics:
(a) Ideology is a value or a belief system.
(b) It pertains to the world-view of a social group,
holding the view as a matter of fact.
(c) It explains and analyses the world as it is: the
foundations on which a given society stands.
(d) It exists to perform an inspirational function.
(e) It attempts to explain the cause-effect relationship
of a given society;
(f) It provides an action programme to justify the status
quo (conservation) or seeks reforms (liberalism) or
reconstructs the society anew (radical).
After the second world war, some social scientists in the
USA (Daniel Bell: The End of Ideology; S.M. Lipset: Political
Man; J.K. Galbraith: The Coming of the Post-/ndustrial
Society) began advocating the “end of ideology” theory or
“deideologisation” or “the twilight of the era of Ideology.”
Some other concepts strengthening the “end of Ideology
theme were: post-capitalist era, the rule of the technocrats,
convergence between capitalism and socialism, “people’s
capitalism’, “socialism with a human face.” All these kept
declaring the elimination of ideological conflict as an
accomplished fact.
The Cold War character of the end of ideology theory was
evident from the fact that the Congress for Cultural Freedom,
an American-sponsored propagandist agency, took a leading
part in organising a seminar of writers, politicians, journalists,
and academicians in 1956 at Milan to pronounce the death of
ideology in advanced capitalist societies. While some of the
delegates were conservatives and reactionaries at one end,
there were also the liberals, radicals, and social democrats of
all varieties and hues at the other. It may appear that a
conference of this nature would have produced intense
political debates and ideological hostility. In fact, nothing of
this nature occurred. The delegates assembled there had
displayed full doctrinal unity. Raymond Aron said that the
rightists and the leftists in West European politics were
converging towards each other disclosing new similarities in
their attitudes and beliefs. Edward Shils pronounced liberation
of mankind from “obsessional visions and fantasies” and
declared opposing view point as “the harassment of
ideologists” and zealous.
S.M. Lipset developed the end of ideology theme in
Political Man — The Social Bases of Politics. Raymond Aron
wrote an article titled “Industrial Society, Ideologies and
Philosophy” and the book The Opium of Intellectuals to prove
that ideological thinking was confined to an intelligentsia with
little relevance for actual party politics or electoral behaviour
in liberal countries. Daniel Bell wrote a book (The End of
Ideology: On the Exhaustion of Political Ideas) to prove that a
democratic liberal consensus has been reached in the
Western democratic countries which has made all ideological
conflicts anachronistic. The conservatives no longer opposed
state regulation to promote welfare and the socialists no
longer advocated indiscriminate nationalisation. Lipset,
therefore, concluded: “The change in Western political life
reflects the fact that the fundamental political problems of the
industrial revolution have been solved: the workers have
achieved industrial and political citizenship; the conservatives
have accepted the welfare state and the democratic left has
recognized that an increase in overall state power carries with
it more dangers to freedom than solutions to economic
problems. This very triumph of the democratic social
revolution in the West ends domestic politics for those
intellectuals who must have ideologies or utopias to motivate
them to political action.” He, however, maintains that bridging
of ideological cleavages leaves ample scope for party
controversies in democracies. Galbraith (The New /ndustrial
State) argues that:
i. The industrialised societies in both the USA and in the

former Soviet Russia, were pursuing essentially similar
developmental paths.
ii. In such societies, professional classes and the
technocrats hold all powers.
iii. These societies witness centralising and
bureaucratising tendencies.
Barrington Moore thinks that in the United States, with the

exception of the Negro, it is difficult to identify any group that
has any ideological motivation for confrontation with the
governing elite. David Reisman thinks that the general
increase of affluence will put an end to the Madisonian bases
for political conflict in developed capitalist countries. Lipset
feels that these scholars confuse the decline of ideology with
the end of the economic class system, which, according to
him, has sustained democratic controversy. The evidence on
the voting behaviour in the United States and West European
countries proves that many voters continue to vote for
different parties in accordance with their class images and
perceptions of the role of these parties.
The end of ideology theorists, critics have argued, fully
express the need of the ruling class in a liberal capitalist
society to find ways of denying historical inevitability and the
objective necessity of reconstructing its social system on new
socialist foundations.
While rejecting the end of ideology thesis, Richard Titmuss
(Essays on the Welfare State) argues that:
i. The capitalist economies have attained monopolistic

concentration of economic power.
ii. The post-industrial societies suffer from processes
which have led to social disintegration.
iii Such developed societies have been facing tendencies
of economic power.
C. B. Macpherson (Democratic Theory) speaks of the post-

industrial societies no better than the market societies. The
end of ideology theory has been criticised by C. Wright Mills
in his The Marxists. Mills characterised the end of ideology
theory as the self-image of self-selected circles of intellectuals
in capitalist countries which constituted a fraction of mankind.
To speak in such terms, he said, of much of Asia, Africa, Latin
America, or the Soviet Bloc countries was quite ridiculous.
Mills observed, “End of ideology is a slogan of complacency,
circulating among the prematurely middle-aged... In the final
analysis, it also rests upon a disbelief in the shaping by men
of their own futures — as history and as _ biography’.
According to David Aiken, the vision of the end of ideology as
an end to rhetoric and rhetoricians, especially of revolution, is
a utopian fantasy. It is an evil fantasy because it would mean
a virtual end to discourse, to communication, and to
argument.
Pragmatism has come to rob the rigidity of ideology. David
Cameron, the British Conservative party leader declares
himself with a touch of pride that he is a “practical” and
“pragmatic” politician and “not deeply’ ideologicals’.” He
regards Tony Blair, the former British Prime Minister, as the
most pragmatic of modern western leaders. The rightists are
not so rightists while the leftists are not so leftists. Spain has
already abandoned the Right; in Italy, ‘right’ is struggling; in
Latin America, there is almost a left-wing swing. The one-time
communist China is allowing entrepreneurs to join the
Communist Party while the Indian left had worked sometimes
with the Congress Party which was moving towards
liberalisation. The vast majority of people have never been
overtly ideological; they want their problems solved; in the
words of Chinese leader they “are not interested in the colour
of the cat so long as it catches the mice”.
(c) “The End of History” Debate

Francis Fukuyama, a second generation American, in his
work The End of History and the Last Man (1992)—
expanding on his 1989 essay “The End of History” (the other
works include our Post-human Future; Consequences of the
Biotechnology Revolution (2002), State-Building: Governance
and the World Order in the 21S Century (2004); America at
the Crossroads: Democracy, Power and the Neo-
conservative Legacy (2006) — argues that the end of the
Cold War signals the end of the progression of human history.
He says: “What we may be witnessing is not just the end of
the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war
history but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of
mankind’s ideological evolution and universalisation of
Western liberal democracy as the final form of human
government.” (Quoted from The End of History, 1989)
Fukuyama has established himself as a _ leading
conservative intellectual. At the outset, his The End of History
is a celebration of the “new world order’. But it is also much
more. The book contains a theory, drawing on Plato’s view of
the soul and Hegel’s dialectic of spirit that legitimates the new
order of spreading “liberal democracy” by establishing its
philosophical origins. Fukuyama does not hesitate to identify
liberal democracy with capitalist democracy. He argues that
the debacle of Soviet-style communism has left capitalist
democracy unchallenged as the only system with global
appeal; and he contends that this appeal is not transient but
has deep roots.
Liberal democracy (read as Capitalism), he says, is now
the goal of virtually every single country of any importance—
communism has proven to be an empty promise. There can
no longer be any other conflicts of major interests, no more
shifts in academic thought, or new spheres of philosophical
argument—every system of government that could be thought
or has been thought of and the human race has basically
reached its optimum level. Hence, the end of history.
Fukuyama’s principal argument is that communism has not
worked. Marx’s theories, he says, are clearly outdated in a
global economy.
Fukuyama’s thesis consists of three main elements:
i. First, there is an empirical argument. Fukuyama points

out that since the beginning of the nineteenth century,
democracy, which started off as being merely one
among many systems of government has grown among
the majority of governments in the world today as
“democratic” ones only.
ii. Second, there is a philosophical argument, taken from
Hegel. Very briefly, Fukuyama sees history as
consisting of the dialectic between two classes: the
Master and the Slave. Ultimately, this thesis (Master)
and antithesis (Slave) must meet in a synthesis, in
which both manage to live in peace together. This can
only happen in a democracy.
iii. Finally, Fukuyama argues that for a variety of reasons,
socialism (for communism) is likely to be incompatible
with modern representative democracy. Therefore, in
the future, democracies are overwhelmingly likely to
contain markets of some sort, and most are likely to be
capitalist or social democratic.
Fukuyama’s thesis has the following arguments in his

favour:
i. Empirical evidence has been used to support the

theory. Freedom House argues that there was nota
single liberal democracy with universal suffrage in the
world in 1900 but that today 120 (62%) of the world’s
192 nations are such democracies. They counted 25
(19%) nations with “restricted democratic practices” in
1900 and 16(8%) today. They counted 19 (14%)
constitutional monarchies in 1900, where a constitution
limited the powers of the monarch, and with some
power devolved to elected legislature, and none today.
Other nations had, and have, various forms of non-
democratic rule.
ii. The democratic peace theory argues that there is
statistical evidence that democracy de-creases
systematic violence such as external and internal wars
and conflicts. This seems compatible with Fukuyama’s
theory, but hardly with the increasing class conflicts that
Marx predicted.
iii. The end of the Cold War and the subsequent increase
in the number of liberal democratic states were
accompanied by a sudden and dramatic decline in total
warfare, interstate wars, ethnic wars, revolutionary wars
and the number of refugees and displaced persons.
Fukuyama’s “end of history” thesis is criticised on the

following grounds:
(a) Islamic fundamentalism does not indicate the end
of history.
(b) The Marxists do not subscribe to Fukuyama’s
reliance on Hegel, for, they argue that Hegel’s
philosophy was fatally flawed until Marx had turned
it on its feet.
(c) Some radical libertarians (represented by Hans-
Hermann Hoppe) argue that democracy failed the
classical liberal tradition by subordinating individual
rights (especially private property) to the public
interest, and that democracy is actually a decline of
civilisation compared to monarchy (Democracy:
The God that Failed).
(d) Numerous other intellectuals and thinkers have
disagreed with the End of History thesis. For
example, Samuel P. Huntington, in his essay and
book, The Clash of Civili-zations, argues that the
temporary conflict between ideologies is being
replaced by the ancient conflict between
civilisations. The dominant civilisation decides the
form of human government, and these will not be
constant.
In the end, we may say that Fukuyama is an endist.
Endism, to Fukuyama, means end of all bad things. So his
argument leads to: progress is on now; people are becoming
better and better, and history will end. Huntington rightly says
that one can build one’s life on the premise that the bad
things are coming to an end; it is. In fact, walking on the road
of disaster, for progressivism would naturally lead to taking
things easy, to relaxed complacency, and in the process,
inviting nonchalance and apathy.
IV. TRENDS IN POLITICALTHEORY
(a) Hermeneutics
Hermeneutics is described as the development and study of
the theories of interpretation and understanding of the text.
Habermas, in his article, “The Hermeneutic Claim to
Universality”, says that Hermeneutic “refers to an ability we
acquire to the extent to which we learn to master a natural
language: the art of understanding __ linguistically
communicable meaning and to render it comprehensible in
cases of distorted communication.” It is the art, skill, or theory
of interpretation, of understanding the significance of human
actions, utterances, and institutions.
Hermeneutics rejects the thesis that science alone provides
systematic interpretation and asserts that philosophy too
helps us understand events, texts and utterances. We can
interpret by asking relevant questions, for our answer lies in
the question asked. It is an aid to comprehend text through
context. Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911), in his Hermeneutics
and the Study of History, says that every expression must be
understood in its social, historical, and cultural context if its
full meaning is to be revealed. Martin Heidegger (1889-1976),
in his work Being and Time, applies the term broadly to
emphasise the general metaphysical meaning of his
investigation into the nature of human existence.
The advocates of the hermeneutics approach claim that the
texts are the conventionalised expressions of the experience
of the author, and therefore, the interpretation of such texts
reveals something about the social context in which they were
written, but, more significantly, provide the reader with a
means to share the experiences of the author. Hermeneutics
refers to the idea that one’s understanding of the text as a
whole is established by reference to the individual facts and
one’s understanding of each individual part by reference to
the whole. Neither the whole text nor any individual part can
be understood without reference to one another. Furthermore,
interpretation makes it possible to interpret the text by
emphasising that the meaning of text must be found within its
cultural, social, historical, and literary context.
(b) Behaviouralism,Post-Behaviouralism,Neo-
Behaviouralism
Behaviouralism has been rightly described as a _ protest
against traditionalism, historicism, and formalism as Dahl
sees it. It emerged out of “old institutionalism” which was
preoccupied with formal structures of government. It was a
movement which took into account the findings which had
developed in social sciences; a movement which provided for
scientific methodology, and a movement that created an
empirical political science.
Behaviouralism gave to political science a new focus
(individual, group) a new emphasis (behaviour), and a new
methodology (scientific, empirical).
Behaviouralism is, essentially and _ primarily, a
methodological approach to knowledge that studies what
empirically happens in the course of human behaviour. Its
creed, in the words of Albert Somit and Joseph Tanenhaus
(The Development of American Political Science, 1967),
contains the following points:
i. Political Science can ultimately become a science,

capable of prediction and explanation.
ii. It should concern itself primarily, if not exclusively, with
phenomena which can actually be observed.
iii, Data should be quantified and findings be based on
quantifiable data.
iv. Research should be theory-oriented and theory-
directed, evolved through the development of
hypothesis.
v. Political Science should adjure in favour of “pure”
research.
vi. The truth or falsity of values cannot be established
scientifically and is beyond the scope of legitimate
inquiry.
vii. Political Science should be more interdisciplinary.
viii. It should become more self-conscious about its
methodology.
The behavioural revolution in Political Science has had its

contribution by making the discipline of Political Science
rather scientific, objective, observational, operational,
measurable, and _ value-free. The discipline became
aggressively secular in orientation, following its insistence on
separation between facts and values, declaring, in the
process, the historical-descriptive paradigm as obsolete. And
yet the limitations of behaviouralism cannot be overlooked.
These limitations revolve around its use of unliterary and
shabby language leading to empty jargons, too much
scienticism, emphasis on techniques, apathy towards values,
stress on objectivity and in the process robbing the discipline
from the study of past and future, and confining it to the
studies of elections. In its efforts to reject the vagueness of
traditionalism, behaviouralism embraced irrelevance, with no
answers to the vital problems facing the world (Vietnam,
questions of peace and war, etc.). In its efforts to study the
West, behaviouralism failed to perceive social, political, and
cultural changes occurring in other parts of the world,
especially in the communist and the third world countries.
Post-behaviouralism is not a negation of behaviouralism,
nor its opposite, but is its extension, rather its corrective. It
arose with credos of relevance and action from the same set
of advocates (Dahl, Easton) and from the same soil (the
USA), though the timing was different. It was in 1969 when
David Easton, delivering his presidential speech at the 65th
session of the American Political Science Association, sought
to introduce post-behaviouralism.
Post-behaviouralism does not reject behaviouralism, but
builds itself on it. It begins where behaviouralism ends,
relieving the latter from its inconsistencies and inadequacies.
Its tenets can be stated as these:
substance should precede techniques;

purpose should not be separated from procedure;
social change should guide status quo;
facts and values be made inseparable;
e value premises need to be related to knowledge;
e quantum of science to be used in Political Science to
the extent that it helps comprehend the political
phenomena;
e intellectuals have to shoulder the responsibility of
shaping and reshaping society, of putting knowledge to
work.
Neo-behaviouralism is the revision of behaviouralism in so

far as it helps review the methodology and the content
favouring a revival of interpretive understanding and historical
analysis of political theory. With the emergence of new
concerns such as feminism, environmentalism, nuclear war,
ethnicity, racial identity and equality, there has been a general
loss of central focus regarding the subject-matter and
consensus about methodologies. Easton announces the
beginning of neo-behaviouralism in the 1990s in order to
bring about a new unity in the theoretical focus of the
discipline.
(c) Normative and Empirical

The two approaches — normative and empiricalI—belong to
different times, differing in their nature and in_ their
methodologies while addressing the political phenomena. The
normativist is more interested in a good life, ideally framed;
the empiricist, in actual life, based on facts. The former is
usually subjective and the latter objective; the former is
prescriptive while the latter is analytical; the former relates
facts to values and the latter, va/ues to facts; the former, in its
approach is philosophical, and historical while the latter is
scientific, behaviouralist, and ahistorical; the former is value-
laden while the latter is, fact-laden; the former does not
separate facts from values while the latter does not allow their
union.
The division between normativism and empiricism revolves
around methodology. All normative theory is philosophical
and _ idealistic; all empirical theorising is scientific and
analytical. Normative research is never scientific while
empiricism is all about research with self-stated and self-
conscious roadmap. The normative approach has _ its
limitations so has the empirical approach. The normative
intention is subjective and speculative, and, therefore, fails to
bring about standardised methodology, and in the process,
casts serious doubts about the validity of generalisations so
developed. The empirical approach, in its attempt to have
objectivity and neutrality, builds ridiculous jargons; in its
attempt to reject values, rejects all grounds of evaluation. This
precisely is the complaint of trans-empiricists against
empiricists.
To conclude, one may say that the two approaches miss
what each lacks. Complete objectivity is unattainable while
value-free research is only imagination. For comprehending
any political phenomenon, the two approaches are essential.
While the normative approach sets goals, the empirical theory
sets tools; one provides the purpose, another its procedure.
(d) Libertarianism and Communitarianism

Libertarianism, an ideological stance of America of the 1960s
and the 1970s, seeks to build au-tonomous individuals with
inalienable rights and unrestricted liberty. Its advocates
include Hayek (The Road to Serfdom: The Constitution of
Liberty), Friedman (Capitalism and Freedom), Rawls (A
Theory of Justice), Nozick (Anarchy, State and Utopia), and
Dworkin (Taking Rights Seriously). For the Libertarians,
individual’s rights are inborn and they cannot be taken away
by any one, not even by the state, individual liberty cannot be
restricted; can be, but only for the protection of liberty.
Libertarian politics lays stress on the minimal state, and its
economics, on free and open- market system.
Communitarianism, as expressed in the writings of Macintyre
(After Virtue), Taylor (Sources of the Self), Sandel (Liberalism
and the Limits of Justice), and Walzer (Spheres of Justice), is
a theoretical position which says that an individual is not an
isolated self but selfconstituted through and shaped by the
community, and as such it expects respect, consideration,
and obligations from its members.
f >
Poliitical Science in the Twentieth Century and After
Gabrial Almond states the status of our discipline as thus:

“We would record three rising blips in the twentieth century
growth curve. There was the Chicago blip in the inter-war
decades (1920-40), introducing organised empirical
research programmes, emphasising psychological and
sociological interpretation of politics, and demonstrating the
value of quantification. A second, much larger blip in the
decades after World War II would measure the spread of
“behavioural” political science throughout the world,
improvements in the more traditional sub-disciplines and
professionalism. A third blip would register the entry of
deductive and mathematical methods, and economic
models in the “rational choice/ methodo-logical individualist”
approach.
(e) Traditionalism, Modernism, and Post-modernism
Traditionalism, in politics, means love for philosophy, norms,
and ideals as revealed through history: more akin to truths
and principles of an ethical nature. It is not all past, though it
is associated with history; it is not all philosophy, though it
lays emphasis on knowledge as accrued from the basic
values. Modernism, on the other hand, is separated and
isolated from the immutable principles, rejects faith in favour
of reason, philosophy in favour of science, assumptions in
favour of autonomy. Post-modernism, as it comes to be
understood from Heidegger (The Postmodern Explained),
Lyotard (The Post-modern Condition), Foucault (The Order of
Things), Lash (Sociology of Post-modernism), is the name for
the general quality of our time. As a recalcitrant child of
modernism, it holds that all worldviews are constructed by
historical processes, nothing designed, nothing reasoned out.
For the post-modernist, there is no objective truth; reality is
what is configured or constructed; all knowledge is partial and
partisan; there are no facts about social and political world,
what are called facts are only interpretations; such a world is
not characterised by sameness, but by difference; all
comprehensible worldviews are oppressive; therefore, all
such worldviews are to be deconstructed, therefore,
deconstructionism is progressive pulverisation of reality.
Much as post-modernism condemns modernism; it has
remained only a temporary phenomenon.
(f) Feminism
It is a revolt against patriarchy, against male domination,
against the very idea that women are a medium of joy for
men. It is an ideology which seeks the end of female
exploitation and discrimination against women. It is a
movement that seeks a new definition for everything till now
defined by men. Its advocates include Shulamith Firestone
(The Dialect of Sex), Germaine Greer (The Female Enunch),
Kate Millet (Sexual Politics), Pateman (The Sexual Contract),
Robin Morgan (Sisterhood is Powerful), Elshtain (Public Man,
Private Woman), and Simone de Beauvoir (The Second Sex).
Mary Wollstonecraft, one of the major feminists, wrote A
Vindication of the Rights of Women. The International
Women’s Year was observed in 1975. Liberal feminism
advocates women’s equality with men; Socialists/Marxists
regard women as a suppressed lot (Engels once remarked
that man is a bourgeoisie and woman, a proletariat), whereas
the radical feminists seek redefinition of all ethos and reversal
of roles for men and women.
According to Maggie Humm and Rebecca Walker, three
waves of feminism have been noticed; a first wave refers to
the period of feminist activity during the 19th and the 20th
century in United Kingdom and the United States. It focused
originally on the promotion of equal contract and property
rights for women and opposition to chattel marriage and
ownership of married women by their husbands. However, by
the end of the 19th century, activism focused primarily on
gaining political power, the right of women’s suffrage
especially. In Britain, the suffragettes brought the
Representation of the People Act in 1918 when right to
women was granted to women over the age of 30 who owned
houses. In 1928, this right was given to the women of US in
1928 of all women over 21 . In the women feminist
movements included Lucretia Mott, Lucy Stone, Elizabeth
Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. The French Simone Beauvior
(in the Second Sex) wrote “One is not born woman, but
becomes one”. Second-wave feminism refers to the period of
activity in the early 1960s and lasting through the late 1980s.
The scholar Imelda Whelehan suggests that the second wave
was a continuation of the earlier phase of feminism involving
the suffragettes in the UK and USA. Second-wave feminism
has continued to exist since that time and coexists with what
is termed third-wave feminism. The scholar Estelle Freedman
compares first and second-wave feminism saying that the first
wave focused on rights such as suffrage, whereas the second
wave was largely concerned with other issues of equality,
such as ending discrimination. The feminist activist and
author Carol Hanisch coined the slogan “The Personal is
Political” which became synonymous with the second wave.
Second-wave feminists saw women’s cultural and _ political
inequalities as inextricably linked and encouraged women to
understand aspects of their personal lives as deeply
politicized and as reflecting sexist power structures.
Third-wave feminism began in the early 1990s, arising as a
response to perceived failures of the second wave and also
as a response to the backlash against initiatives and
movements created by the second wave. Third-wave
feminism seeks to challenge or avoid what it deems the
second wave’s essentialist definitions of femininity, which
(according to them) over-emphasize the experiences of upper
middle-class white women. A post-structuralist interpretation
of gender and sexuality is central to much of the third wave’s
ideology. Third-wave feminist often focus on “micro-politics”
and challenge the second wave’s paradigm as to what is, or
is not, good for females. The third wave has its origins in the
mid-1980s. Feminist leader rooted in the second wave like
Gloria Anzaldua, Bell Hooks, Chela Sandoval, Cherrie
Moraga, Audre Lorde, Maxine Hong Kingston, and many
other black feminists, sought to negotiate a space within
feminist thought for consideration of race-related
subjectivities.
Post-feminism describes a range of viewpoints reacting to
feminism. While not being “antifeminist,” post-feminists
believe that women have achieved second wave goals while
being critical of third wave feminist goals. The term was first
used in the 1980s to describe a backlash against second.
Socialist feminism connects the oppression of women to
marxist ideas about exploitation, oppression and_ labor.
Socialist feminists think unequal standing in both the
workplace and the domestic sphere holds women down.
Socialist feminists see prostitution, domestic work, childcare
and marriage as ways in which women are exploited by a
patriarchal system that devalues women and the substantial
work they do. Socialist feminists focus their energies on
bbroad change that affects society as a whole, rather than on
an individual basis.
They see the need to work alongside not just men, but all
other groups, as they see the oppression of women as a part
of a larger pattern that affects everyone involved in the
capitalist system. Marx felt when class oppression was
overcome, gender oppression would vanish as well.
Radicalism Feminism
Women liberation Female emancipation

Patriarchy Gender inequality
Sisterhood Individualism
The personal is political Conventional politics
Transform private realm Public/private divide
Gender equality Access to public realm
Sexual politics Equal rights/ opportunities
Revolutionary change Reform/gradualism
Conciousness raising Political activism
(g) Ecologism, Environmentalism, Sustainable

Development
Ecologism can be described as a doctrine that seeks to
establish the essential link between human beings and the
natural world. It emphasises that the human beings are a part
of nature; they are not its masters. Two streams of ecologism
are usually referred to: deep ecology, one that rejects the
belief that the human beings are superior to or more
important than, the other species: shallow ecology, one that
harnesses it to human needs, and ends.
The logic is that if we serve the natural world, it will, in turn,
sustain human life. Environmentalism refers to the concern
about the damage done to the natural world by the increasing
pace of economic development. To that extent,
environmentalism is concerned with protecting nature,
ultimately for human benefits. Sustainable development is
essentially concerned with environmentalism in so far as it
seeks development within the framework of ‘environment’. It
is not ‘above’ or ‘against’, or ‘at the cost’ of environment, but
is in tune with it. It is a union of present with future: present in
the sense that developmental course has to respond to the
needs of today, future in the sense that it gives room for
accommodation. It, as David Reid (Sustainable Development:
An Introductory Guide) says, “strikes two chords: First,
touch(es) on our sense of guilt about what we have done to
the planet, and second on a very deeply-rooted human desire
to make sure (that) our children’s futures are provided for.”
f- YY
Environmentalism
Environmentalism is a broad philosophy and_ social

movement centered on a concern for the conservation and
improvement of the natural environment, both for its own
sake as well as_ its importance to civilisation.
Environmentalists frequently speak of a planet or place
faced with a plethora of grave and urgent threats; often
associated with unbridled consumption, economic growth,
materialism, insensitive development, and booming human
numbers. Perhaps most problematic from an
environmentalist perspective is the modern view that
humanity’s fate is divorced from that of the natural world,
and that our responsibility to nature is — at best—limited to
the satisfaction of shallow desires.
Practice
Questions
1. Discuss the historical approach to the

study of political theory. (700-800
words)
2. Explain the term Hisforicism. (200
words)
3. What is Strauss’s argument for the
philosophical approach? (200 words)
4. Write a detailed note on Feminism. (200
words)
5. Explain the term empiricism and
differentiate between empirical
approach and normative approach. or
(700-800 words)
Comment between normative and
empirical theories of politics. (2012)
(200-250 words)
6. Highlight the chief characteristics of
behaviouralism and examine it critically.
(700-800 words)
7. Evaluate Easton’s’ contribution to
behaviouralism, post-behaviouralism
and _neo-behaviouralism. (700-800
words)
8. Write brief notes on: (200 words each)
i. Chicago School
ii. Frankfurt School
ili. Rational Choice Theory
iv. Hermeneutics
v. Personal is Political
9. Bring out a case for and against “the

end of ideology” debate. (700-800
words)I
10. Critically state and examine “the end of 4
A
V
history” debate. (700-800 words)
Theories of State
I. INTRODUCTION
he word state comes from Latin’s status meaning a
situation or a state of being (G. Sartori, The Theory of
Democracy Revisited). Niccolo Machiavelli: (1469-
1527, The Prince, his famous work) was the first to use the
term state though he did not give its definition. The state can
be defined (See Andrew Heywood: Key Concepts in Politics)
“aS a political association that establishes sovereign
jurisdiction within defined territorial borders and exercises
authority through a set of permanent institutions” (with
characteristics such as_ sovereignty, public institutions,
legitimacy, coercive powers, territoriality). Following Dunleavy
and O'Leary (Theories of State), John Hoffman and Paul
Graham (/ntroduction to Political Theory) sum up the features
of the state as under:
(a) State is a public institution, different from the
private activities of society.
(b) State alone possesses sovereignty, though
exercised by its concrete form, the government.
(c) State to apply its law and power over all the
individuals and groups living on its territory.
(d) State’s officials to be recruited on merit rather than
nominated on patrimonial criteria.
(e) State’s capacity to extract revenue (taxes) from a
subject population.
These characteristics follow the position taken by Max
Weber (1864-1920: Politics as a Vocation) in which he refers
to features such as state’s territoriality, its monopoly of the
means of physical violence and its legitimacy.
The state needs to be distinguished from its other
numerous related terms. It is not government because the
government is the concrete reality of the state. It is sovereign
though its sovereignty is exercised by the government. It is
not society because society concerns itself with the social
order while it is, itself, the embodiment of a legal system. It is
not community because the community stands for fellowship,
personal intimacy, and wholeness while it is always an
impersonal entity. It is not nation because a nation is the
union of hearts while it is what laws make it to be. It is not
country because a country relates itself to borders, climates,
and the Earth what it contains in its womb and above it. It is
not the political system because a political system is much
larger than what it is. Political system consists of formal and
informal structures which manifest the state’s sovereignty
over a territory and people. While the political system is the
civil aspect of statehood, the state, on the other, is the
political aspect of the political system.
ll. STATE: DEFINITIONS
There is a reference of the state in all the writings of
philosophers from Plato down to our times.
Plato (427-327 BC) thought of the state as a system of

relationships in which everyone does what he is capable
of doing—the rulers only maintaining and promoting
such relationships where the object is the happiness of
all.
Aristotle (384-322 BC) defines the state as the union of
families and villages sharing a life of virtue and aiming
at an end which consists of perfect and self-complete
existence.
Cicero (106-43 BC) speaks of the state as “the people’s
affairs who are united by a common agreement about
law and rights and by the desire to participate in mutual
advantages.”
St. Augustine (354-430 AD) defines the state as an
“assemblage of reasonable beings bound together by a
common agreement as to the objects they desire.”
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) regards the state as an
instrument that helps man attain salvation by providing
him both his natural perfection and material necessities.
Marsilio of Padua (1270-1343) considers the state
necessary if peace is to reign, if cooperation among
people is to be sought, and if actions injurious to the
health of the state are to be removed.
Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) regards the state—as
against the medieval concept— as an end in itself which
exists for its own preservation and for its own
advantage.
Jean Bodin (1530-96) defines the state as “a lawful
government of several households, and of their
common possessions, with sovereign power.”
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) speaking about the state,
says, “The final cause, end, or design of man (in
commonwealths), is the foresight of their own
preservation and of a more contented life thereby; that
is to say, of getting themselves out from that miserable
condition of war ... where there is no visible power to
keep in awe, and tie them by fear of punishment to the
performance of their covenants and observation of the
laws of nature. “ And that power instituted as a result of
the founding of commonwealth, Hobbes says, is
omnipotent.
John Locke (1632-1704) says, “The great and chief end,
therefore, or men’s uniting into commonwealth, and
putting themselves under government, is the
preservation of their property; to which in the state of
nature there are many things wanting”. And for Locke, a
government so constituted is by its very nature of the
end it performs, is “limited”.
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) considers the state, once
composed as a means for attaining the greatest
happiness of the greatest number and this is why he
specifies four subordinate ends of the government:
abundance, subsistence, equality and security.
Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) regards the state as a
committee of management which has no intrinsic
authority beyond the ethical sanction bestowed on it by
the consent of the citizens. He says, “The function of
liberalism in the past was that of putting a limit on
powers of kings. The function of true liberalism in the
future will be that of putting a limit to the powers of
parliaments.”
Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-78) speaks of the state,
saying, “This public person, so formed by the union of
all other persons, formerly took the name of City, and
now takes that of Republic or body-politic; it is called by
its members State when passive, Sovereign when
active, and Power when compared with others like
itself.” Rousseau’s state, based on the general will, is
sovereign: “Whoever refuses to obey the general will
shall be compelled to do so by the whole body.” This
means nothing less than that he will be forced to be
free.”
Edmund Burke (1729-97) defines the state as “a
partnership in all sciences, a partnership in all arts, a
partnership in every virtue and in all perfection, .... a
partnership not only between those who are living, but
between those who are living, those who are dead, and
those who are to be born.”
G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831) considers the state as divine
and moral entity which alone is capable of bestowing all
spiritual reality, a march of God on the Earth.
Alexis De Tocqueville (1805-59), while realising the
value of the democratic state, is afraid of democracy as
the rule of the incompetent.
John Stuart Mill (1806-73), on the other hand, regards
the state, if democratically established, as a positive
instrument, which can help the individual achieve
progress and enjoy liberty.
Thomas Hill Green (1836-82) defines the state as “a
body of persons, recognised by each other as having
rights and possessing certain institutions for the
maintenance of those rights.”
Karl Marx (1818-83) and Frederick Engels (1820-95)
regard the state as the political organisation of the class
dominant in economy, whose purpose is to safeguard
the existing order, nothing more than a machine for the
oppression of one class by another.
“ The state is individual writ large’ — Plato
The Republic has been acclaimed as a “masterpiece”

(Solomon and Higgins),“the original source of the rationalist
tradition in Western Civilisation” (Lavine), and the “most
famous dialogue among the educated public at large”
(Ferre). Supposedly, “the whole of Western philosophy is
but a set of footnotes to Plato” (Danto), who was “the
greatest writer in philosophy” (Solomon and Higgins) and
“the father of all rationalist philosophers” (de Bono),
Plato had rooted his perfect society in a metabiological
metaphor, namely: the State was individual writ large.
Therefore, like the “just” man who harmonised the rational,
spirited, and appetitive elements of his warring nature
under the governorship of his intelligence, the “just” state
would harmonise its societal nature via_ three
counterbalancing social stratifications:
(a) the guardian/ruling class (i.e., kings/governors).
(b) the auxiliary/military class (i.e., soldiers), and
(c) the working/producing class (i.e., farmers,
businessmen, the man-on-the -street, but not
slaves).
All three social stratifications were to be governed by the
guardians, who were considered the “king-bees in a hive”
(Plato). This semi-organic, tripartite system was roughly
characterised by the Thracian Sophist Thrasymachus
(representing Intellect), the warlord Polemarchus
(representing Courage and Spirit), and the retired
businessman Cephalus (representing the Appetitive). For
Plato, the “Ideal State is presented as the social
embodiment of justice. The division of functions in the state
is the principle which expresses “the nature of justice”
(Melling). Therefore, the “Republic is not merely a political
tract;it is an allegory of the government of a man’s own
soul” (Lewis).
(a) Theories of the State: Constituents
The Idealist Theory

It is a theory which seeks to explain as to what the state
should contain and for what purpose: a state that it ought to
be: Plato’s Ideal state has, three elements: appetite, spirit,
reason and the corresponding classes with functions would
be the producing class (production), the auxiliary class
(protection), and the ruling class (leadership). This is what
one finds in Republic; Hegel (The Philosophy of History, The
Philosophy of Law) refers about three moments of social
existence: family (particular altruism), civil society (universal
egoism), and the state (universal altruism): the state is all
good, all perfection: the march of God on earth.
The Functional Theory

It is a theory which focusses on the purposes of the state—for
what the state exists or for what it has been composed. Plato
expects the rulers to maintain and promote happiness of the
state; Aristotle’s state exists for good life; Cicero’s law, for
mutual advantages; so is Augustine’s city of man; Aquinas’s
state exists to attain salvation while Marsilio’s peace and
cooperation. Machiavelli's state is an end in itself. The
liberals, from Locke to Nozick, seek the state to act as a
means, hence they do not favour a collectivistic state: their
state is limited, a /aissez faire state, a positive one to the
extent of being a welfare state and the later liberals, settle
down to a minimal state. The conservatives, Burke
particularly, want the state to protect everything that has the
approval of tradition: a partnership in all sciences, in all arts,
in all virtue, and in all perfection.
The Instrumentalist Theory

It is a theory that regards the state as an instrument to serve
those who control it. The capitalists’ state serves the
capitalists and exploits the workers; the workers’ state serves
the workers and exploits the capitalists. The patrimonial state
seeks to maintain the patriarchal order to the disadvantages
of women.
The Organisational Theory

This is a theory which defines the state in terms of its
machinery; the apparatus of government: the institutions of
government, bureaucracy, the military, the police, the courts,
and the social-security system.
The Leviathan Theory

It is a theory which grants the state all powers so to make it
absolute, i.e., omnipotent. Hobbes (Leviathan) gives the state
absolute powers — centralised and undivided. Bodin
(Republic) too defines the state as one with sovereign
powers. The fascists and the totalitarians do not look beyond
the state: “everything for the state, nothing against the state,
nothing alone the state.”
(— a
“The state is prior to the individual‘—Aristotle
The state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the

individual since the whole is of necessity prior to the part;
for example, if the whole body be destroyed, there will be
no foot or hand, except in an equivocal sense, as we might
speak of a stone hand; for when destroyed the hand will be
no better than that. But things are defined by their working
and power; and we ought not to say that they are the same
when they no longer have their proper quality but only that
they have the same name. The proof that the state is a
creation of nature and prior to the individual is that the
individual, when isolated, is not self-sufficing; and therefore,
he is like a part in relation to the whole. But he who is
unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is
sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god: he is
no part of a state.
(b) Theories of the State: Origins
There are numerous theories with regard to origin of the
state. The divine theory (advocates: all religious sects, James
I: The Law of Free Monarchies; Filmer, Patriarch) regards
state as the handiwork of God; monarchy as divinely ordained
institution; kings as the breathing-images of God;
disobedience to their laws is a crime as well as a sin. The
theory has no support today except among the religious
people. It has been criticised for being unhistorical,
reactionary, and unscientific. The force theory (advocates:
Oppenheimer: The State, Jenks: History of Politics) makes
force the basis of state: war helping in begetting the state,
force helping in protecting and expanding it. The theory’s
greatest drawback is that what has been one factor in the
making of the state has been magnified as the only factor.
Green (Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation)
rightly says that will, and not force, has been the basis of the
state, or as Rousseau (The Social Contract) had said, “To
yield to force is an act of necessity, not of will..” Maclver (The
Web of Government) declares, “Force alone never holds a
group together.” The social contract theory (advocates:
Hobbes, Leviathan; Locke, Two Treaties of Government;
Rousseau, The Social Contract) describes the state as the
product of human will; the result of the contract which took
people from the state of nature to the political society. The
theory failed on grounds that it was a bad history, a bad law,
and a bad philosophy. The three contractualists, among
themselves, differed drastically: for Hobbes, the state of
nature was the state of war while for Locke, it was the state of
peace, and for Rousseau, it was almost the state of plenty
and prosperity; man in the state of nature was “solitary, poor,
nasty, brutish, and short”, for Hobbes; he was a social, moral,
and rational being, for Locke; Rousseau described man in the
state of nature as a “noble savage”. Hobbes’s social contract
created both the society and the state; Locke’s contract
created state so as to protect man’s property; Rousseau’s
contract created the society based on man’s actual (i.e.
selfish) will; Hobbe’s sovereign was all powerful (legal
sovereignty); the Lockean state was limited (political
sovereignty), Rousseau built a popular sovereign.
Rousseau’s sovereign was like Hobbesian leviathan, its head
chopped off (Vaughan: Studies in the History of Political
Philosophy), for he began like Locke but ended up as Hobbes
did. The evolutionary or historical theory (advocates: almost
all the present day liberals) believes that the state is an
evolution, the result of the whole past, evolving slowly and
gradually, with numerous factors (major ones being: social
instinct, kinship, force, religion, economic activities, political
consciousness, etc.) contributing their lot. The Marxist theory
(advocates: Karl Marx, E. Engels: The Origins of the Family,
Private Property and the State; V.I. Lenin, The State and
Revolution) describes the state as the result of a class
society, the manifestation of irreconcilable interests working in
the interests of the possessing class and as an instrument of
exploitation against the non-possessing one. The patriarchal
theory (advocate: Henry Maine, Ancient Law) and the
matriarchal theory (advocates: Morgan, Studies in Ancient
Society, McLennan, Primitive Society) regards the state as
the expansion of families which were patriarchal (Maine) or
matriarchal (Morgan, McLennan). The state evolved through
simplicity to complexity, from tribal stage to national and
global one.
(c) Theories of the State: Nature, Justification

The state appeared differently to different philosophers. For
Plato and Aristotle, the state is the embodiment of human
traits: with Plato, it is “individual writ large” with instincts such
as appetite, spirit, and reason, and with Aristotle, the state is
prior to the individual as the whole is always prior to its parts.
The medievals, especially the Church fathers, thought of the
state as an institution created by God. Those associated with
law and judiciary see in the state a juridical person, a legal
personality. With these such as Krabbe, Kelson, Gierke,
Blackstone, Benthan, Austin, the state is an institution which
acts through and by means of law. The organismistics (Rene
Worms, Organism and Society; Paul Lenenfield, Thoughts
Concerning the Social Sciences of the Future; Albert Schaffle,
The Structure and the Life of the Social Body; Spencer,
Principles of Sociology) think of state as a human organism
with sustaining, distributive, and regulative systems found in
stomach, veins, and brain. The extreme idealists such as
Hegel (The Philosophy of Right) and Kant (Political Writings)
regard the state as a godly institution, and therefore,
omnipotent, and the moderate idealists such as Green
(Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation), Bradley
(Ethical Studies) and Bosanquet (The Philosophical Theory of
State), consider the state as an ethical institution which
responds to social instincts of the people. All liberals from
Locke to Nozick think of state as a means for the end of the
individual, i.e., the state exists for the individual. All Marxists,
Marx onwards, regard the state as a class institution and
therefore, partisan, oppressive, and _ exploitative. The
justification of the state has been made out by some while it
has been ruled out by others. The anarchist view (as
represented by the Englishman Godwin (1756-1836: An
Inquiry Concerning Political Justice), the French Proudhon
(1809-65, Philosophy of Poverty, What is Property?), the
Germen Stirner (1806-56, The Ego and His Own), Bakunin
(1814-76, Statehood and Anarchy), Kropotkin (1842-1921,
Modern Sciences and Anarchism) deplore every type of
political authority, condemning it both as unnecessary and
undesirable. The anarchists (Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is
Within You, What Shall We Do Now?; Ruskin’s Unto This
Last; Thoreau’s essay on “civil Disobedience, “ his statement
that “That government is the best which governs the least”)
consider the state (i.e., the government or the law) as both
useless and mischievous, and have, therefore, no justification
whatsoever. The religious view, on the contrary, justifies the
state on the ground that it has been the creation of God. The
force theory justifies the existence of the state on the ground
that it alone possesses the monopoly of superior physical
force and its use of coercive force regarded legally valid.
There is the contractarian view as represented by Hobbes,
Locke, and Rousseau justifying the state for its being the
deliberate choice of the people. The utilitarian view of the
justification of state is that it, by providing the conducive
atmosphere of law and order, and security, is itself a useful
institution. Bentham (1748-1832) and J.S. Mill (1806-73) had
offered the utilitarian justification of the state. The idealist
view, as presented by Plato, Hegel, and Rousseau justifies
the state as both being the ideal and the ethical polity. The
Marxist view of the justification of the state stems from the
fact that, it being an instrument of social and economic
change, helps build the newer order after abolishing the older
one though it withers away in the long run.
State As A Lawful Government—Bodin

The state, for Bodin (1530-96, Republic) is more than a
mere collection of several households. It is a_ lawful
government, with sovereign power. He says: “... a state is a
lawful government in order to distinguish it from a gang of
robbers or of pirates ... however, much such a gang may
seem to form a society, and its members to live in unity
among themselves, we ought not to call it a society or state
. because it lacks the principal mark of a peaceful society,
namely a lawful government, according to the law of nature.
It is obvious that a mere collection of several families alone
would not make Bodin’s state: that may be a civil society.
But the civil society must have a government, a legitimate
government: that lawful government has to be a
government according to the law of nature.
(d) Theories of the State:Role

The rival theories exist with regard to the role the state should
perform. Some such theories are:
|. The Minimal State: Liberals, Libertarians, Neo-

Liberals
Liberalism is fairly an old ideology: Negative (Locke, Adam
Smith, Bentham, Montesquieu, Spencer), Positive (Mill,
Green), Welfare (Laski, Keynes, Maclver), Libertarian (Hayek,
Rawls, Dworkin, Nozick), Neo-liberals (Reagan, Thatcher,
Roger, Manmohan Singh), Republican (Skinner, Pettit,
Sandel), and Communitarians (Macintyre, Taylor, Walzer).
All the liberals or their variants favour a minimal state; or
say the limited state, i.e., a non-collectivistic one: considering
the state as a means, some liberals, giving relatively more
powers, some less powers, on one ground or on another
some trying to avoid absolutism, some trying to defend liberty.
Hobbes lays the foundation of the liberal state though he is
not a thorough-going liberal: liberal in the sense that he
makes the state based on the intentions of the people; Locke
is a liberal, in fact a fore-runner of liberalism: begins with the
individual, and ends up with him: limited state and
autonomous individual: exists only to protect the property of
the people. From Hobbes to Locke, the liberal state moves
from the absolute state to limited one. Montesquieu (1689-
1755) calls for institutional safeguards: theory of separation of
powers; Adam Smith (1723-90) seeks a /aissez faire state, a
state to guarantee rights and liberties of the people. Bentham
moves from /aissez faire to a non-interventionist state—the
state exists to promote the greatest happiness of the greatest
number: possibly only when it intervenes the least in the life
of the individual: subsistence, abundance, security, equality.
The positive liberals (Mill and Green) come to build an
individual-friendly state: it is not an evil, not a necessary evil,
but a necessary, if not a good, institution: both incorporate a
democratic element in the state: it is what people make it to
be: liberal state becomes a_ liberal-democratic state:
Macpherson in his book: The Real World of Democracy. The
welfare-liberals (Laski and Maclver) refer to protective and
promotive state —all these rejecting the collectivistic state.
Libertarians (Hayek, Nozick, Rawls, Dworkin) advocate a
minimal state; a state with minimum functions: night watch-
man state, protective in nature—from theft, fraud, injury—and
a state that does only the general functions and _ that
supervises the market rules as they exist, and one that need
not tax the rich to help the poor. It is neither a welfare state
nor an anarchist one. It is one that respects the rights and
liberties of the people, protecting them, and in no case taking
them away from the individuals. It is, to that extent, a police
state, the Lockean night-watchman state, a U-turn position
towards Locke.
The New Right is the new libertarian right as the New Left
is the new libertarian left. The New Right arose as a protest
against the New Left (broadly a group with socialist
sympathies, the feminists, the ecological campaigners, the
pacifists) in the late 1960s and the early 1970s. The New
Right (also called the new liberals or neo-conservatives) are
committed, generally, to the following:
1. That political life, like the economic life, is or ought to be
a matter of individual freedom and initiative;
2. That there has to be accordingly a /aissez faire market
society with a minimal state;
3. The political programme, David Held says, of the New
Right includes:
i. the extension of the market to more and more areas of

life;
ii. the creation of a state stripped of excessive involvement
in economy and in the provision of opportunities;
iii. the curtailment of the power of certain groups (for
instance, the trade unions) to press their aims and
goals; and
iv. the establishment of a strong government to enforce law
and order.
The New Left liberal scholars (Patemen, Macpherson, and

Poulantzas) seek to combine the insights of the liberal and
the Marxist traditions. Their perspective of the state is:
f— a
The Neo-liberal State and the Minimal State
There is a lot that is common between the neo-liberal state

and the minimal state. Both advocate a limited state: /imited
in functions and limited in powers. Both allow the private
sector to flourish and thus regard a collectivist state
detrimental to individual initiative and freedom. Both tend to
seek a non-welfare state; both do not want the state to
spend on social services; the minimal state wants the state
to be a police state, protecting the individual from fraud and
injury; the neo-liberal state wants the state to leave
economy free from state regulations and controls. The
minimal state is a night-watchman state; the neo-liberal
state is a state to be regulated by the law of the market.
The minimal state advocates more of political liberty, than
of economic, whereas the neo-liberals are for economic
freedom.
i. That all the key institutions of society, from the large

state to the small work place, should be built on direct
participation of the citizens.
ii. That the leaders of the political parties be made
accountable to their respective members.
iii. That the open institutional system be maintained to
ensure the possibility of making experiments in the
system itself.
iv. That the poor be taken care of, unaccountability of
bureaucratic power be eradicated, and open information
system be ensured so as to have access to decisions
made and policies determined.
The neo-liberals are market-oriented liberals who have

moved from libertarians’ politics to economics: they see
market to be morally and practically superior to government
on the following bases — rule of the market, market as self-
regulating device, deunionising, freedom from the state or
government. They emphasise reducing of public expenditure
on social service (health, services), deregulation,
privatisation, and liberalisation.
( a
Laissezfaire State and the Minimal State
The /aissez faire state and the minimal state are not the
same. Historically, the laissez faire state arose with
philosophers such as Locke and Smith whereas the
minimal state, with Nozick—the former during the
seventeenth-eighteenth centuries, the latter during the late
twentieth century. In content, the two types of states differ.
Indeed, both favour a limited state, but the laissez faire
state was not averse to wel-fare services to be performed
by the state. This is not true about the minimal state. While
for the laissez faire state, market was itself a perfect
institution, the minimal state advocates never assumed of
any institution, including the market, as perfect. The two
differ on the definition of liberty. As Hayek points out, liberty
for the advocates of the minimal state means that condition
of men in which coercion of some by others is reduced as
much as is possible in the society; for the laissez faire
state, liberty meant the total elimination of coercion.
Sciabarra makes a difference by saying that the two share
the same root, but have become two different plants;
though they both share the same world in terms of heart,
they do not share the same world in terms of mind.
XY J
Neo-liberalism criticises the welfare state on grounds such

as:
e The increasing cost of bureaucracy—the public sector

as unproductive labour, and the government rules and
regulations obstruct commercial enterprise and
initiative.
© over-taxing the people in order to pay for a large public
staff and public programmes.
e A lack of economic competition in many parts of the
economy (e.g., nationalised monopolies).
e A culture of welfare dependency; many people become
too dependent on the welfare state, rather than being
self-responsible.
e The state stifles and prohibits initiative, independence,
and choice.
e Ina global era, the state is ineffective and powerless to
act unilaterally, an isolation and in contradiction to
policies in other countries.
The neo-liberals suggest that the welfare state must

reduce:
e cut-backs in social expenditure such as welfare

payments, education and medical services;
© supply-side economic management such as incentives
to work and to reward innovations;
e privatisation of nationalised companies and deregulation
of the public sector;
e re-definition of the relationship between the state and
the citizen, so less social rights, more self-
responsibilities, and the use of consumer and enterprise
discourses (concepts and ideas) in the public sphere;
this means:
O a reduction of social rights; and

O the person as an entrepreneur, a consumer and a self-
responsible citizen.
The Communitarian State

The communitarian state (Macintyre, Walzer, and the like) as
opposed to the libertarian state, regards the individual not as
isolated but as one constituted through the community, a
social animal (neo-Aristotelianism). It is a state that weds
individual to his/her community expecting from the individual,
respect for the community—its culture, its values, its history. It
is a positive state with active citizenship. The usual three
types of communitarianism seek varying degrees of loyalty
from the individual: left-wing asking unrestricted freedom and
social equality for the community; centrist, acknowledging
reciprocal rights and obligations; right-wing, requiring request
for authority and social values. It is a state which promotes
community values.
Republicanism
It is still another variant of liberalism. Its advocates include
Skinner, Pettit, and Sunstein. Its roots go back to Cicero,
Machiavelli, Montesquieu, and Jefferson. Basically,
republicans are opposed to aristocracy, oligarchy, monarchy,
and dictatorship: like the liberals, they lay emphasis on
liberties and rights of the people; like communitarians, they
advocate citizenship as civic virtue. They remain committed to
institutional devices such as the rule of law, separation of
powers, federalism, and constitutionally entrenched rights.
Heywood regards republicanism as politically incoherent and
illiberal for ignoring issues such as_ multi-culturalism,
distributive justice, and environmentalism. It has yet to
formulate its views on international relations.
ll. The Pluralist State

Contrary to classical theorists, most English pluralists (Figgis,
Barker, GDH Cole, Laski, Maitland, Follett) condemned the
Austinian sovereignty, the American pluralism emerged
during the post Second World War period on a land referred
usually as a mixture of races. The American pluralist society
is best understood through the generalisation that power is
relatively broadly (though unequally) distributed among many
more or less organised interest/pressure groups that
complete with one another to control public policy. To some
extent, there is no single, unified, “power elite” but rather
there are competing power elites with varying backgrounds,
values, and bases of support in the pluralist society.
State/government tends to be a mechanism for mediating
between diffused groups and an instrument to work for
dominant groups where the latter are relatively significant.
The pluralist theory of state does not visualise state as an
innovator. It revolves around less or more powerful groups:
less powerful the groups, there is relatively an assertive state;
more powerful the groups, there is relatively a less significant
state.
The numerous pluralists, working in the liberal tradition,
mostly in the United States, are: classical pluralists (Truman,
The Governmental Process; Dahl, Pluralist Democracy in the
United States), the reformed pluralists (Richardson, Statistics:
Deadly Quarrels; Jordan, The State: Authority and Autonomy,
the pluralists elitists (McConnell, Private Power and American
Democracy; Lowi, The Politics of Disorder), and the neo-
pluralists (Lindblom and Dahl, Politics, Economics and
Welfare). Their perspectives of state can be stated as follows:
(a) The classical pluralist perspective of the modern state
includes the following features:
i. The state is a site of group conflict and therefore, highly

responsive to group pressures.
ii. Groups, with varying resources, while easily formed,
exist in their relations of continual conflicts.
iii, Power is an observable and a dispersed phenomenon.
iv. Groups are the bases of government, especially the
potential groups.
(b) The reformed pluralist perspective of the modern state
includes features such as:
The state is fragmented and is responsive to groups but

the access to the state (or government) is differential.
. All the groups are not equal; only privileged groups
participate in policy-making but there is a role for
excluded groups in forcing policy changes.
. Power, here as well, is both observable and dispersed.
Democracy is threatened by policy-making potential
groups but the excluded groups do have a limited role in
protecting the democratic norms.
Society and the state get integrated into each other
through potential groups.
(c) The pluralist elitist perspective of the modern state has

features such as:
The state is, indeed, fragmented with highly resourced

potential groups having a degree of access to the state
and hence, claiming a corresponding degree of state
autonomy.
. The potential elite groups have easy access to the
governmental positions but different groups dominate in
different areas.
Power is both observable and unobservable. Altough
there is a tendency towards the concentration of power
yet it is dispersed at least in certain policy areas.
There exist groups, though in segmented policy areas,
but they do limit the effectiveness of democracy.
Civil society is distinct from the state but has a limited
influence on it.
The characteristic features of the neo-pluralist perspective
of the state are:
i. The state is biased towards the business interests in

economic policy.
ii. Business interests have a crucial role in policy-making,
reducing, thus, the importance of group behaviour.
iii, Power is unobservable, structural, and ideological. It is
concentrated in primary issues but dispersed in
secondary ones.
iv. There is no control over power which is concentrated in
primary issues, and hence, there is democracy but it is
very little.
v. Society is distinct from the state but has a limited
influence on it.
The neo-pluralist theory of state is relatively more complex

in which industrial/ousiness houses enjoy a privileged position
and is, thus, less responsive to the people at large. Lindblom
is of the opinion that the state in a pluralist society is inclined
towards business, and it may tend to serve its own state elite
composed of senior civil servants, judges, police chiefs,
military leaders, and so on.
lil. The Developmental State

Thandika Mkandawire says the “development state” has two
components: one, ideological and the other, structural. Its
ideological component helps distinguish it from other forms of
states. In terms of ideology, such a state is “developmentalist”
i.e. its mission is economic development through
industrialisation and high rate of economic growth. The
developmental state structurally emphasises capacity to
implement economic policies sagaciously and effectively:
capacity is institutional, technical, administrative, and political.
So understood, the developmental state is neither socialist,
nor dictatorial nor totalitarian nor Marxian. It is, indeed,
neither conservtive nor even idealist. It may or may not resort
to planned production. It may be a strong as well as a soft
state. What is important to note about the developmental
state is that it recognises the association of economic and
financial groups to help the state attain development. It is “a
partnership” state in which, as Andrew Heywood (Politics)
says, “an emphasis is placed on the maintenance of a close
relationship between the state and major economic interests,
notably the big business and organised labour. Such states
have come to exist, following the World War Il, in Japan,
South Korea, Austria, Germany, east Asian countries such as
Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Indonesia, Malaysia, with
tiger economies (see Heywood, Politics), also referred to as
newly industrialised countries. The characteristics of the
“developmental state” may be summed up as follows:
i. a positive state, supporting industries;

ii. self-sustaining growth;
ili, a non-challenging civil society which does not interrupt
the process of growth;
iv. technological upgrading and supportive economic and
financial policies;
v. social, political, and institutional modernisation;
vi. widespread improvement in human conditions;
vii. unprecedented degree of autonomy in managing
economic life;
viii. flow of subsidised capital and technical assistance;
ix. public and private sector elites, work together to pursue
the goal; and
x. a highly efficient bureaucracy to facilitate growth and
development.
lV. The Totalitarian State: Idealist, Fascist,

Conservative
The totalitarian state is a state with all-comprehensive
functions. Such a state tends to be and absolute one, i.e., a
state with absolute powers. The idealist, the fascist, and the
conservative states tend to be become totalitarian in functions
and absolute in powers.
The Idealist State (Plato, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel) is ethical
to the point of being a divine one. It is organismic in so far as
it is oriented towards the whole than towards the parts —
parts existing for the whole and not the other way. It is
visionary so far as it seeks to advocate the idea of good—the
ideal type — responding to human will and consciousness. It
is a state with all functions, all powers, collectivistic, and
tends to be a Leviathanian one, totalitarian and authoritarian
(statism) at that. As against the libertarian state that exists to
respect civil society, the idealist state dominates all its
aspects, economy including. For Rousseau, it can force the
individual to be free; for Hegel, it is a march of God on earth
where the individual’s freedom lies in the obedience of its
laws, and not in their violation.
The Fascist State is a shade worse than the idealist one.
Like the idealist state, the fascist state is totalitarian and
authoritarian but it tends to become a racist one. It is a state
where political authority is not only autocratic but also
aristocratic. The fascists (followers of Mussolini and Hitler)
believe in one party and one leader where nation and society
merge into the state, the state into government, the
government into the party, and the party into the leader. In
such a system, words like “liberty”, “equality”, and “fraternity”
get replaced by “duty”, “discipline” and “devotion”. Civil
society, economy, and culture are attuned to the dictates of
the state: war becomes natural for the state (also, for the
man) as is maternity for the woman.
The Conservative state (Burke 1729-97) thrives on
traditionalism, i.e on traditional values. For such a state, all
that is old is good and thus has to be preserved; all that is
present is to be protected and all that is new is to be avoided;
all that is innovative is to be opposed. For the conservatives,
conservation is more than an ideology, it is a faith, it is a
religion, it is an attitude, if not a mentality. For them, all
traditions are flawless, society is an organic whole, authority
is just, property is sacred, common individuals are imperfect,
the state is all perfection. Conservatism is
i. authoritarian in so far as it advocates “reforms from

above” and rejects “revolution from below’:
ii. libertarian in so far as it seeks the greatest possible
economic liberty, and the least possible governmental
regulation—the New Right tradition.
V. The Social-Democratic State

The social-democratic perspective of the state includes
numerous shades such as evolutionary, Fabian, guild-
socialist, parliamentary, and, to some extent, syndicalist. The
common features of this perspective are:
i. The complete abandonment of the idea of revolutionary

methods and violence as a means to power and the
complete acceptance of parliamentary means.
ii. The transformation of the socialist parties which speak
only for the interests of the working class to peoples’
parties which seek to establish general welfare.
iii. The recognition that the definition of socialism as a
social and economic ideal is inseparable from the idea
of democracy—both as a means and as an end. As a
means, socialism has to be attained through democratic
means or democratic polity has to bring about
legislation relating to social justice. As an end, socialism
has to establish democratic norms and democracy has
to attain the ideal of socialism.
iv. Respect for human freedom and human personality.
v. The acceptance of the state to the extent it is
necessary.
vi. The surrender of the idea of nationalism or state
ownership of the means of production as a “first
principle” of socialism and the substitution of public
control of enterprise and planning as the means of
achieving economic growth and equitable incomes.
vii. A complete opposition to all types of totalitarianism and
authoritarianism and the es-tablishment of a polity,
democratically constituted, which is responsible for what
it does and responsive to what it ought to do. It is as
much a democratic state with the ideals of socialism as
is a socialist state with the ideals of democracy.
Vi. The Marxian State

The Marxian perspective of state is one which believes that
the state is the product of class society, and is, therefore, an
instrument in the hands of those who control the society. As it
arose following the rise of the class society, it remains in
operation so long as the class society remains. In the socialist
society, following the capitalistic class society, the proletarian
state exists to protect and promote the workers and exploit
the capitalists. As such, as and when socialist society helps
build socialism, it will change into a communist society — a
society without the state: a classless and a stateless society.
A Marxian socialist society is a classless society where
everyone gets work according to his/her abilities; a
communist society is a classless and a stateless society
where everyone’s work creates a situation of the fulfilment of
everyone’s needs. Marxists regard the state as an instrument
of class exploitation: the economically dominant class exploits
the non-possessing class. They also regard the state as an
instrument of social, economic, cultural and political change,
destroying the social, economic, cultural, and political change
of the earlier society, and building, through changes, fabric of
the new society: the master’s state destroyed the fabric of
primitive-communist society and built that of the masters; so
did the feudal state destroy the fabric of the master’s society
and built that of the feudal lords; the capitalist state destroyed
the fabric of the feudal society and built that of the capitalists;
the socialist-Marxian society will destroy the fabric of the
capitalist society and build that of the working class — all
such changes will come through revolution. As the socialist-
Marxian state will be an instrument of classless society, its
transformation into communist society will be smooth and
peaceful and in the process, the socialist-Marxian state will,
itself, wither away. In any case, the state, as an institution, will
remain relatively autonomous, whatever be the kind of
society.
Marx on the State
Marx saw the state as being a product of class struggle.

It was the executive committee of the ruling class: “political
power, properly called, is merely the instrument of one
class for oppressing another (capitalists oppressing the
workers in the capitalists society and the workers,
oppressing the capitalists in the socialist society). In the
socialist society, Marx claims that the worker must employ
forcible means, hence governmental means.” In The Civil
VVar in France, Marx says that the state, following the Paris
Commune of 1871, has assumed more and more the
character of the national power of capital over labour .... an
engine of class despotism.” Therefore, he continues, “the
working class cannot simply lay hold of the readymade
state machinery and hold it for its own purposes.” What will
be the role of the state in the transitional socialist society,
Marx visualises the transfor-mation of the state as a means
of deception which it was (under capitalism) into an
insttument of emancipation.” But eventually in the
communist society, the state will wither away.”
\ J
The Marxian perspective of the state can be stated as

under:
i. The economic factor is the sole guiding factor in the

development and understanding of the history and the
modern state.
ii. Society and state are two distinct realities, the type of
society explains the type of state; the society, thus,
furnishes the basis over which the superstructure of the
state is constructed.
iii. The state is not independent of society, though it will
seem relatively autonomous.
iv. The state is a means for the fulfillment of the ends of
those who control the society. The slave-owing society
serves the masters; the feudal state serves the feudal
lords, the capitalist state serves the capitalists; and the
socialists (of Marxian) state, the workers.
v. The class society produces a state that serves the
economically dominant class in order to exploit the
weaker classes.
vi. The state, thus, is an instrument of class oppression
and plays a dual role of destruction and reconstruction
in any society.
vii. The abolition of private property is necessary for a
classless society.
viii. The dictatorship of the proletariat is not the abolition of
state. The state works for the welfare of the proletariat
and eventually for the preparation of a classless society.
The Marxists, unlike the anarchists (Godwin: 1756-1836;

Stirner: 1806-56; Proudhon: 1809-65; Bakunin: 1814-76;
Kropotkin: 1842-1921), realise the utility of the state so far as
it helps bring about social and political changes, though like
them, regard it as an instrument of exploitation, and unlike the
anarchists, seeking its withering away ultimately.
Following Gramsci (1891-1937, Prison Notebooks) and
Nicos Poultanzas, a Greek neo-Marxist: Political Power and
Social Classes) argue for a relative autonomy of the state
itself, particularly in the capitalist societies.
Vil. The Post-Colonial State

Immediately after the process of decolonisation, there have
appeared what may be called the third world nations. The
third world countries not only differ among themselves, they
differ from their counterparts in the West. In the West, the
nations have created the states whereas in the third world
countries, the state has created the nation. The third world
countries differ among themselves drastically-socially,
culturally, and economically. What was common among them
included economic and social backwardness — almost every
such sovereign state was exploited by its colonial power.
Poverty, illiteracy, ill-health, the low level of standard of living,
and the like were their lot. With these liabilities, the third world
countries were to protect their recently-won freedoms. The
task was Himalayan; the path was difficult; the base was very
weak.
The post-colonial state that emerged in such nations had its
own characteristics. Hamza Alavi (The State in the Post-
colonial Societies—Pakistan and Bangladesh) refers to two
such features:
(a) the post-colonial state is equipped with a powerful
bureaucratic-military apparatus and mechanisms of
government;
(b) such a state appropriates a very large part of economic
surplus and deploys it in the bureaucratically-directed
economic activity in the name of economic development.
The post-colonial state, once established, came to be led
by political elite which fought for independence. The Indian
National Congress, for example, led the freedom struggle and
became later the ruling political party. Such a type of colonial
state came into existence elsewhere as well. It gave the
people a Constitution: democratically based universal adult
franchise; an economy; a socialist or a semi-socialist; and a
foreign policy: relatively non-aligned.
In numerous such third world countries, the post-colonial
state was unable to deliver goods, partly because of its own
compulsions (such as_ electoral compulsions, _ political
corruption, totalitarian tendencies) and partly because of the
problems of the post-colonial societies (such as widespread
inequalities, social and economic backwardness, social
apathy, political inexperience, lack of socialisation and
political culture). Obviously, somewhere legitimacy came to
be challenged and somewhere power came to be abused or
misused; somewhere, authoritarianism replaced
democracies, and somewhere democracies became
“government off the people, far the people, and bye (or say
buy) the people.”
Vill. The Feminist Perspective of the State

The feminists do not have any definite theory of the state
though they have a wide range of different attitudes towards
state power. For them, the nature of the state is not a political
issue at all. They condemn all the institutions (including
political) on the ground that these represent the male power.
There are liberal feminists who seek to attain equal rights for
men and women and in the process ask for women
empowerment. There are the Marxists and the socialist-
feminists who saw the emancipation of women linked with the
weakening and in fact elimination of the capitalist state. There
are the radical feminists who seek to abolish the patriarchal
system altogether and reorient society afresh.
The feminist scholars are very critical of state and the state
power. Mary Wollstonecraft (A Vindication of the Rights of
Women), lamenting the idea that power rests with the male,
says, “The power of generalising ideas, of drawing
comprehensive conclusions, is the only acquirement ... that
really deserves the name of knowledge. The power has not
only been denied to women, but writers have insisted that it is
inconsistent. with their sexual character.” Kate Millett (Sexual
Politics) has broadened the term politics to include all “power
structured relationships” and posited that the public was
made actually political. Shulamith Firestone (The Dialectic of
Sex) has described men as husbands, and lovers, oppressors
of women. Germaine Greer (The Female Eunuch) has argued
that the sexual repression of women cuts them off from the
creative energy they need to be independent and self-fulfilled.
Feminism became a river of competing eddies and
currents. “Anarcho-feminists,” who found a larger audience in
Europe than in the United States, resurrected Emma
Goldman and said that women could not be liberated without
dismantling such institutions as the family, private property,
and state power. Individualist feminists, calling on libertarian
principles of minimal government, broke with most other
feminists over the issue of turning to government for solutions
to women’s problems. Amazon feminists “celebrated the
mythical female heroine and advocated liberation through
physical strength.” And separatist feminists, including many
lesbian feminists, preached that women could not possibly
liberate themselves without at least a period of separation
from men.
Cultural Feminism
Cultural or “difference” feminism, rejects the notion that

men and women are intrinsically the same and celebrated
women’s differences, such as their greater concern for
affective relationships and their nurturing preoccupation
with others. Inherent in its message was a critique of
mainstream feminism’s attempt to enter traditionally male
spheres. This was seen as denigrating women’s natural
inclinations by attempting to make women more like men.
IX. The Gandhian Perspective of State

Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) has been an all-in-one sort of
man. To say that he was only a political leader is to conceal
much that was in him. He was religious in his convictions;
political, by compulsions; a reformer, by temperament.
Among the anarchists, he was an individualist; among the
individualists, he was a liberal; among the liberals, he was a
socialist; among the socialists, he was a Marxist, among the
Marxists, he was a Spiritualist. His personality was an
embodiment of numerous facets, each incorporated in the
other. There is a bit of every “ism” in him. This is what is
reflected in every act that he did and on every phenomenon
he chose to ponder, perspective on the state including.
Gandhiji favoured a state with the least functions. He was
of the opinion that until society becomes self-regulative and
self-evolving and until the individual becomes perfect, the
state, so long, would be necessary. Notwithstanding his
opposition to the coercive and absolute state,
Gandhiji never advocated its abolition lock, stock and
barrel. Knowing fully well the limitations of human nature as
also the non-realisation of the stateless society in any near
future, he permitted the institution of the state as minimum as
possible. He fully ascribed to what Thoreau had advocated:
that the government ought to rule the most minimum. Less
are the functions of the state, less would be its powers. What
he visualises is the absence of the state coercive apparatus
in his Ramrajya, until then, the state exists. Paul Power says:
“Unlike Tolstoy, Gandhiji did not endorse a stateless society
for the temporal world... His approach to the ethical nature of
the state agrees with Max Weber's view that the state is a
technical tool rather than something of intrinsic worth.”
( >
Gandhi and Marx
Gandhiji was close to Marxism in so far as he propounded

a type of society which is stateless in character. Like any
Marxist, Gandhiji opposed the institution of the state as an
instrument of oppression and exploitation; like any Marxist,
he found all evils in private property; like any Marxist, he
condemned the partisan state; and like any Marxist he
visualised in his Ramrajya a society without coercion and
with-out force.
But Gandhiji was more than a Marxist, he did not feel
content with material advancement. In fact, material
progress did not concern him much as did moral progress.
By conviction, Gandhiji was a spiritualist, an ethical being
and this is where he rose above Marxism. He transformed
his views on private property into a trusteeship, a concept
which ate away all types of exploitation. His concept of
Ramrajya was more of a state that would be than the state
as it is. Real Swarajya was not merely the attainment of
political freedom but was much more than that. According
to him, Swarajya begins from the individual, it is the rule of
the self; it is a matter of self-evolution and self-regulation. In
the concept of swarajya, with the individual, with the self;
such a power flows from bottom to top; it is power that is
decentralised. More the power advances up, more does it
become decentralised.
NS J
Gandhiji's perspective of the state was a polity—more

moral than physical. He viewed it as an ethical institution, a
spiritual institution at that. Gandhiji was not nonpolitical; in
fact, he was immensely political. This was so because
politics, for him, was one method of seeking one part of the
whole truth. The political activity, therefore, for Gandhiji, was
an activity that would take people to Ramrajya. At heart, he
was for an autonomous individual. According to Richards:
“His (Gandhiji’s) concern for individual liberty is such that he
thinks we should be prepared to die rather than live in slavery
and his lifelong struggle for self-government in India seems to
bear out his passionate belief in the value and importance of
freedom.”
To quote Gandhiji himself. “We must be content to die if we
cannot live as free men and women’.
Freedom of the individual rather than the absolutism of the
state was Gandhiji’s essence of political philosophy.
X. The Hollow State, Civil Society Globalisation
The concept of a “hollow” state has been the result of the
emergence of stateless nationalities within the framework of
the state already in existence but one that is not being
recognised. The notable examples, as Heywood points out,
are the Chechens in the Russian federation, the ethnic
Albanians, the Kurds, the Ibos. These stateless nationalities
seek to grab functions once performed by the state.
Elsewhere, there are demands for state functions to be
performed by numerous institutions of civil society largely
because of distinct though interrelated developments such as
globalisation, “rolling back” and restructuring, and the growth
of sub-state government.
The state is no more an institution today as it had been in
the past. The early modern period in Europe gave rise to the
institution of the state as one possessed with “sovereignty”.
Bodin introduced sovereignty as the chief characteristic of the
state; Hobbes gave it a shape and scholars like Bentham and
Austin gave it the prominence the state had wanted.
Gradually, the other elements such as citizenship, rights,
duties, nationality, law and the like made the state exclusively
an institution unlike society, nation, or country. The first major
attack on the state sovereignty came up when it sought to
assume, absolute powers in the changing circumstances of
the period during the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth
centuries. The political pluralists of the European soil (Figgis,
Krabbe, Laski, Barker, Maclever, and the like) attacked the
Hegelian and the Austinian absolute state. The warring
conditions of the first half of the twentieth century considered
state sovereignty as a threat to individual liberty, making room
for the emerging federal form of society and world peace.
The process of democratisation in the twentieth century
made the civil society relatively more assertive. The civil
society is a public sphere, location of the experiences of
individuals and communities. It is an arena of uncovered
collective action, a totality of voluntary civil and social
organisations and institutions, separate from the state,
enjoying its autonomy. Of late, the civil society has come to
assert itself, taking upon itself numerous functions (social,
cultural, educational, etc. etc.) performed earlier by the state.
Obviously, the expansion of the area of civil society is
minimising the role of the state; in a way, the state is
shrinking. As the state operates through compulsory and
coercive authority, and as the civil society is an embodiment
of autonomous groups and represents whole realm of
common interest, it is important that the civil society needs
have a preference over the state; free choice should have an
advantage over compulsion. The civil society must be free to
challenge the state in order to preclude the bureaucratic
rationality of the state. The state is not above the civil society
and if it has to stay, it must stay on the consent of the people,
who make up the civil society. Without the consent of the
people, the state would only impose and validate its own
rationality in the exercise of power. The fact of the matter is
that the civil society has come to discipline, control, and make
the state accountable to the people of what it does and tends
to do.
The state has to compulsorily remodel its role with the fast
changing realities of the twentieth century politics, especially
in the international field. With imperialism gone after the
Second World War, the emergence of the power blocs
(NATO, CENTO, SEATO, Warsa pacts) ate away the
erstwhile sovereign rights of the relatively weaker state-
members of a bloc. The shape of the world economy and the
growth of multinational and transnational companies and the
world organisations such as IMF, World Bank, IBRD, IFC, and
WTO and the like have gone a long way to make the so-
called sovereign states adjust their policies accordingly. The
regional international organisations such as ASEAN, OAS,
ANZUS, SAARC, EU, and informal bodies such as the British
Commonwealth and the Commonwealth of the Independent
States have made the nation-states realise the worthlessness
of the state sovereignty. International Law and_ the
international bodies such as United Nations and others
working under the UN system have brought the nations close
to one another where the very existence of sovereignty have
become meaningless.
Globalisation with all its misgivings, has come to stay. It
has been able to lift trade barriers, has liberalised world
capital, swift technological progress especially in the field of
information and technology. Transport and telecommunication
have increased and accelerated the movement of the people,
information, and commodities. The process of globalisation
has, in a way, helped, some scholars’ feel, bring about “the
death of politics” and the irrelevance of the state. Onmse (The
End of the Nation-state) says, “Nation-states are no longer
meaningful units in which to think about economic activity. In
globalisation economy, the units that do make sense are ...
region-states.”
Besides privatisation and liberalisation, the other two
companions of globalisation and those giving strength to it
have led to deregulation and decontrol and _ de-
bureaucratisation. The role of the state, within the framework
of globalising tendencies has to be redefined in which the
victim has to be state sovereignty. Ohmse concludes,
“Globalisation.. redefines the role of the state given the
pressures and responses it must give at the local, national,
and international levels.” Heywood remarks, “.Globalisation
has fostered the emergence of ‘competition states’, states
whose role is primarily to develop strategies of national
prosperity in the context of intensifying transnational
competition.”
Sovereignty, if has not to be undermined, has to modify
itself.
Practice
Questions
1. The state is individual writ large.” Plato.

(200 words)
2. “The state is prior to the individual.”
Aristotle. (200 words)
3. Bring out the similarities between the
minimal state and neo-liberal state. (200
words)
4. Differentiate between the /a/ssez faire
state and the minimal state. (200 words)
5. Why and on what grounds do the
Marxists regard the state as an
instrument of social and _ political
change? (700-800 words)
6. Does globalisation make the state
irrelevant? (200 words)
7. What is the pluralist theory of state?
(700-800 words)
8. Bring out the difference between the
liberal (negative and positive),
libertarian, and neo-liberal states. (700-
800 words)
9. What is meant by ‘relative autonomy’ of
state in the Marxist analysis? (2012)
(700-800 words)
10. What is post-colonial state? What
problems have such a state faced or is
facing? (700-800 words)
11. “The feminists have no theory of
state.” Explain. (700-800 words)
12. Do you believe that the notion of state
sovereignty has become irrelevant in the
present world? (700-800 words)
13. Differentiate between liberal and
radical forms of Feminism. (2013) (200-
”\
250 words)
U
Justice: Rawls’ Theory of
Justice
I. INTRODUCTION
he meaning of the word justice is, indeed, baffling. It is
so not because of what it includes; it is because of
what it excludes. So, with numerous people, it has a
different connotation. For a man of law, justice means the
judgment pronounced by a judge; for a man of religion, justice
means a set of morals and values which we should follow: for
a poor man, justice means abolition of poverty; for a
Cephalus, justice means keeping one’s word; for a
Polemarchus, justice means helping a friend and harming the
enemy; for a Thrasymachus, justice means the will of the
stronger to be imposed on the weaker; for a Glaucon, justice
means the protection of the weak. The list is endless. What it
means is that justice depends on our view of society and its
various aspects as also on our type of society. For a worker,
justice would include, among other things, adequate wages;
for a subaltern, absence of outrages committed on him; and
for a feminist, abolition of masculinist repression.
ll. ETYMOLOGY, MEANING, DEVELOPMENT
Derived from the Latin word jus and also included justus and
justitia, and connected with the word jungere, again a Latin
word, justice means, what Professor Barker says “primarily a
joining or fitting a bond or a tie’, gliding into a sense of
binding or obliging. Defining the word jus Barker, Professor
remarks that in its original form, it means something “what is
fitting and, therefore, also binding.” lElaborating the
etymological meaning, he says that the word jus conveys “the
idea of valid custom to which any citizen can appeal, and
which is recognised and can be enforced by a human
authority”. It is clear that Professor Barker, while largely
drawing from the original Latin word, goes on to give justice a
legal connotation. So, he says, the word jus in its developed
form, would mean, “a body of binding or obliging rules which
—the courts recognise as binding, and not only recognise but
also enforce.” But for Professor Barker himself, justice is not
merely a relationship between man and man (as about law
and its courts), but is a relationship between value and value.
He, therefore, concludes “... the function of justice may be
said to be that of adjusting, joining or fitting the different
political values. Justice is the reconciler and the synthesis of
political values: It is their union in an adjusted and integrated
whole.”
Justice Quotes
“The virtue of justice consists in moderation as regulated by

wisdom’. Aristotle
“Justice is the first virtue of social institutions as truth is of
systems of thought”. Rawls
“If we do not maintain justice, justice will not maintain us”.
Bacon
“The challenge of social justice is to evoke a sense of
community that we need to make our nation a better place,
just as we make it a safer place”. Edelman
“It is the spirit and not the form of law that keeps justice
alive”. Earl Warren
“More the laws, less the justice”. Cicero
NX S
As the word justice has its reference everywhere, in every

field of human life; its meaning varies from person to person,
place to place, and from time to time. Justice, indeed, is a
virtue. In the Republic, Plato, through the mouth of Socrates,
described it as harmony—a proper harmoni-ous relationship
between parts of an individual and the city: reason, spirit, and
appetite. The advocates of the divine theory declare it as the
authoritative command of God. Thoman Aquinas and John
Finnis say that justice means natural law while others
(Hobbes in particular) say that justice is created by public,
enforceable, authoritative rules and injustice is wherever
those rules forbid, regardless of their relation to morality. The
natural rights theorists of the early modern period viewed
justice as the rule of reason, a bridge between the medieval
religious notions of justice and the ethical notions of justice as
developed by a modern rationalist individual. Locke and his
followers held on to this concept of justice. That law is the
expression and embodiment of justice was the meaning given
to the word justice by theorists in most part of the eighteenth-
nineteenth centuries, declaring law as the declared will of the
state and as the most obvious dimension of justice. With the
development of democracy and democratic processes and
institutions, justice came to be understood as _ equal
participation of all the sections of society in political and public
matters. The liberals, till date, identify justice with legal and
political equality, including in it the rule of law, equality before
law, equal protection of laws, and one person, one vote.
Again with the development of industry, economic dimension
of justice began to be advanced by socialists, syndicalists and
anarchists with whom justice meant the establishment of a
just social order, an order without economic exploitation and
without political enslavement. Later, the Marxists developed
the idea of socioeconomic justice in which there were to be
not only just laws, but also a just society. Social justice, a
recent phenomenon, is associated with an egalitarian order,
with social ownership of major means of production, if
possible, and without private property, if necessary. Justice,
in the Marxist sense, means distribution of burdens according
to our capacity and of benefits according to our needs. It, in
the contemporary liberal and libertarian sense, means
fairness, sufficiency for all, and thereafter competition for
greater benefits.
lll. JUSTICE—ITS DIMENSIONS

Numerous dimensions of justice include legal, political, social,
economic, and socioeconomic. The legal dimension of justice
assumes
(a) that law is the declared will of the state;
(b) that it includes both the customary and statutory
law;
(c) that it is issued by a defined authority and is
enforced and imposed by the court;
(d) that if violated, it is accompanied by a
corresponding punishment;
(e) that it is limited by the provisions of the Constitution
or the conventions; and
(f) that the Constitution is its supreme form, regulating
the activities of the government and prescribing the
rights and duties of the people.
The political dimension of justice is an extension of the legal
dimension for both, the legal and political dimensions, and is
advocated by the liberals, both of yesteryears and modern. Its
features include:
(a) establishment of a democratic order without any
discrimination;
(b) political equality;
(Cc) one person - one vote;
(d) rule of law and not rule by peoples’ whims;
(e) enactment of the Constitutional provisions;
(f) free press and democratic rights; and
(g) fair and impartial periodic elections.
The social dimension of justice reflects a just social society;
its features would include:
(a) elimination of all kinds of discrimination;
(b) abolition of privileges based on birth, race, caste,
creed, or sex;
(c) social roles to be determined by capacity;
(d) social mobility to be an alternative to rigid
stratification;
(e) equality of each with all and of all with each; and
(f) universal brotherhood.
The economic dimension of justice attempts to discover
justice in the economic structure of the society; its features,
as expressed in the writings of socialists, anarchists,
syndicalists, are:
(a) establishment of a social order as the principle of
mutual cooperation;
(b) attainment of maximum production achieved
through voluntary and independent economic
enterprises;
(c) equitable distribution of commodities so produced;
(d) abolition of exploitation of man by man;
(e) social security in the event of accident, illness, and
old-age; and
(f) prohibition of concentration of material resources in
the hands of the few.
The socioeconomic dimension of justice is, by and large, a
Marxist connotation of justice. Its features include:
(a) a classless society;
(b) abilities be matched to work;
(c) work to be matched with needs; and
(d) an exploitation-free and oppression-free social
order.
IV. JUSTICE AND ITS RELATION WITH LIBERTY

AND EQUALITY
Justice is a unifying force, a force that unites person to
person and value to value. It is, as Professor Barker rightly
says, a synthesis, a final principle that regulates the general
distribution of rights, as one’s share in the whole system, and
it, thus, “adjusts” person to person. Adding to his argument,
he continues: “it (justice) gives to each principle of distribution
(liberty, equality, and cooperation) its share of weight in
determining the distribution actually made, and it, thus,
‘adjusts’ principle to principle.”
The idea of justice is the general right ordering of human
relations or the final adjustment of persons and principles. It
resides in all minds and, as such, is no abstract conception
but is a social reality. It is neither morality nor ethics, for it
relates itself to the outward life. But that outward life needs a
set of conditions as also a set of norms which only are
provided by morality. Professor Barker, thus, concludes: “If
justice is not morality, it is based upon it. If its code is not that
of ethics, it is a code which is ultimately derived from ethics.”
Explaining the relationship of justice with liberty and equality,
Professor Barker points out: “Justice is a joining or fitting
together not only of persons, but also of principles. It joins
and knits together the claims of the principle of liberty, with
those of the principle of equality; it adjusts them to one
another in a right order of their relations.”
Equality may quarrel with liberty; for, if its application be
pushed to the length of what is called a “classless” society;
with absolute equality of possessions, it is at once brought
into conflict with the liberty of each to try himself out in the
effort of acquiring for himself some individual equipment.
The job of justice is to adjust, balance, and reconcile
person to person, principle to principle, value to value, and
claim to claim. Professor Barker rightly regards justice as the
holder of balance, saying that justice holds the balance, both
the claims of persons to rights and the claims of different
principles to determine the distribution of rights, “measuring
them by the standard of the maximum development of the
capacities of personality in the maximum number of persons.”
V. CONCEPTIONS OF JUSTICE-DIFFERENT
PERSPECTIVES
Democratic socialism with the anarchist perspective on its
right hand, and its Marxist perspective on its left hand views
justice as something that is related to workers’ welfare.
Anarchism and its variants want to abolish the institution of
the state in one go and accept socialism willy-nilly. Marxism
and its variants, wish to abolish capitalism lock, stock, and
barrel. It believes in the indispensability of socialism as a
higher, though not the highest, state of society’s material
development. Democratic socialism with its variants holds
the view that capitalism can be regulated, workers’ cause can
be taken care of, socialism can serve to be an end in itself.
With socialists of all shades, justice exists where there is no
injustice. This commonly understood meaning of justice does
not explain much but it is from where all the socialists start.
The chief concern of all the socialists has been injustice that
is meted out to the workers, peasants, poor, unemployed, the
lowly, and so on, in the system which exists in the society in
general, and the capitalistic one in particular. That is why the
socialists are more vocal, and even furious, in explaining what
is unjust than in describing what justice really is. So, the
socialists idea of justice springs from the realms of injustice,
and therefore, justice, according to them, would exist where
the individuals are free. For the Marxists, justice in the class
societies is always a class justice, justice for the capitalists
and conversely injustice for the workers. Hence, the Marxists
find justice only in a classless society. The democratic
socialists are both socialists as well as democratic, and
therefore, for them, justice exists in a just order and in a just
society.
The Marxists are vocal about uneven distribution of income
as an example of injustice. While advocating their theory of
justice (to be more specific as something that is opposed to
injustice), the Marxists go much beyond the anarchists.
Proudhan rightly remarked once that all property is theft but
Marx and his followers relate property to class society, class
society of antagonistic classes — one owning the means of
production, the exploiters — and another without the means
of production, the exploited, and antagonistic classes into a
class concept of justice—justice for the rich. For the Marxists,
justice is not merely just laws, but also just laws emanating
from just society; it is not merely economic or social in nature,
but also socioeconomic in its ramifications.
The idea of justice in the Marxian scheme is associated
with the nature of the society itself. In a slave-owning society,
justice would highlight something that is most impracticable
— the ethical ruler. The medieval European society saw
justice in Christianity; the capitalist Western society seeks to
find justice in the justification of private property system. In a
communist society, justice is just society and_ its
corresponding just rules — a justice without coercion, without
repressive state machinery, a justice where people obey laws
as a matter of habit rather than any threat of punishment. The
Marxian justice is one which springs from within the socialistic
and cooperative relations among the people.
The Marxists do not believe that the idea of justice is the
idea coming from the sky, hence eternal, sprouting from the
deep sea, hence hidden. It, they say, exists in the system it
finds itself; it is the system that gives it a meaning; it would
mean different things in different systems of relations of
production. If in the capitalist system, the Marxists seem
telling us, the principle of justice would and in fact, is “take as
much from the society as you can,” in the Marxian society; if it
could really be built, the principle of justice would mean: “give
as much to the society as you can.” In the capitalist justice,
rights have an edge over the duties whereas in the Marxian
justice, duties override the rights. The capitalistic notion of
justice is more close to liberty than equality while the Marxian
idea of justice is more close to the idea of equality than that of
liberty.
The anarchists are of various types, mention may
particularly be made about William Godwin (1756-1836—An
Enquiry Concerning Political Justice and its Influence on
General Welfare and Happi-ness), Pierre Joseph Proudhon
(1809-65 — What is Property?) and with them the Russian
Bakunin (1814-76), Kropotkin (1842-1921), and Tolstoy
(1828-1910). One may, however, be tempted to include,
among the anarchists, Mahatma Gandhi and Bertrand
Russell. All these anarchists regard the state as a negative
institution, some to the extent of abolishing it altogether. All of
them take the disdainful view of the present capitalist society
and dub it most exploitative, oppressive, and unjust. They see
justice in the absence of political coercion: political authority,
in its any form, is all evil, and therefore, not only unnecessary
but also undesirable. They, therefore, declare that the only
way to establish justice is to abolish the state completely and
replace it by an entirely “free organisation of society.” For the
anarchists, justice is not to be found in the presence of the
government but in its absence; not in the submission to any
political authority above but in the existence of free individuals
with their independently arrived agreements; not in their
natural quarrelsomeness but in their natural cooperativeness.
The democratic-socialists like all the liberals and
libertarians, hold the view that justice exists where the law
exists, but the kind of law that is an embodiment of social
service and not, of awful majesty. Indeed, they think that
police is necessary but it need not be extensively armed; that
law, as an expression of justice, must regulate the conduct of
the people but it need not be more than necessary; that
courts have to dispense justice but they need not be subject
to those who hold political power. The democratic-socialists
find the idea of justice in the idea of rule of law and hence,
they provide for the courts a heavy agenda such as diffusion,
decentralisation, and feder-alisation of political and economic
power. They regard justice as a frame, as a system, as a goal
to be set and attained by laws, and laws which have to be
made by the state democratically structured. Hence, the
democratic-socialists do not throw the baby (of justice) along
with the bath-tub (of liberal-capitalism). Justice exists as does
liberalism-capitalism: what does not exist in the bathwater is
the filth and the dirt. For the democratic-socialists, justice
cleans the dirt, shines as gold in the society, reconciles man
with man, principle with principle, value with value. They
believe that justice exists in a democratic order for
undemocratic system is always unjust; it exists in the
framework of equality for inequality is never just. Where
people participate more, there is more equality, and where
there is more equality, there we find the idea of justice.
4 YY
Subaltern Perspective of Justice
For the subaltern, justice is not the rule of law, much less a
code of morals. For the tiller of the land, grant of land is
justice; for a socially boycotted individual, social equality is
justice; for a culturally underdeveloped, elimination of all
impositions is justice; for a slave, emancipation is justice. If
the subalterns rise in arms, it is understandable, for their
revolt is the expression of their outrages against the system
itself, their non-conformity speaks of their alienation.
The subaltern perspective on justice demands social justice
for the disadvantaged. It demands two-fold objective at the
same time;
i. elimination of all types of discrimination; and

ii. provision for special care so to attain social equality.
The subaltern perspective of justice is not merely economic

but is also social, cultural, educational, and even
psychological. The subaltern is to be developed but more
than it, he/she is made to feel that he/she is developing.
The subaltern perspective of justice would, among other
things, seek to remove traditional disabilities, eliminate
exploitation in all forms, reserve positions in all public
sector enterprises as in legislatures, make a vailable all
facilities required for social development.
But for the democratic-socialists, justice is not merely a
matter of equality, it is also a matter of liberty—liberty which is
not a licence to do anything but an atmosphere in which one
grows without impeding the liberty of any other. The
democratic-socialist theory of justice reconciles, rather
adjusts, the two extremes as are provided by the liberals and
the Marxists. They are liberals in so far as they see justice in
some infrastructure - in laws, courts; they are Marxists in so
far as they see it in a system which is exploitation-free.
In conclusion, we may say that the Marxist view of justice
is: “share the burden according to your capacity; and benefits,
according to your needs.” The anarchists, on the other,
regard justice as a principle which says: “share at will, take as
you can.” And the democratic-socialist view of justice is: “take
in proportion to what you give.”
The feminist philosophy, including its political theory,
speaks of man’s domination of women as a curse inflicted on
her by a socially-structured-male society. What is actually a
natural sex-inequality is made out a social gender inequality
and then follow all sorts of torture. The female, feminism
believes, is regarded inferior to male. Physically she is
dubbed as dull and dud; intellectually, as a being with less or
no intellect; socially, she has a place lower than man. She is
considered ineligible for all public activities; her life is confined
to the private life of the family—mothering the babies. Even in
the family, she is not only second but is always secondary. All
her miseries, the feminists say, are the result of man’s
atrocities. Because she is physically weaker than man, she is
made to lead a subordinate life. Almost half of humanity lives
and has, in the past, lived in servitude, dependent always, at
one or the other time, on man: be he a father, a brother, a
husband, or a son. Until recently, public or political life had
been an area out of her bound. This is the situation in most
parts of the world today for most of the female folks. The rise
and development of feminism has helped in not only
understanding women’s woes but also in bettering their
conditions — social, economic, familial. Indeed, there have
been cases of dowry deaths, brides’ burning, and of Sati yet
the woman today is no more than a commodity to be bought
and sold at man’s whims. Worth quoting are the few lines
from a feminist icon Simone de Beauvoir to Chicago writer
Nelson Algren: “I'll be good. I'll do the dishes. I'll sweep and
I'll go buy eggs and rum cake myself. But | won’t touch your
hair, your cheeks or your shoulder without your permission”.
Justice, in feminist perspective, demands escapism from
woman’s internalisation of female gender and the low self-
esteem, apathy, and sense of helplessness that goes with it.
What is needed, the feminists say, is not merely equal rights
which man possesses but also as the socialist feminists
insist, communalisation of domestic and childcare functions:
the male superiority would have to be fought out. The
feminists do not regard law to be neutral in disputes between
man and women; the idea of justice is, by its very nature,
male-structured. Mackinnon says: “When law (in the male-
structured society) is made ruthlessly neutral, it will be most
male.” The feminist perspective on justice means, among
others, elimination of all male domination, equality of rights,
bridging the public and the private spheres, and creation, of
society, culture and politics in new, rather non-patriarchal
forms.
VI. JUSTICE: TYPES

There are six types of justice that people can seek when they
have been wronged.
Distributive Justice
Distributive justice, also known as economic justice, is about
fairness in what people receive—from goods to attention. Its
roots are in social order and it is at the roots of communism,
where equality is a fundamental principle.
If people do not think that they are getting their fair share of
something, they will seek first to gain what they believe they
deserve. They may well also seek other forms of justice.
Procedural Justice
The principle of fairness is also found in the idea of fair-play
(as opposed to the fair share of distributive justice). It is
justice as being seen. If people believe that a fair procedure
was used in deciding what is to be distributed then they may
well accept an imbalance in what they receive in comparison
to others. If they are both procedural and distributive injustice,
they will likely seek restorative and/or retributive justice.
Restorative Justice
The first thing that the betrayed person may seek from the
betrayer is some form of restitution, putting things back as
they should be.
The simplest form of restitution is a straightforward
apology. Restoration means putting things back as they were,
so it may include some act of contrition to demonstrate one is
truly sorry. This may include action and even extra payment
to the offended party.
Restorative justice is also known as corrective justice. We
may call it substantive justice.
Retributive justice
Restoration may well not be enough for the betrayed person
and they may seek revenge of some sort whereby they can
feel the satisfaction of seeing the other person suffer in the
way that they have suffered.
Revenge can be many times more severe than reparation
as the injured party seeks to make the other person suffer in
return.
Legal Justice
Legal justice refers to the apportionment of punishments and
rewards as a result of wrong doing, in particular, law-
breaking.
Social justice
Social justice refers to a morally justifiable distribution of
material or social rewards, notably wealth, income, and social
status.
Social justice has been the concern of both the socialists-
Marxists on the one hand and the liberal-libertarians and the
neo-liberals, and the other on the other. The socialist-Marxist
view of social justice is just Jaws justly made by just society
whereas the _ liberals-libertarians-neo-liberals view it as
philanthropy, the corporate, social responsibility, i.e., help as
one wills.
Vil LIBERTARIAN JUSTICE—HAYEK, RAWLS, AND

NOZICK
The notion of justice, as has developed over the ages, is
really very old. It has moved in its nature say, from Plato’s
ethical to Aristotle’s distributive, then it has moved to
religious, utilitarian, socialist, and finally down to the
libertarians — F.A. Hayek (The Constitution of Liberty, 1960),
J. Rawls (A Theory of Justice, 1972), Robert Nozick
(Anarchy, State and Utopia: 1974), to name a few among
them. The libertarian justice stands opposite to any and every
socialist view of justice, and hence is an argument against
social justice. It has nothing to do with any moral, ethical,
intrinsic, eternal, and natural values. It is individualistic for its
evolves around individual; libertarian for it follows the notion
of liberty. In economic terms, the libertarian justice demands:
“no more redistribution”; in political terms, it asks for a
minimal state; in social terms, it admits the claims of
inequality.
(a) Hayek—Fallacies of Social Justice

Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992), an Austrian-born British
economist, is a philosopher of freedom. He feels that the
freedom of individual has been reduced by an activist state.
His answer to the onslaughts of ever-increasingly powerful
state is a limited state based on spontaneous order in society,
a state providing essential condition for preservation of an
overall order. Freedom as the condition of man in which,
coercion is most minimum, Hayek says, goes well along the
limited state.
For Hayek, justice, in its nature, seeks to attain individual
good rather than the one that is called the social good. He
argues that social justice does not secure liberties for the
individual through which he/she can pursue his/her own good.
He also says that as social justice stands for a particular
purpose (of distribution of goods, and/or services to be given
to the individuals in society), it is concerned more with the
procedure than with the result—patterning the norms of
distribution so that people share goods/services equitably,
forgetting as to what an individual should get in return, and as
reward to what he/she gives to the society. So, for Hayek,
justice seeks, not this or that purpose but a spontaneous
order that helps develop rules of conduct; in short, the rule of
law generally. His theory of justice, therefore, is a procedural
justice: Justice must be sought in a rule of law, treating
individuals equally; disregarding their position, if any; all state-
directed policies are incompatible with the principle of rule of
law. The Hayekian justice is freedom, all freedom for the
individual, all that he/she wants to obtain for his/her good.
Conversely, for Hayek, injustice occurs when an individual
interferes with the domain of freedom of another person,
when this is secured by just and universally observed rules;
injustice means the existence of coercion. Condemning social
justice, Hayek offers two adverse consequences of the idea
of distributive social justice: First, an attempt to secure a
particular pattern of justice will mean that one set of values
related to human purposes will be given a preference to
others in a society and this is incompatible with a liberal and
free society in which the diversity of ends is recognised.
Second, owing to a lack of clarity and precision about these
values reflecting social and moral diversity, an attempt to
distribute goods and income and services according to one or
the other of those criteria, will be a very indefinite enterprise.
This will empower the officials who will, of necessity, have to
exercise power in a_ discretionary way. He, therefore,
concludes that the claims of social justice would ultimately
lead to the arbitrariness of government. In the name of the
government’s responsibility of securing just rewards for the
individuals, it would usher in an era where the government
would act unjustly and would ultimately yield before the
interest groups that stand for private and not for public
interest.
The idea of social justice does not only, in practice, end up
in a sort of civil war among the numerous interest groups
where the government itself becomes a party, it also helps
transform a free society into a totalitarian one. His solution,
therefore, is:
i. a state that acts neutrally between the competing

interests of numerous groups;
ii. a set of abstract laws which will secure optimum
individual freedom from minimum coercion; and
iii. a free market unconstrained by the distributive
principles of social justice.
Hayek’s views, on the subject, cannot be accepted in toto.

His over-dependence on the free market and its rules do not
prevent, and in fact, cannot prevent the economically strong
groups to act in their own selfish interests. Such a situation
would ultimately demand some norms of distribution and this
would not indeed be, unjust. Furthermore, it cannot be
predicted in a free market as to what would be the economic
benefits for an individual, as also for a group, which is
relatively weak. It is also difficult to accept Hayek’s arguments
that the state seeking social justice is illegitimate and that the
market is always legitimate, for the state is not always wrong,
and the market, not always right.
(b) Rawls—Contractarian Justice

John Rawls, (1921-2002) was an American political scientist.
His work, A Theory of Justice, has been regarded as a
significant contribution to liberal political theory. His interest in
the liberal state and in the concept of justice has led him to
formulate and reformulate his theory of justice for about four
decades. In 1958, justice, for him, is fairness, one that
became the part and parcel of Rawlsian vocabulary on
justice. A revised version of Rawls’ theory was published in
Distributing Justice (1967). The most elaborate and
comprehensive argument of his theory was presented in A
Theory of Justice (1971).
( D'
Communitarian Critique of Rawls ‘ Justice
For their part, communitarians such as one time Michael

Sandel, and at present Alisdair Macintyre and Charles
Taylor question the very project of elaborating a formal
theory of justice from which to build political membership.
Rawls’s theory is attacked on moral grounds for reducing
social life to the neutral observance of rights and contracts,
which places liberal society in constant danger of
disintegration and breakdown. The communitarians also
make a methodological critique which invokes the age-old
complaint that liberalism employs an “atomistic” conception
of the person, i.e., an “unencumbered” _ individual.
Communitarians urge an_ alternative philosophical
anthropology, which sees the human being as socially-
constituted, living a life in a context of shared meanings
and understandings, in reference to a culture, or as
Macintyre puts it, a tradition or narrative. For Sandel, only
this “intersubjective” conception of the self can ward off
attacks from libertarians such as Robert Nozick, who finds
Rawls’ attempt to redistribute wealth an_ illegitimate
infringement of liberty.
Rawls’ view of justice refers to “original position” in which

rational contractors under a “veil of ignorance” decide how
they wish to commit themselves to being governed in their
actual lives and wish to cooperate with one another so to
obtain mutual benefits, “social primary goods” to all the
members of society in just and “fair’ manner. Invoking
Kantian rationalism, Rawls deliberately explains the
intellectual or theoretical motivation behind construction, and
the two principles (specified below) of justice that he argues
would be agreed upon under the contractual condition he
specifies represent a kind of egalitarian political liberalism.
John Rawls’ views on justice can best be summed up in his
own words by highlighting the following:
“First Principle”
Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive
total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar
system of liberty for all.
“Second Principle”
Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that
they are both:
(a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged - and
(b) attached to offices and positions open to all under
conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
Priority Rules
First Priority Rule (The Priority of Liberty)
The principles of justice are to be ranked in lexical order
and therefore, liberty can be restricted only for the sake of
liberty. There are two cases:
(a) a less extensive liberty must strengthen the total
system of liberty shared by all;
(b) a less than equal liberty must be acceptable to
those with the lesser liberty;
Second Priority Rule (The Priority of Justice over
Efficiency and Welfare)
The second principle of justice is lexically prior to the principle
of efficiency and to that of maxim-ising the sum of
advantages; and fair opportunity is prior to the difference
principle...”
Rawls’ Concept of Justice

Stated simply, Rawls’ conception of justice demands:
i. The maximisation of liberty subject only to such

constraints as are essential for the protection of liberty
itself.
ii. Equality for all, both in the basic liberties of social life
and also in the distribution of all other forms of social
goods, subject only to the exception that inequalities
may be permitted if they produce the greatest possible
benefit for those least well off in a given scheme of
inequality (“the difference principle”).
iii. "Fair equality of opportunity” and the elimination of all
inequalities of opportunity based on birth or wealth.
Rawls’ contractarianism is not essentially of Hobbes,

Lockes, or Rousseau. It is so only to show that certain moral
principles are binding upon us because they would be
acceptable by rational beings like us in the “original position.”
Justice, for him, is not law of nature of something based on
reason, but is fair distribution on fair procedure. This is what
justice for Rawls is: Justice as fairness.
Rawls admits that all individuals are not equal: say, equal in
knowledge; all do not live in similar conditions: say, in similar
social and economic conditions. There are some, Rawls
declares, who are subject to what he calls “a veil of
ignorance” and this veil excludes them not only from others
but also from themselves — the least advantaged members
of society. Justice demands, so far as Rawls is concerned,
due care for the least advantaged members of the society as
well. It is the distribution of benefits among all the members of
the society not in proportion to what one does but in such a
manner that the weakest of the weak is duly benefittted. Such
a distribution of benefits, Rawls feels, is not only fair but is
also in accordance with the norms of justice.
Thus, we may conclude by summing up Rawls’ notion of
justice as under:
(a) Justice, for Rawls, is fairness.
(b) It assumes a view of society as a fair system of
cooperation between free and equal persons.
(c) Its objects are to find out appropriate principles
which help realise liberty and equality.
(d) These appropriate principles, attempting to seek
liberty and equality are the result of an agreement
among the people concerned in the light of their
mutual advantage.
(e) As the people see themselves free and equal, they
soon realise that they need the same primary
goods as to pursue their own conception of good.
(f) These primary goods include, among others, the
basic rights, liberties, opportunities, income, wealth,
self-respect.
(g) Justice would mean that all the primary goods are
to be distributed equally unless an unequal
distribution of any or all of these goods, is to the
advantage of the least favoured.
Rawls’ theory of justice was well-timed. It was presented at
a time (1971) when liberalism was going out of fashion and
facing serious challenges. In his own country (USA),
dominant values and_ political institutions were being
questioned by various movements led by students, black, and
anti-Vietnam war activists. The utilitarian tradition, till then so
popular, seemed inadequate basis for the protection of
minorities. Sarangi writes: “There were questions about
proper use of political power and just distribution of liberties
and other social goods. Perhaps Rawls was responding to
these historical developments and trying to present a
persuasive theoretical alternative to utilitarianism.”
Rawls’ theory of justice is indeed important, at least in
(a) providing, as Chantal Mouffe says, a defence of
political liberalism which establishes its autonomy
from economic liberalism;
(b) providing an alterative to utilitarian thought.
One of Rawls’ important contributions, as Bhiku Parekh
says, consists in giving liberalism a new foundation and a
new vitality. He gives liberalism a moral depth which it had
always lacked. Parekh writes: “He (Rawls) shows that men
are not only materially, but also morally and ontologically
interdependent, that they grow together and complete one
another and that the full development of each is inseparable
from the full-development of all within a just society. In taking
this view, Rawls is able to relate liberty, equality, and justice
and to elucidate the radial dimension of liberalism,” basing his
premises on the twin principles of “liberty” and “difference”.
And yet the shortcomings in Rawls’ theory cannot be
overlooked:
i. His account of the original position is far from clear: why

people who are not in the original position should adopt
principles chosen by those who were? If there is a bias
in the original position and what will be the situation, if,
as a consequence of that bias, the principles chosen do
not respond to the norms of fairness. Sandel says that
Rawls’ notion of original position “contains a strong
individualistic bias... The original position seems to
presuppose not just a neutral theory of the good, but a
liberal, individualistic conception...”
ii. His difference principle is not without some demerit.
Admitting the differences, i.e., inequalities, Rawls
believes that an agreement would be reached between
people. But will the wealthy share and cooperate?
iii. Rawls gives priority to liberty and this, in itself, is
another attack on him. Rawls says that a person in the
original position will choose “the basic liberties” in
priority to any distribution of income, wealth, and power
because by so doing he would have better chances of
obtaining primary goods. If that is so, what would
happen if the basic liberties conflict or how, at all, can
they be restricted? Rawls has no answer to such
questions except that he assumes a state of
cooperation among them.
iv. There is a clear contradiction between the first principle
which demands equal liberty, liberties for all and the
second principle which justifies inequalities —
inequalities between the most favoured on the one hand
and the least advantaged on the other.
v. It is difficult to assume, as Rawls wants us to assume,
liberty for all in a system of inequalities: Liberty among
the unequals is liberty of the stronger, his power to
control the weak.
vi. Rawls’ argument favours the principle of liberty,
whatever tall claims he may insist on with regard to the
principle of equality. The fact that Rawls’ first principle
relates to the principle of liberty demonstrates his choice
for this principle: Liberty comes first, everything else
follows it.
vii. Rawls’ theory of justice is largely individualistic and
libertarian. It is social in a very limited sense in so far as
it does not exclude the weaker sections of society in his
arrangement of justice.
Rawls’ theory of justice, especially the difference principle,

indeed, suffers from the following objections:
(a) advocates of equality do not accept Rawls’
difference principle insisting that benefits would
always help the least advantaged;
(b) the utilitarians object that the difference principle
maximises utility as Rawls argues;
(c) the libertarians also object that the difference
principle involves unacceptable infringements on
liberty;
(d) the difference principle ignores claims that the
people deserve benefit according to their actions.
The Communitarians’ Attack on Rawls’ Theory

Rawls’ theory of justice has been attacked by the
communitarians. Sandel (Liberalism and the Limits of Justice)
who had changed his position from communitarian to
republican, criticises Rawls’ liberal-egalitarian conception of
justice for emphasising individuals’ rights at the cost of
community. He condemns Rawls’ notion of “unencumbered
self’ in opposition to the “situated self.” Rawls regards the
right as prior to good and justice as the first virtue of society.
Sandel regards justice as a remedial virtue needed only in an
individualistic society, considering common goal of the
community prior to the individual. Taylor, another
distinguished communitarian, attacks Rawls’ conception of
the individual, as atomistic. He asserts that the well-being of
the individual depends on the good of the community and
therefore, concludes that the group or cultural rights of the
community are no less important than freedom and equality
rights of the individual. The Libertarians, Nozick particularly,
do not agree with Rawls’ patterned conception of justice and
insist on the entitlement theory of rights: the rights as entitled
ones.
(c) Nozick—Entitlement Theory of Justice

Like John Rawl, Robert Nozick (1938-2002) is an American
libertarian political philosopher known for his restatement of
classical liberal case for a minimal state and his rejection of
both economic management and social welfare. He is for a
state which is like a “night-watchman,” one which is limited to
the narrow functions of protection against force, theft, fraud,
enforcement of contracts, and so on.
Nozick’s theory of justice stands opposite to that of Rawls
in an important respect. Whereas in Rawls’ theory, justice is
seen as a particular pattern of social arrangements adjusting
entitlements and resources in as neutral and fair manner as
possible; in Nozick, it is a view that individuals have rights
and that those rights be respected at all costs and in all
circumstances. According to Nozick, justice is not a matter of
attempting to organise or reorganise society and _ its
institutions are not there to achieve some distributive pattern
but is one of respecting basic rights which limit what may be
done to someone without consent and the entitlements which
such rights yield. For Nozick, rights are so fundamental and
the constraints upon others’ actions are so strong that only
one can justify a minimal state: a minimal state means most
minimum laws and conversely most maximum liberties and
rights of the individual as individual. This is a position which
takes Nozick close to Hayek, and farther back to Locke.
We may briefly outline Nozick’s theory of justice which is
entitlement theory as against the distributive theory. His
argument is that if the state does something against the
individual for which he is entitled, it is a case of injustice:
individual is entitled to certain rights, already with him, and if
the state takes them away, it does something which is not
just. Nozick’s assumption is that individual’s rights are with
the individual because he is an individual, no state had ever
given these rights to him and no state through any
arrangements can ever take them away from him. Justice, for
Nozick, lies in not disrupting individual’s entitlements; any
thing that disrupts them through any patterned device is
illegitimate and unjust. As against the Marxian principles:
“from each according to his ability to each according to his
need” which, for Nozick, is a patterned device, he offers
justice as one “from each as they choose to each as they are
chosen.”
Nozick’s entitlement theory of justice has the following
characteristics:
(a) There is no social entity with a good that undergoes
some sacrifices for its own good. There are only the
individual people, different individual people with
their own individual lives.
(b) Individuals have rights, and these are things no
person or group may do to them. So strong and far-
reaching are these rights that they raise the
question of what, and if anything, the state and its
officials may do.
(c) The fact that there are different individuals with
separate lives, means that no one may be
sacrificed for others.
(d) The idea of basic rights implies their enjoyment by
the individual and also constraints on the others not
to coerce the rights of the fellow-individuals.
(e) Justice has historical essence in that it came about
in course of time and not through any set formula or
pattern.
(f) Justice seeks to protect the rights of the individual,
rights which individual has because he/she is an
individual. “Things come,” Nozick says, “into the
world already attached to people having
entitlements over them.” Individuals have rights
because, as individuals, they are entitled to them.
(g) All and any type of interference in the entitlements
or rights of the individual are illegitimate. Nozick’s
justification of property right is based on the
principle that it is an entitlement of an individual. In
this context, the buying and selling of property, in
the market, is merely the transformation of property
rights.
(h) Following Locke, Nozick believes
e that the person is inviolable;

e that he/she has an absolute property right in his/her own
person;
© powers and capacities that he/she comes to possess
unquestionable property right in unowned things
(extending Locke’s argument); and
e that no one else has the right to question or coerce an
individual’s rights, property right including.
In Nozick’s view, justice is not a matter of how the

distribution should be made. If it means so then it becomes a
type of patterned distributive justice which, according to
Nozick, would “involve appropriating the other persons.” It is a
matter of how the distribution has come about; it is a matter of
what one is entitled to; and finally, it is matter of protection of
one’s entitlements. Such a type of justice is compatible with a
minimal, and not with an extensive state.
There is much that separates Nozick from Rawls. Rawls
favours distributive scheme; Nozick opposes it. Rawls’ state
is relatively more than a minimal’, Nozick’s is merely minimal.
Rawls is a defender of liberal-democratic and to some extent,
a welfare state; Nozick, on the other hand, argues in favour of
a libertarian minimal state. For Rawls, justice is always
distributive; for Nozick, it is not justice if it is distributive and
he says that a society is just so long as its members possess
what they have a right to possess.
Nozick’s entitlement theory of justice is more a theory of
rights, especially that of property than a theory of justice. He
extols the virtues of eighteenth-century individualism on the
one hand, and the nineteenth-century /aissez faire capitalism
on the other. He isolates individual from other individuals,
forgetting that individuals do possess sociality, howsoever
lone he may be. There is, above individual “private interest,” a
social interest as well. Indeed, individual rights are inviolable
but Nozick goes on to make them absolute. His concept of
minimal state and his passion for individual’s basic rights
make him a defender of Locke’s theory in the twentieth
century. His notion of justice is vague, if not abstract. He
throws away all the norms and principles normally associated
with the idea of justice and brings it to mean the protection of
status quo. To conclude, one may criticise Nozick’s theory
(see T. Nagel’s article “Libertarianism without Foundation”) on
following points:
i. Nozick seeks to argue from small-scale examples to

universal principles.
ii. He sees rights as absolute, thanks to his intuitions.
iii. He is wrong in holding that benefit to one person can
never offset cost of another (in fact, sometimes benefit
can).
iv. He is wrong about the basis of rights.
John Kilcullan (Robert Nozick: Against Distributive Justice)

draws comparison between Rawls’ and Nozick’s conception
of justice, saying, “Nozick points out an analogy between his
own entitlement theory and the process by which in Rawls’
theory the rules of justice are arrived at. Rawls specifies an
initial situation and a process of deliberation, and says that
whatever results from this are the rules of justice; similarly
Nozick specifies a process, and says that whatever
distribution results is just. Each theory specifies starting
points and processes of transformation, and each accepts
whatever comes out.”
But Rawls’s process for generating principles cannot
generate process principles but only end-result principles.
Nozick says that this is ironic. It presents a dilemma: if
processes are “so great,” it is a defect that the process cannot
lead to process principles of justice; if processes are not so
great then why should we accept the outcome of Rawls’s
process? And yet, Rawls and Nozick share a great deal in
their approaches to political philosophising. Both are
individualists who employ “a procedural model of justification:
each specifies an initial status quo (state of nature in Nozick,
original position in Rawls) and a procedure for altering that
status quo while ensuring the justice of the result (via justice
in holdings for Nozick and constraints on the choices of
original contractors in Rawls).” Finally, both are similarly
wedded to “a ‘deep-theoretical’ commitment” in regard to
natural rights.
Vill. A WORD ON DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE—

THEORIES
Some of the theories relating to distributive justice can be
briefly summed up as under:
(a) Egalitarianism
Goods to be distributed equally. It is usually elaborated in
many different ways: what goods to be distributed and what
they are to be distributed equally between—individuals,
nations, groups. It advocates a position which includes
demand for equality of opportunity and equality of income.
This egalitarian principle ignores differences in efforts, talents
and productivity. As the people have different needs, an equal
distribution may not result in equal outcome.
(b) Meritocratic Theory

Meritocratic Theory suggests the fair treatment that is giving
people what they deserve. Obviously, people deserve to be
awarded for their efforts and productivity, punished for their
transgression, treated as equal persons. According to this
theory, goods, etc. should be distributed to match individual
merit. This theory is opposed to needs-based theory which
demands the fulfillment of the needs of all the people though
it runs smoothly with the contribution-need theory: goods, etc.
to be distributed to match an individual’s contribution to the
overall social good. Marxism comes nearer to need-based
and contribution theories “from each according to one’s
ability, to each according to one’s work, and from each
according to one’s work, to each according to one’s needs.
(c) Equity Theory

Goods, etc. need to be distributed to individuals in proportion
to their input. While input typically comes in the form of
productivity, ability or talent might also play a role. People
who produce more or produce qualitatively better products,
either by working harder, or by being more talented, this
argument goes, should be paid more for their efforts than
should people who produce less. This sort of distribution may
not succeed in meeting the needs of all members of society.
(d) Need Theory

This theory proposes that we seek an equal outcome in which
all society or group members get what they need. Thus, poor
people would get more money, and rich people would get
less. This principle is sometimes criticised because it does
not recognise differences in productive contributions or
distinguish between real needs and manifested needs.
(e) Fairness Theory

Rawls used a social contract to show that justice, and
especially distributive justice, is a form of fairness: an
impartial distribution of goods. Rawls imagines veil of
ignorance which denies all knowledge of our personalities,
social status, wealth, talents, and lifeplans and wants a theory
of justice that would choose to govern our society when the
veil is lifted. The decision-in-ignorance models fairness
because it excludes selfish bias. Rawls argues that each of
us would reject the utilitarian theory of justice that we should
maximise welfare because of the risk that we might turn out of
the someone whose own good is sacrificed for greater
benefits for others. Instead, we would endorse Rawls’ two
principles of justice:
1. Each person is to have an equal right to the most
extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible
with a similar system of liberty for all.
2. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so
that they are both:
(a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged,
consistent with the just savings principle, and
(b) attached to offices and positions open to all under
conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
(f) Entitlement Theory

Robert Nozick’s influential critique of Rawls argues that
distributive justice is not a matter of the whole distribution
matching an ideal pattern but of each individual entitlement
having the right kind of history. It is just that a person has
some good (especially, some property right) if and only if he
or she came to have it by a history made up entirely of events
of two kinds:
1. Just acquisition, especially by working on unowned
things; and
2. Just transfer that is free gift, sale, or other agreement,
but not theft.
If the chain of events leading up to the person having
something meets this criterion then he or she is entitled to it: it
is just that he or she possesses it, and what anyone else has,
or does not have or needs, is irrelevant.
On the basis of this theory of distributive justice, Nozick
argues that all attempts to redistributive goods according to
an ideal pattern, without the consent of their owners, are theft.
In particular, redistributive taxation is theft.
(g) Utilitarian Theory

According to the utilitarian theory, justice requires the
maximisation of the total or average welfare across all
relevant individuals. This may require sacrifice of some for the
good of others, so long as everyone’s good is taken
impartially into account. Utilitarianism, in general, argues that
the standard of justification for actions, rules, or institutions is
impartial welfare consequentialism, and only indirectly, if at
all, to do with rights, property, need, or any other non-
utilitarian criterion.
Practice
Questions
1. Do you hold the view that justice is a

virtue that strengthens harmony? (200
words)
2. “Justice is the first virtue of all social
institutions.” Comment. (200 words)
3. Elaborate the concept socioeconomic
justice. (200 words)
4. How is justice related to equality? (200
words)
5. What do you mean by _ subaltern
perspective of justice? (200 words)
6. Explain the numerous types of justice.
(700-800 words)
7. Write an essay on the Marxian theory of
justice. (700-800 words)
8. Explain and examine Rawls’ theory of
justice. (700-800 words)
9. Write a detailed note on Nozick’s
‘entitlement’ theory of justice. (700-800
words)
10. Discuss the various theories’ of
distributive justice. (700-800 words)
11. Comment on Rawls concept of
‘Orginal Position’, (2013) (200-250
words)
aA
UV
12. Explicate the conception of justice in
the critique of communitarian theorists.
(2014) (700-800 words)
Equality: Types, Forms,
Relationship with Freedom, and
Affirmative Action
Il. INTRODUCTION
t is difficult to define equality. Laski aptly puts it, “No idea
is more difficult in the whole realm of political science than
the word equality.” The concept of equality has such
varied facets and a multitude of implications that even after
an exhaustive study on the subject, one really feels of not
having defined it clearly. An important hindrance in
understanding the term equality stems from the fact that
nature has created men unequal. This inequality can be
observed in terms of physical and intellectual strength,
Capacity and beauty. The human society has_ further
accelerated inequality on grounds such as caste, colour,
creed, property, sex, and so on. Appadorai, therefore, says,
“The statement that all men are equal is, then, as erroneous
as that the surface of the Earth is level.” Burke condemns
equality as a “monstrous fiction,” Coleridge as an “infeasible
proposition”, Bentham as “an anarchic fallacy” and Carlyle as
a “palpable incredibility and delirious absurdity.” Still people
talk of equality of men.
ll. MEANING OF EQUALITY

Equality is sometimes referred to as equality of characteristics
in men. The obvious inequalities among men in terms of
intellectual and physical strength, sex, colour, character traits,
natural endowments, religion, age, social rank, property, and
other factors do exist. But the task is to identify certain
properties that are similar in men. That men are equal means
that men share certain qualities. Hobbes had said that nature
has made men so equal in the faculties of the body and mind
that even the weakest can kill the strongest and no one can
outwit the other. He postulated two kinds of equality between
men, equality of ability and equality of expectation of
satisfying their wants. Understanding equality in terms of
equality of characteristics means that the resemblances
among men are more significant than the obvious differences.
f— Y
Equality Quotes
“Men are born equal, but they are born different as well”.
Fromm
“| have a dream that my four little children will one day live
in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of
their skin, but by the content of their character.”
Martin Luther King Jr. “Equality is not in regarding
different things similarly, it is in regarding different things
differently”. Robbins
“Democracy not only requires equality but also an
unshakable conviction in _the value of each person, who is
then equal”. Kirkpatrick
“Democracy does not guarantee equality of condition ... it
also guarantees equality of opportunity”. Kristol
\ J
Equality is also understood as equality of treatment. This

means that men, irrespective of their differences, are of equal
worth and dignity. Therefore, they are entitled to be treated
equally. Locke argued in this fashion. According to Locke,
men are equal because every one has equal right to his
natural freedom. Indeed, men have equal worth does not
mean that they have equal talent and equal capacity and
therefore, equal treatment would not fit in the meaning of
equality. Equality does not mean equal reward, in fact, it
should not mean so.
Gandhiji used to say that men are equal because they are
identical. But to say that equality means identity amounts to
giving equality a wrong meaning. Two identical objects are
never completely equal: sameness is not equality.
The term equality in Political Science is a relative term. It is
never perfect. What, at best, it means is that it is not
inequality? What it implies is that equality does not increase
or enhance inequality. What decreases inequality is not what
we mean by equality? The basic principles of equality can be
summarised as under:
Equal opportunities for all
. Absence of privileges
i. A system that does not admit discrimination, protective
discrimination not including
Equals to be treated equally, unequals, unequally
Uniform apportionment
. Equal respect and recognition
vii. Equality of resources
viii. Equal promotion of fellowship and self-fulfilment.
Equality
Equality means absence of privileges: privileges

broaden inequalities.
It is equal opportunities to all though it grants
preferential treatment to the weaker sections of
society.
It is equality before law; equal protection of law.
e All are equal because all share equal human values:
no one is so pure that he alone knows all the virtues;
and no one is so wretched that he does not see a
human being in others.
\ J
Equality is not opposite of inequality though it gives, to some

extent, the essence of the meaning of equality. It is not
uniformity, though it seeks “levelling” of those conditions of
social existence which are regarded crucial to human well-
being. For a clearer idea of what really constitutes equality, it
is important that a distinction is made between foundational
equality and distributional equality. Foundational equality
refers to the equality where human beings are nearly equal in
strength as also one having an equal moral worth. It
presumes:
i. that people are fundamentally equal (equality of

person);
ii. that there is equality of opportunity to achieve desirable
ends;
iii. that there is equality of conditions for all social groups;
iv. that there is equality of outcome or equality of results.
Distributional equality refers to a desirable set of social

conditions: one person, one vote; a more equal distribution of
income; social opportunities.
lll. EQUALITY: EVOLUTION AND GROWTH

Until the eighteenth century, it was assumed that human
beings are unequal by nature i.e., that there is a natural
human hierarchy. This postulate collapsed with the advent of
the idea of natural rights and its assumption of an equality of
natural order among all human beings. Against Plato and
Aristotle, the classical formula for justice—according to which
an action was regarded just when it offered each individual
his or her due — took a substantively egalitarian meaning in
course of time, i.e., everyone deserved the same dignity and
the same respect. This is now the widely held concept of
substantive, universal, moral equality. All religions, especially
New Testament, Christianity, and Islam, refer to all human
beings as children of God, i.e., equality of human beings
before God. In the modern period, starting about the
seventeenth century onward, the dominant idea was of
natural equality in the tradition of natural law and social
contract theory. Hobbes postulated that in their natural
conditions, individuals possess equal rights because over
time they have the same capacity to do each other harm.
Locke argued that all human beings have the same natural
right to both (self) ownership and freedom. For Rousseau, the
resulting inequity and rule of violence can only be overcome
by tying unfettered subjectivity to a common civil existence
and popular sovereignty. In Kant’s moral philosophy, the
categorical imperative formulated the equality postulate of
universal human worth. His transcendental and philosophical
reflections on autonomy and _ self-legislation led to a
recognition of the same freedom for all rational beings as the
sole principle of human rights. Such Enlightenment ideas
stimulated the great modern. social movements and
revolutions and were taken up in modern constitutions and
declarations of human rights. The Marxian concept of equality
does not deviate from equality of human essence. The
principle of equal dignity and respect is now accepted as a
minimum standard throughout mainstream Western culture.
Some misunderstanding regarding moral equality need to be
clarified. To say that men are equal is not to say they are
identical. The postulate of equality implies that underneath
apparent differences, certain recognisable entities or units
exist that, by dint of being units, can be said to be equal.
Fundamental equality means that persons are alike in
important, relevant, and specified respects alone, and not that
they are all generally the same or can be treated in the same
way. In a now commonly posed distinction stemming from
Dworkin, moral equality can be understood as prescribing
treatment of persons as equals, i.e., with equal concern and
respect and not the often implausible principle of treating
persons equally. This fundamental idea of equal respect for
all persons and of the equal worth or equal dignity of all
human beings is accepted as a minimal standard by all
leading schools of modern Western political and moral
culture.
The meaning of equality, in any sense and in any age
neither admits distinctions and discrimination nor anything
leading to it, nor anything being disadvantageous (either of
past or of present) or at par with the rest.
f— a
Equality: Mathematically (Mis) understood
~ All men are men.

= All men are equally men.
= All men are equal.
> All numbers are numbers.
~ All numbers are equally numbers.
= All numbers are equal.
Equality is a matter of levelling:

i. In treating all alike, giving all equal opportunities.
ii. In making all subject to the same law not to be violated
by any one, high or low.
iii. In maintaining all types of equality: political, social, civil,
economic, cultural at all times and for all people, if not
uniformly, at least so as nearly as possible.
iv. Equality of outcome is not any form of equality though
advocated by the socialists and the Marxists, for people
do not do the same work and hence need not have
similar rewards. But this is not what the liberal demand
in separating equal chances (i.e. opportunities with
“equal rewards”). And yet, efforts need to be made, if
the ideal of equality has to affirm, to bring different
rewards as near to one another as possible: rewards
should not widen inequality, at least disproportionately.
v. Equality of rewards according to the need, is the Marxist
ideal which can be met only in a well-advanced and
well-developed society, but the state need not ignore
people in providing them employment according to their
abilities; equality of rewards according to rights: one
gets in return for what one does.
IV. TYPES OF EQUALITY

In understanding the concept of equality, the attempt has
been made to clarify numerous connotations of equality:
numerous types of equality have emerged in course of time. It
is, therefore, important that one refers to some such types to
help us know what equality really means.
(a) Formal, Substantive, Foundational
Formal
Formal equality refers to the individual or group status in the
society in relation to one’s rights, duties, benefits, and
entitlements. It is, in a way, legal equality or its form. It is a
principle of equal treatment: individuals or groups who /which
are alike should be treated alike. Because individuals and
groups are equal in relevant respects, they should be treated
equally: treat like cases as like (see Aristotle’s Nicomachean
Ethics). Such a type of equality is one that draws its meaning
from rationality: we cannot treat equals,unequally and
unequals, equally. Heywood (Political Theory) writes: “Formal
equality implies that, by virtue of their common humanity,
each person is entitled to be treated equally by the rules of
social practice. As such, it is procedural rule which grants
each person equal freedom without regard to the
opportunities, resources, or wealth one may start with.”
Formal equality is only formal, legally vouched for,
procedurally stated: all men are created equal only means
that they are equals because they are al/ human beings.
Formal equality is negative in the sense that it helps eradicate
special privileges. That is why such a type of equality requires
that no one should be disadvantaged on grounds of race or
gender or be discriminated.
Substantive
Substantive equality has been initially formulated as critique
of formal equality. Formal equality is nothing more than a
relative principle in which all human beings are regarded
equal because they are all human beings and as such, equal
as all are, they are able to obtain benefits equally. The whole
case is not as simple as it appears to be. All are, indeed,
human beings, but all are not always equal and therefore, all
are not treated equally. A dalit is a human being as a
brahmin. The question is: are the two treated equally in
practice in reality (leave aside the Constitution of India or the
laws). Men and women are equal as human beings but are
they treated equally? These examples call for the hollowness
of formal equality and necessitate the importance of the
substantive equality. Substantive equality corrects the wrong
committed by formal equality. It demands the allocation of
benefits for the disadvantaged. The equality of fair opportunity
as suggested by John Rawls must go to the advantage of the
weaker sections of society. Individuals cannot compete
equally if they begin at different starting points. A. Sen
(Inequality Re-examined) has said very aptly: “Equal
consideration for all may demand very unequal treatment in
favour of the disadvantaged. The demands of substantive
equality, “ he continues, “can be particularly exacting and
complex when there is a good deal of antecedent inequality to
counter.”
Foundational
Foundational equality is the idea that human beings are
“born” equal in the sense that their lives are of equal moral
value. The idea underlying this proposition is that all the
human beings have equal worth and importance and
therefore, are equally worthy of respect. This type of equality
can be called moral equality, the basic or the fundamental
one. It means that the individuals are alike in important,
relevant, and specified respects alone, and not because they
are all generally the same. Dworkin (Taking Rights Seriously)
refers to such equality. He is of the opinion that the
foundational or moral equality can be understood as
prescribing treatment of persons as equals with equal
concern and respect. In an article on “Equality”, Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, it has been argued: “To
recognise that the human beings are all equally individuals
does not mean treating them uniformly in any respect other
than those in which they clearly have a moral claim to be
treated alike.”
(b) Equality of Conditions, Equality of Opportunitites,

Equality of Outcomes
Equality of Conditions
Equality of conditions, or what one may call equality of
access, means not as much as making inequalities fairer, nor
giving people a more equal opportunity to become unequal,
as is ensuring that everyone has roughly equal prospects for
a good life. It is equalising individuals and groups, i. e.,
equally by enabling and empowering them. It is bringing
individuals/groups at par at the starting point. Equality of
condition is not the stage of starting point but is a stage prior
to it. Before one seeks to enjoy right to liberty, let her/him be
given conditions necessary for the enjoyment of right to
liberty, a condition which others already enjoy. It is an attempt
to bring those people on the racing lines who are much
behind that line. Before one gives people equal opportunity, it
is important that all the people should be brought at par to
receive equal opportunities. It is a stage prior to the receiving
of equal opportunities. A dalit as an individual or the
scheduled castes/tribes as a group, for example, be given
special facilities/care/ access/ conditions so to bring them in
line with others who already possess such a position. One-
legged and two-legged persons cannot run at the same
speed; lamb and wolf are never at par. One cannot make a
lamb, a wolf, but one can surely protect lamb from the wolf. It
is here that the concept of protective discrimination of
affirmative actions has some meaning.
Equality of Opportunities
Equality of opportunities refers to a situation where all have
the equal start with equal opportunities: the same starting
point and equal life chances. This amounts to “career open to
talents,” where obstacles do not prevent people achieving
their public positions which their talents fit, and where birth,
caste, creed, colour, sex, or any other like characteristic does
not determine the opportunities which are open to a person or
a group of persons: what matters and what decides is the
talent, the merit. Plato (Republic) had proposed that the social
positions should be based strictly on individual ability and
effort. Almost all modern states endorse the concept of
equality of opportunities, though some nations (in India,
reservations for weaker sections and the United States, the
concept of affirmative action) seek to bridge the gap by not
only giving the initial conducive conditions but also special
opportunities.
Equality of Outcomes
Equality of outcomes refers to an equal distribution of
rewards. A radical concept as it is, equality of outcomes
ensures that everyone finishes at the same time: everybody
must win and all must have prizes. Like the equality of
opportunities, equality of outcomes is not equal life chances,
it is equal rewards. Heywood points out: “Equality of
outcomes implies that all runners finish the race in line
together, regardless of their starting point and the speed of
which they run.”
It is, in a way, another name for material equality.
Rousseau was an advocate of this type of equality, though he
was not a socialist at all. “No citizen shall be rich enough to
buy another and none so poor to be forced to sell himself.”
Even the socialists and the Marxists do not advocate
complete material equality in the sense of equality of
outcomes.
(c) Numerical, Proportional, Distributional

With regard to the distribution of benefits, rewards, results,
the types of equality which are usually referred to are: the
numerical, proportional, and distributional. A brief discussion
of each is being given below:
Numerical Equality
Numerical equality, as Aristotle says, refers to the
sameness in number and size, giving the following example:
the excess of three over two is the equal to the excess of four
over three. In other words, it is a form of treatment of others
and as a result of it, is a form of distribution: it is numeri-cal
when it treats all persons as indistinguishable — treating all
the individuals identically or granting the same quantity of a
good per capita: treating equals as equally — when in special
circumstances, persons are equal in the relevant respects,
they be given equal relevant proportions. If, under certain
circumstances, individuals are not equal in relevant respects,
giving them equal proportions would be an example opposed
to numerical equality. Again, if there is no equality in relevant
respects, may be individuals are equal, giving them equal
proportions would amount to opposing the principle of
numerical equality: neither the distribution should be unequal
among the equals nor it should be equal among the unequals.
Numerical equality is well associated or at least should be
associated with social equality.
Proportional Equality
Proportional equality, as Aristotle says, is the notion that
man is unequal in what he is naturally given as a talent. He
explains that in practice, neither the individuals are always
equal to one another nor are the relevant respects or
situations (social, economic, cultural) always equal. As such,
there cannot be equal treatment nor can there be the equal
distribution. Both the treatment as well as the distribution are
usually, or say always, proportional. Inequality arises when
equals are treated/distributed unequally, and when unequals
are treated/distributed equally. We should always make a
distinction between a deserving and an undeserving—one
who is more talented and one who is relatively less; one who
produces more than one who produces less. The treatment
among the individuals, and therefore, the distribution of
benefits/rewards/returns should always be related to their
talent, capacity, and circumstances under which they
contribute to the society. Numerical equality involves a
quantitative ranking of elements: proportional equality
involves equality according to desert. Proportional equality,
thus understood, may be put as: When factors speak for
unequal treatment or distribution, because the persons are
unequal in relevant respects, the treatment or distribution
proportional to these factors is just. Unequal claims to
treatment or distribution needs to be _ considered
proportionally: that is, the prerequisite for persons being
considered equally (See “Equality”, Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy). Proportional equality is or should be associated
with economic equality.
Distributional Equality
Distributional equality There are numerous theories which
seek to make a case for distributional equality. These
represent a host of views stating grounds on which
distribution of benefits/results/awards is accorded so to satisfy
the claims of equality in the society. The claim of simple
equality (advocate Babeuf) seeking to furnish the same
material level of goods and services for each is one that is
generally rejected as untenable. Libertarianism (Rawls —
distributional criterion to maximise the welfare of the worst off;
Nozick—the state’s attempt to repattern or redistribute is
immoral and unjust by taking from some and giving it to
others, may be on ground of fulfilling the needs) defends
market freedoms and opposes the use of redistribution of
taxation schemes for the sake of social justice as equality.
Rawls would permit furnishing of basic goods to assure
equitable or “fair value of the basic liberties.” Utilitarianism
(advocates Bentham and Mill, former in particular) while
counting everyone as one and no one more than one, seeks
that the interests of all should be treated equal without
consideration of contexts of interest or individual’s material
situation—distribution to maximise utilities, even at the cost of
equal respect for each individual. Welfareism as a concept
that helps equality does not take into account either desert or
possible or reasonable responsibility, though it does concern
itself with the overall well-being of all in the society. Dworkin
argues for equality of resources. He says, “the priority of
liberty is achieved not at the expense of equality but in its
name. Rights adequate to an alternate conception of liberty,”
he continues, “are given so foundational a place under
equality of resources that conflicts between these rights and
that view of distributional equality cannot arise.”
V. FORMS OF EQUALITY: SOCIAL, POLITICAL,
ECONOMIC
(b) Social Equality

Social Equality is defined as “a social state of affairs in which
all people or isolated groups within a specific society have the
same status in a certain respect. It refers to the absence of
social class or caste boundaries as also the absence of
unjustified discrimination on grounds such as of gender, age,
caste, creed, origin, disability, and the like. According to
David Miller (Principles of Social Justice), “wherever there is
social equality, people feel that each member of the
community enjoys an equal standing with all the rest that
overrides members’ unequal ratings along particular
dimensions. This is expressed in the way people interact,
they shake hands rather than bow..”
So understood, social equality may be said to have
characteristics such as:
(a) Individuals or groups of individuals have the equal
social status in certain respects.
(b) Equal status refers to social aspect, i.e., equal
social identity.
(c) Equal social status demands absence of
discrimination.
(d) Absence of discrimination relates to numerous
aspects: age, gender, class, caste, creed, origin,
and the like.
(e) Social equality makes no distinction between the
rich and the poor, man and woman, a Brahmin and
a dalit, the high and low: in the eyes of society, all
have the equal standing: no one so high as to he
alone knows all values: no one so wretched that
does not see a human being in others.
(f) Negatively, social equality refers to the abolition of
all discrimination, i.e. a state of non-domination as
the libertarians would use the term; and positively,
it refers to fellowship and harmony.
Social equality is an ongoing affair, a never-ending task.
However, at the outset it seeks, as Ruut Veenhoven says,
redistribution of power (through, for example, the introduction
of universal adult franchise), redistribution of knowledge
(through, for example, compulsory § education), and
redistribution of income (through, for example, social
security).
The Constitution of India grants right to equality, and
through Articles 14 to 18, guarantees /ega/ and social
equality: the State shall not deny to any person equality
before law or the equal protection of law (Article 14); the State
shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of
religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any of them (Article
15).
Social equality is the basis on which the edifice of
economic and political equality can well be built. In fact,
neither the economic equality nor the political equality would
have any meaning in the absence of social equality. These
different forms of equality go on to provide a foundation for
one another on the one hand and strengthen themselves in
return, on the other.
Economic Equality
Gandhiji never had meant that economic equality means the
same amount. For him, it meant that everybody should have
enough for his/her needs: “to each according to his/her
needs.” “If a single man,” he would argue, “demands as much
as a man with wife and four children, that will be a violation of
economic equality.” What economic equality means is the
absence of economic disparities. It is sufficiency of all before
there is superfluity for the few: meeting the urgent claims of
all before meeting the particular claims of the few. It is not,
indeed, taking from John and giving it to Peter. It is full
employment of all; it is the abolition of exploitation of the
workers; it is disci— plining private property before it eats
away nation’s property. Of all forms of inequality, economic
equality is the worst. The Marxists hold the view that it had
led to the appropriation of private property in fewer hands
giving birth to the antagonistic opposing classes—the
economi—cally dominant class _ exploitating the non-
possessing class: sometimes slaves, while at others the
serfs, and in the capitalist society, the working class. The
transformation of the private property system into public
property system, and as a result of it, the transformation of
class society into a class— less society would help give birth
to an equalitarian society which would begin with “from one’s
abilities to one’s work,” and end up in “from one’s work to
one’s needs’—this is the Marxian theorys of the destiny of
economic inequality—the end of all economic inequalities.
The libertar—ians, neo-liberals particularly, regard economic
equality a cancer that would kill humanity. For them,
economic equality is not only a disaster, it is never a
possibility. On the other hand, they argue that economic
inequality is a natural phenomenon: individuals and groups
should be free to initiate initiative, exploit resources, make
use of their talents, and deploy their efforts. The state, the
libertarians would agree, needs to protect the social order,
forbid monopo—iisation and manipulation of economic
resources, and establish social justice: inequalities in the
distribution of wealth are justified, as Rawls declare, when
they improve society as a whole.
4 '
Origins of Inequality: Rousseau
Rousseau was of the view that inequality was hardly

perceived in the state of nature, and its influence was
almost nothing. Man was, in the state of nature, a noble
savage: “Each began to look at the others, as wants to be
looked at himself ... He who sang or danced the best; he
who was the most handsome, the strongest, the most
adroit or the most eloquent became the most highly
regarded...”. “From the instant’, Rousseau continues,” that
one man needed the help of another, and it was found to
be useful for one man to have provisions enough for two,
equality disappeared.” Inequality of possessions led to
conflict and nascent society, “the happiest epoch’,
Rousseau laments, “and the most-lasting gave way to the
most horrible state of war.”
Political Equality
Political equality refers to the situation where citizens have
an equal voice over governmental decisions. It, therefore,
presumes principles, such as one person, one vote; equality
before law; right to free speech, expression, right to contest
elections; right to participate in political activities; right to hold
public office — and holds that each and every citizen should
enjoy these liberties equally with others. Political equality
works well in the democratic framework: all are equals and all
enjoy equal political rights and freedoms — enjoying equal
influence over government.
Where there is a democracy, there alone we can have
political equality. Indeed, in itself, political equality is a value
that helps enhance and glorify one’s personality. It is a value
through which people participate in the formation of
government: through political participation, government's
legitimacy can be generated or in fact, is created. Educative
as well as political participation helps to protect interests of
all: equal protection of interests of all the citizens.
Robert Dahl believes that only a democratic government is
consistent with the logic of political equality. He refers to
certain criteria which mark a democratic process:
(a) voting equally;
(b) effective participation;
(c) enlightened understanding;
(d) controlling the agenda; and
(e) inclusion of all adult members in collective
decisions.
“These five criteria’, Dahl says, “make the democratic
process fully consistent with the logic of political equality.
Violating any of the five criteria,” he warns, “not only renders
the process undemocratic, but also renders it incompatible
with the logic of political equality. To deny any citizen,” we
may conclude with Dahl, “adequate opportunities for effective
participation means that because their preferences are
unknown or incorrectly perceived, they cannot be taken into
account. But to not take their preferences towards the final
outcome equally the account is to reject the principle of equal
consideration of interests, which is a corollary of the logic of
political equality.”
VI. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EQUALITY AND

FREEDOM
The term freedom, though in the Marxian sense, is stated
relatively more comprehensive than liberty, the libertarian
Hayek (The Constitution of Liberty) regards it as
interchangeable with liberty. Following Hayek, the two terms
here are considered identical.
The issue of relationship between equality and freedom
(liberty) is as important now as it was during the nineteenth
century (Alexis de Tocqueville: Democracy in America, and
Lord Acton: History of Freedom and other Essays). Accepting
the notion of equality as normative, the classical liberals
(Kant’s followers especially) thought of it as legitimate if it did
not interfere with the fulfillment of personal freedom and
individual autonomy.
Equality as the right to freedom in classical liberalism is
subordinated to liberty. For many liberals, it is a tool
guaranteed through democracy’s equal suffrage, etc. to
achieve individual freedom and autonomy. Equality in liberty
means that each person should enjoy as much liberty as is
compatible with the liberty of others, and may do anything
which does not diminish the equal liberty of others. But soon,
the two concepts came to be projected as opposing. The two
views are: one that regards freedom or liberty and equality as
incompatible, the other, consider them as compatible.
The first view regards liberty and equality as opposed to
each other. De Tocqueville, Lord Acton, Bagehot, Hayek,
Friedman, Mosca, and Pareto believe the two concepts as
antithetical. The basis of their argument is that liberty and
inequality are natural. Therefore, by nature liberty and
equality are contradictory to each other. Secondly, every
advance in equality diminishes freedom; every protection of
freedom effectively hinders the promotion of equality. For
achieving the objective of equality would mean curtailing the
freedom. Lord Acton said, “the passion for equality has made
vain the hope for freedom.” In order to develop the poor, the
government not only taxes the rich but also puts constraints
on their freedom in the name of democracy. John Randolph,
once uttered the famous line, “I love liberty: | hate equality.”
That disjunctive would sound strange to the ears of those for
whom liberty or freedom is just one aspect of equality.
The disciples of equality envision a society of bland
uniformity, economic parity, and benevolent brotherhood.
They are insanely passionate in their attempt to fashion that
society. Holding to the Marxist dogma that the basic concerns
of this life are economic, they seem convinced that economic
inequality is the greatest injustice mankind has ever suffered.
The defenders of freedom, by contrast, view men as
differing greatly among themselves in natural wealth, talent,
and virtue (both actually and potentially); and they argue that
the greatest injustice is not economic inequality but coerced
social equality, which subordinates human freedom for a
bland equality.
The other view holds a position that the two terms, equality
and freedom are complementary. Its advocates are Laski,
Tawney, Pollard, Barker, and the like. According to Laski,
“There cannot, in a word, be democratic government without
equality; and without democratic government there cannot be
freedom’.
He further says, “Political equality, therefore, is never real
unless it is accompanied by virtual economic equality; political
power, otherwise is bound to be the handmaid of economic
power... the state must dominate property, or property will
domin ate the state.”
A society, where liberty is devoid of equality will be a
society of strifes and class conflicts. Laski quotes Madison
who wrote. “The only durable source of faction is property.
Laski is of the opinion that where there are great economic
inequalities, there the relationship between the citizens is that
of the master and the slave. Equality that aims to end gross
economic inequalities is the true basis of liberty.”
Tawney is right when he says, “A large measure of
equality, so far being inimical to liberty is essential to it.”
Pollard aptly puts it, “There is only one solution to the
problem of liberty. It lies in equality.”
f- Y
“The Kind of Tyranny Democracies have to Fear” De

Tocqueville
Alexis de Tocqueville in the above chapter of his book,

Democracy in America, says that the tyranny of majority is
the worst type of tyranny. It is a bland uniformity that hangs
a pale, inhibiting closed over men, penalising or
neutralising ingenuity, erudition, wealth and diligence. It is a
tyranny no less tyrannical than the members of medieval
royalty, for while the common people suffer under the
tyranny or high-minded insensitive royalty, aristocrats and
scholars suffer under the tyranny of a democracy. But to
the modern democratic ideal, any tyranny may be suffered
except the tyranny of inequality.
\ J
The two views with regard to the relationship between them

have their arguments. The fact of the matter is that if the two
are not at war with each other always, the two are not always
friendly either. The libertarian societies uphold liberty more
than equality whereas the equalitarian societies seek equality
more than liberty. Equality is the only condition of freedom but
not the necessary condition. Freedom is a constraint on
equality but it is not the on/y one. Equality and freedom do not
run in opposite directions; they run in parallel directions.
Vil. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Meaning
The term affirmative action used first in the United States,
denotes a positive policy either by public authorities or private
employees to help compensate those who have been
historically disadvantaged. These disadvantaged groups may
include women, racial and caste minorities, disabled, socially
and economically backward, and the like—in a word, those
who have been discriminated in fields, such as services,
businesses, education, and the like. Affirmative action is an
attempt to bring the unequals equal with the rest of the people
in society; an attempt not only to eliminate discrimination but
one to redress the wrongs done in the past. The underlying
idea behind the affirmative action is the principle of equal
opportunity i.e., right to equal access of every person to attain
self-development: people with equal abilities should have
equal opportunities. Affirmative action is an attempt to bring
about equal access to equal opportunities, an attempt to bring
all at the starting point equally by giving preferential treatment
to some, if necessary. We may, therefore, enumerate some of
the features of affirmative action as under:
i. It seeks to eliminate discrimination in public life,

especially in employment, admission and public places.
ii. It seeks positive action to be taken by the legislatures,
executives, courts, and other public and private
authorities to help the people of disadvantaged classes
(women, disabled, aged, social/religious minorities).
iii. Positive/affirmative action is not confined to recruitment
only but is to be extended to training and promotional
avenues as well.
iv. Discriminatory treatment of these disadvantaged
classes is to be followed by
punitive/administrative/judicial action.
v. Affirmative action is not a matter of policy only but also
a matter of action (programmes/ plans).
vi. It is a policy of correction, correcting the wrongs done to
the disadvantaged sections of the society in the past or
likely to be done in the future.
vii. The civil rights leaders (of the USA) sought the
affirmative action plans in 1960s, and in the process
had emphasised in its following characteristics:
e First, they may be sponsored or instituted either by
government agencies and public educational institutions
or by private organisations such as businesses,
vocational training schools, or private colleges.
Second, affirmative action plans takes into account such
personal factors as race, ethnicity, or gender when
individuals are under consideration for employment in a
job, promotion to a better job, or admission to a school
or college. However, individuals must not receive
education or employment benefits solely on the basis of
such factors as race, ethnicity, or gender; rather, these
personal factors will determine who receives or does not
receive certain opportunities only when minority
candidates are otherwise well qualified for the jobs,
educational programmes, and so forth that they seek to
attain.
Third, affirmative action programmes are based clearly
on the equal or economic need of individuals resulting
from unfair treatment in the past or racial, ethnic, or
gender groups to which these people belong.
Fourth, affirmative action plans are supposed to be
temporary remedies and not permanent programmes.
Hoffman and Graham refer to the following types of

affirmative action policies:
Encouragement:The job is advertised by particular

communities: ethnic minorities, for example.
Tie-breaking:|f two persons are “equally qualified” then
that person is to be chosen who belongs to
“disadvantaged group’.
Handicapping:An example of this would be requiring
higher entry points, or grades, for applicants to
university from wealthy backgrounds.
iv. Quota System:A certain percentage of jobs may be
filled by a particular group ... this is usually subject to a
requirement of maximum competence.
History of Affirmative Action in the USA

Affirmative action has its roots in the civil rights movement. In
1961, President Kennedy signed Executive Order 10925,
which established the Commission on Equal Employment
Opportunity. The order stated that the contractors doing
business with the government “will take affirmative action to
ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are
treated during their employment, without regard to their race,
creed, colour, or national origin.” Though, this order did not
advocate any preferential treatment of the affected group, it
did seek the elimination of discrimination. The US Civil Rights
Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination in voting, public
education, accommodations, and employment in firms with
more than fifteen employees. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
offered a similar understanding of affirmative action as
Executive Order 10925, stating that the act was not designed
“to grant preferential treatment to any group because of race,
colour, religion, sex, or national origin.” The Act did not
provide any penalties to those who discriminated nor did it
provide for compensation to the discriminated ones. However,
the Act sought the establishment of a conciliation process by
which the victims could be restored to the position they had
sought. President Johnson, in 1965, wanted to see more than
discrimination in affirmative action and argued for a more
active interpretation of affirmative action that could assure,
along with equal opportunities, equality as a result. In 1968,
the office of Federal Contract Compliance issued regulations
which required, for the first time that specific targets be set by
which the effects of affirmative action programmes could be
evaluated. The regulations stated that the “contractor’s
programme shall provide in detail for specific steps to
guarantee equal employment opportunity keyed to the
problems and needs of minority groups, including when there
are deficiencies, the development of specific goals and
timetables for the prompt achievement of full and equal
employment opportunity.” It was in these regulations and
analogues measures by the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) that the debate over affirmative action
quotas had its origins.
Goals and timetables were established by the US
Department of Labour using “utilisation analysis,” which
statistically compared the proportion of employed women and
minorities in a firm with the proportion of women and
minorities in the regional workforce, deriving a measure of
what the department called “disparate impact.” In the absence
of discrimination, it was assumed that these proportions
would and should be roughly equal. Since these regulations
focussed on results and not on intent, the structural nature of
discrimination was officially recognised. In addition, these
regulations provided an official and measurable basis for the
preferential treatment of affected groups.
In the landmark Griggs v. Duke Power Co. case of 1971,
the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Duke’s
requirement of high school diploma or IQ tests for those
applying for unskilled jobs. The decision held that “Title VII
forbids not only practices adopted with a discriminatory
motive, but also practices which, though adopted without
discriminatory intent, have a_ discriminatory effect on
minorities and women.” The ruling provided a legal foundation
for cases of “disparate impact,” asserting that employers may
not use job requirements that adversely affect women and
minorities unless required by what it termed “business
necessity.”
Another significant Supreme Court ruling on affirmative
action came in a 1978 case, Regents of the University of
California v. Bakke. Under the University of California at
Davis’s admission policies, 16 of 100 places were set aside
for minority applicants. Allan Bakke was a white applicant
who was denied enrolment to Davis’s medical school, even
though his test scores were higher than the minority students
who were admitted. Casting the deciding vote, Justice Lewis
Powell held that Bakke should be admitted to the program
since Davis’s policies constituted a rigid quota, but that,
nonetheless, Davis could continue to favour minorities in its
admission practices and that it had a “compelling state
interest” to attain a diversified educational environment.
Two important Supreme Court rulings in the late 1980s also
acted to substantially weaken affirmative action. The 1988
case Watson v. Fort Worth Bank and Trust overturned the
landmark 1971 Griggs v. Duke Power Co., shifting the burden
of proof in employment discrimination cases from employers
to plaintiffs. In the 1989 case Wards Cove Packing Company
v. Antonio, the court ruled that a plaintiff could not simply
show disparate impact to prove discrimination but must
demonstrate that a specific employment practice created the
existing disparity.
In order to fight back the rollback of affirmative action, the
US Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The Act
returned the burden of proof to employers in disparate impact
cases, requiring employers to prove that employment
practices that resulted in disparate impact were “job related”
and “consistent with business necessity.” The act, thus,
overturned the Supreme Court’s ruling in Watson v. Fort
Worth Bank and Trust and Wards Cove Packing Company v.
Antonio. In addition, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 addressed
issues of unlawful harassment and intentional discrimination,
allowing minority and female victims of intentional
discrimination to be awarded upto $ 300,000 in compensatory
damages in addition to back pay and restitution.
In 1994, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
initiated one of the largest affirmative action programme. The
FCC voted unanimously to set aside 1000 to 2000 new radio
licences for small businesses, women, and minorities. These
licenses are for businesses serving the rapidly growing
number of users of pocket-size telephones, fax machines,
pagers, and hand-held computers. Small companies owned
by women or minorities could receive up to a 60 per cent
discount on the cost of these licences which, federal officials
estimated, have total market value of $ 10 billion.
In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 209, which
banned preferential treatment on the basis of gender and
race in public employment, education, and contracting in the
state. In effect, the measure eliminated affirmative action
programmes in California except as necessary to comply with
federal law.
There is a debate going on with regard to affirmative action:
its advocates regard it necessary to compensate for
advantages that the other groups are said to have had while
its opponents argue that the affirmative action programmes
benefit only the middle-and upper-class minorities at the cost
of the lower class whites. The proponents argue that
affirmative action is the best set of principles to eliminate
unfair decision-making. Their arguments for affirmative action
are:
(a) Past historical discrimination had severely limited
access to educational opportunities and job
experiences.
(b) Ostensible measures of “merit” may well be biased
toward the same groups who are already
empowered.
(c) Regardless of overt principles, people in positions
of power are likely to hire people who already know
or people from similar backgrounds, or both.
The proponents of affirmative action, therefore, advocate it
either as a means to address past discrimination or to
enhance racial, ethnic, gender, or diversity of some minority
groups. They argue that the end result—a more diversified
student body, police force, or other group—justifies the
means, despite the text of the Equal Protection Clause, and
regardless of the adverse discrimination against Whites or
minority groups such as Asian Americans. The opponents, on
the other hand, claim that affirmative action has undesirable
side-effects and that it fails to achieve its goals. They argue
that it factors race into the decision-making process, which
perpetrates new wrongs to counter old ones, and undermines
the achievements of minorities. It increases racial tension and
benefits the more privileged people within minority groups.
They say that affirmative action is counter productive, both
because it requires the very discrimination it is seeking to
eliminate in order to work and because it promotes prejudice
by increasing resentment of those who are the beneficiaries
of affirmative action from those who have been adversely
affected by the policy. They also argue that those who suffer
on account of affirmative action (i.e. those who don’t get the
job or who don’t get admitted to a particular university) should
not be held accountable for crimes they did not commit; in
other words, that most people of the present were not a part
of the system that oppressed such minorities. Furthermore,
the opponents say, since the people have equal rights, no
individual's rights should be sacrificed to compensate for
another person’s rights being taken away. Additionally, it is
affirmed that affirmative action sometimes represses the
qualified in favour of not-so-qualified. Notable opponents of
affirmative action include Ward Connerly of the American Civil
Rights Institute, the States of California (California Proposition
209 (1996), Washington (1998-1-200), and Michigan (The
Michigan Civil Rights Initiative or Proposal 2, 2006).
Implementation of Affirmative Action Worldwide
Some of the major countries of affirmative action are:
(i) Brazil
Some Brazilian Universities (State and Federal) have created
systems of preferred admissions (quotas) for racial minorities
(blacks and native Brazilians), the poor, and people with
disabilities. There are already quotas of up to 20 per cent of
vacancies reserved for the disabled in the civil public
services.
(ii) Canada
The Canadian Employment Equity Act requires employers in
federally-regulated industries to give preferential treatment to
four designed groups: women, people with disabilities,
aboriginal people, and visible minorities. Some provinces and
territories also have affirmative action-type policies. For
example, in Northwest Territories in the Canadian north,
aboriginal people are given preference for jobs and education
and are considered to have P1 status. Non-aboriginal people
who were born in the NWT or have resided half of their life
there as well as women and disabled peoples are considered
a P2. Men receive the lowest priority P3.
(iii) China
In China, “preferential policies” required some of the top
positions in governments be distributed to ethnic minorities
and women. Also, selected universities give preferred
admissions to ethnic minorities.
(iv) Finland
In certain university education programmes, including legal
and medical education, there are quotas for Swedish-
speaking applicants. The aim of the quotas is to guarantee
that a sufficient number of Swedish speaking professionals
are educated, thus, safeguarding the linguistic rights of the
Swedish-speaking Finns. The quota system has met with
criticism from the Finnish speaking majority, some of whom
consider the system unfair. In addition to these linguistic
quotas, women get preferential treatment in recruitment for
certain public sector jobs if there is a gender imbalance in that
field.
(v) France
No distinctions based on race, religion, or sex are allowed
under the 1958 French Constitution. Since the 1980s, a
French version of affirmative action based on neighbourhood
is in place for primary and secondary education. Some
schools, in neighbourhoods labelled “Priority Education
Zones,” are granted more funds than the others. Students
from these schools also benefit from special policies in certain
institutions (such as Sciences). The French Ministry of
Defence tried in 1990 to give more easily higher ranks and
driving licences to young French soldiers with North-African
origins. After a strong protest by a young French lieutenant in
the Ministry of Defence newspaper (Armees d’aujourd’hui),
this driving licence and rank project was cancelled. After the
Sarkozy election, a new attempt in favour of Arabian-French
soldiers is ongoing.
(vi) Germany
Article 3 of the German Constitution provides for equal rights
of all people regardless of sex, race, or social background. In
recent years, there has been a long public debate about
whether to issue programmes that would grant women a
privileged access to jobs in order to fight discrimination. There
are programmes stating that if men and women have equal
qualifications, women have to be preferred for a job. This is
typically for all positions in state and university service as of
2007, typically using the phrase “We try to increase the
percentage of females in this line of work.”
(vii) Japan
Admission to universities as well as all government positions
(including teachers) is determined by the entrance
examination, which is extremely competitive at the top level. It
is illegal to include sex, ethnicity, or other social background
(but not nationality) in criteria. However, there are informal
policies to provide employment and long term welfare (which
is usually not available to general public) to Burakumin at
municipality level.
(viii) New Zealand

Individuals of Maori or other Polynesian descent are often
afforded preferential access to university courses and
scholarships.
(ix) Norway
All public company (ASA) boards with more than five
members must have at least 40 per cent women (cannot be
made up of more than 60 per cent). This affects roughly 400
companies.
(x) South Africa

The Employment Equity Act and the Broad Based Black
Economic Empowerment Act aim to promote and achieve
equality in the workplace (in South Africa termed equity), by
not only advancing people from designated groups but also
specifically disadvantaging the others.
(xi) Sri Lanka

In 1971, the Standardisation policy of Sri Lankan Universities
was introduced as an affirmative action programme for
students from areas which had poor educational facilities due
to 200 years of purposeful discrimination by British
colonialists. The British had practised communal favouritism
towards Christians and the minority Tamil community for the
entire 200 years they had controlled Sri Lanka, as part of a
policy of divide and conquer. This is one of the reasons for
the Sri Lankan Civil War.
(xii) Sweden
Swedish democracy, though very solicitous about minorities’
rights and integration, does not allow affirmative action, which
is considered almost a kind of discrimination, and though
aimed at strengthening workers’ rights it is considered unfair.
Affirmative action is also regarded as emphasising minorities’
identity as a different, separate body, actually making the
weak feel even worse and stigmatising them, as they are
given entitlements on the basis of their ascribed
characteristics.
(xiii) United Kingdom

Positive Discrimination is unlawful in the UK = and
quotas/selective systems are not permitted. A singular
exception to this is a provision made under the 1998 Good
Friday Agreement which requires that the Police Service of
Northern Ireland recruit equal numbers of Catholics and non-
Catholics. However, a number of people are taking the UK
Government to EU Human Rights for alleged breaches of
Human Rights Acct.
(xiv) United States

Affirmative action in the United States occurs in school
admissions, job hiring, and government and corporate
contracts. Its intended beneficiaries are disadvantaged ethnic
minorities, women, people with disabilities, and veterans.
Affirmative action has been the subject of numerous court
cases, and has been contested on constitutional grounds.
California, Michigan, and Washington have banned various
forms of affirmative action by government organisations.
According to US Office of Personnel Management's annual
report “Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment
Programme”, a total of 48,033 new minority employees
(disadvantaged ethnic minorities, women, people with
disabilities, and veterans) have been hired by the federal
agencies from 2001 to 2006. During the same period, there
has been a net decrease of 3900 white male employees in
federal jobs.
Vill. PROTECTIVE DISCRIMINATION:

RESERVATION POLICY IN INDIA
Protective discrimination refers to the protection of those who
have been or who may be discriminated. The discrimination
suffered by the oppressed and the disadvantaged sections of
society including the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled
Tribes, the women, the aged, the handicapped, socially-
economically backward classes, the religious minorities, and
the like over a great period of time has led to the concept of
protective discrimination: lamb and not wolf is to be protected.
The main reason behind protective discrimination is to
provide the necessary facilities to the deprived sections so as
to bring them to the mainstream society. It is not only to
eliminate discrimination but it is to protect the interests of the
discriminated as also to give them preferential treatment so
as to promote their interests. The chapter on Fundamental
Rights in Part Ill of the Constitution prohibits any
discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, and place
of birth (Article 15) but allows the state to make “any special
provision for the advancement of any socially and
educationally backward classes of citizens or for the
Scheduled Cases (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).” Article
16 calls for “equality of opportunity” in matters of public
employment, permitting “the reservation of appointments or
posts in favour of the backward class of citizens which, in the
opinion of the State is not adequately represented and
another (Indra Sawhney and others vs. Union of India and
others, 1992) allowing reservation in matters of promotion for
SCs and STs. The practice of untouchability has been
declared illegal (Article 17). A separate section of the
Constitution (Part XVI, Articles 330, 331, 332, 333) provides
for special provisions relating to certain classes (Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Anglo-Indians) giving them
representation in the legislatures. With regard to the
reservation of jobs, Article 335 says that “the claims of the
member of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the
maintenance of efficiency of administration. The National
Commissions for Scheduled Castes and for Scheduled Tribes
have been established to investigate, monitor, advise, and
evaluate the progress of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes under the schemes aimed at the
socioeconomic development of these groups. Another
commission was also created to investigate the conditions of
the socially and educationally backward classes. The
Parliament has passed the Untouchability (Offences) Act of
1955 (renamed as the Protection of Civil Rights Act of 1976),
and another the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, outlawing untouchability
and providing heavier penalties on those who indulge in
discrimination. There is reservation in jobs, 22.5 per cent and
22.5 per cent in education for the SCs and STs. This
reservation is extended every ten years by amending the
Constitution.
In addition to the implementation of the provisions of the
Constitution, the State has provided reservation in the
legislatures, services and has given facilities to the SCs and
STs in matters relating to education, employment, and
assistance in economic fields. The reservation policy, on the
one hand, is being defended as ethically correct as it
compensates the injustice done to the oppressed classes,
while it is assailed, on the other hand, for robbing Peter to pay
Paul.
Following the Kaka Kalekar Commission Report (1995)
identifying 2399 caste groups and socially and educationally
backward classes, the Mandal Commission (appointed in
1978) formulated 11 indicators (four on caste based social
backwardness, three on educational backwardness, and four
on economic backwardness) and identifying 3743 backward
classes and recommended 27 per cent of the jobs for OBCs
(Other Backward Classes) in central services and public
undertak—ings.
Women’s welfare has been one of the uphill tasks in
independent India. The Constitution provides safeguards for
women (Articles 15, 16, 19, 39, 51A). Numerous laws {Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961, 1984; the Equal Remuneration Acct,
1976; the Criminal Law (Second Amendment), 1985} have
been passed by the Parliament for protecting the interests of
women. Through 73" and 74th Amendment Acts, there has
been one-third reservation in the rural and urban local bodies,
though women’s reservation bill, in the state and central
legislatures, is under the consideration of the Parliament. The
National Commission for Women (1992) and the National
Policy for the Empowerment of Women (2001) are expected
to futher protect and promote interests of the women in India.
The reservation for minorities such as the Muslims, (Sachar
Committee—2006) and of the Christians is being sought. The
United Nations Convention on the Rights of Child (1992) has
been welcomed in India while the National Policy for Older
Persons (1999) was announced by the Government of India.
There is the Persons with Disability Act, 1995 which provides
3 per cent reservation for the disabled in governmental jobs.
The caste-based reservation in the country is: in Central
Government funded higher education institutions is 22.5 per
cent (15 per cent for SCs and 7.5 per cent for STs). There is
an extra provision for 27 per cent for OBCs. There is 22.5 per
cent reservation of seats in the legislatures in India. In few
states like Tamil Nadu, the percentage of reservation in
legislature is 18 per cent for SCs, and 1 per cent for STs. In
Andhra Pradesh there is 25 per cent reservation in
educational institutions and governmental jobs: 15 per cent
for SCs, 6 per cent for STs, and 4 per cent for Muslims.
There is the religion-based reservation in Tamil Nadu. This
state has allotted 3.5 per cent for the Muslims and 3.5 per
cent for the Christians. In Andhra Pradesh, there is 4 per cent
reservation for Muslims. Kerala Public Service Commission
has a quota of 12 per cent for Muslims. The religious minority
status educational institutions have 50 per cent reservation
for their particular religions.
The notion of protective discrimination as reflected in the
reservation policy in India has, like the concept of affirmative
action in the United States, generated heated debate in the
country. The advocates of reservation policy argue:
i. the reservation policy has been beneficial to the

disadvantaged sections of society;
ii. it has helped many people to grow and occupy top
positions in public jobs;
iii. it has helped the historically-discriminated minorities
blessed with social justice;
iv. it is never too late to correct one’s wrongs: reservation
policy attempts to attain this object;
v. it has helped the deprived sections of society to avail
education which has been denied to them for centuries;
vi. there has been an attempt to bring unequals to the level
of equals.
The opponents have their own arguments, against the

reservation policy:
i. it has perpetuated casteism and communalism, leading

ultimately to conflicts in the society;
ii. it has helped bring economic facilities to the
disadvantaged only, the idea of social cohesion
expected from the reservation policy has been a remot
possibility;
iii. Casteism and one’s belonging to one’s religion are birth-
based, are inborn realities, inherent culturally, and as
such cannot be set aside through externally mooted
laws;
iv. the electoral politics, as adopted in India, strengthens
the vote-banks emerging from the reservation policy,
each political party attempting to work within the
parameters of electoral politics;
v. allocating quotas is, in itself, a form of discrimination,
contrary to the right to equality; it improves
representation but may not guarantee the abolition of
poverty.
The disadvantaged begin to thrive on facilities, without

trying to improve their lot.
The Indian notion of protective discrimination and the
American notion of affirmative action are not the same. In
terms of history, the reservation policy in India owes its roots
to the days of the British rule in India while the American
notion of affirmative action has been of relatively recent times,
i.e., early 1960s. The reservation policy has its roots in
religion and caste, other factors such as social-educational
backwardness, poverty, and the like came to be added later.
The notion of affirmative action, from the beginning arose with
racial and gender discrimination. The reservation policy, in its
nature, has been constitutive, i.e., devised in the Constitution,
and has, for that purpose, attained a measure of
permanence. The idea of affirmative action has come up
through executive order, and has never been intended to be
permanent. The reservation policy has politicised itself while
the notion of affirmative action has remained far away from
politicking. The reservation policy is applicable only to the
public sector institutions, government/state, whereas the US
affirmative action extends to private enterprises as well. The
underlying idea of reservation policy has been to eliminate
deprivation primarily while that of affirmative action is to
remove discrimination. The US affirmative action is something
which a numerically minority community (racial and gender
minorities) wants to support whereas in India, the numerically
majority community (almost all the political parties, and
almost all sections of society) want. reservation concessions.
The World Development Report (2006) finds similarities
between the notion of affirmative action and the Indian idea of
reservation policy: in both merit/efficiency is lowered as a
result of less qualified candidates; preferences dilute
incentives for self-improvement among the disadvantaged
groups; benefits do not reach the “real” beneficiaries, but are
covered by the better-off sections of the disadvantaged
groups; both divide the society along the race/caste lines.
Practice
Questions
1. Explain equality as equal opportunity;

differentiate it from equality of outcome.
(2012) (700-800 words)
2. How is liberty a precondition for
equality? Explicate the relationship
between equality and liberty. (2014)
(700-800 words)
3. Discuss equality as equality of
outcomes. (200 words)
4. Evaluate equality-freedom relationship.
(700-800 words)
5. What is foundational equality? (200
words)
6. How does affirmative action eliminate
discrimination? (700-800 words)
7. Write an essay on the implementation of
affirmative action in major countries of
the world. (700-800 words)
8. Why is affirmative action important in
provision of equal opportunity? (2012)
(700-800 words)
9. Evaluate critically the reservation policy
as adopted in India. (700-800 words)
10. Write a brief note on_ protective
discrimination. (200 words)
Rights And The Concept of
Human Righis
I. INTRODUCTION
ights are social claims which help individuals develop
their personalities. They are individuals’ entitlements,
their possessions. They are claims _ socially
recognised by the society. Society is the source of individual’s
rights, the state only ensures them, maintains them for the
individual. Bosanquet had rightly said: “Right is a claim
recognised by society and enforced by the state.” Wilde
describes right as a “reasonable claim to freedom in the
exercise of certain activities”.
ll. RIGHTS: MEANING, NATURE, AND

CHARACTERISTICS
Rights have been rightly described as claims of social life
without which no man can seek to be his best self (Laski).
They relate to the development of human personality: they
are entitlements a person is possessed with; entitlements
neither as privileges nor as power, but rights as rewards in
response to what a person does towards others—obligations
done, responsibilities accounted for, and duties performed.
They always go with duties, before them in fact, or at best
along with them. Rights are social, for they exist in the
society, granted by it; they are never before it, nor against it,
nor above it. The state only maintains rights —recognises and
protects them. Though rights belong to the individuals, they
are never absolute; they are limited in the sense that they are
exercised within the framework of the social order; they are
never permanent in the sense that no one can make a final
list of rights for all times to come. They are claims which
belong to the individual. They come in the domains of the
individuals. They are claims, but every claim is not a right, for
every claim may not be recognised by the society; if it is not
social then it is not a right. Rights are social claims in the
sense that they emanate from society; they are reasonable in
the sense they exist for the good of the society; our rights are
ours but they are not those which harm others; they
contribute to the common good as T.H. Green had rightly
described them. Hobbouse says: “Rights are what we may
expect from others and others from us, and all genuine rights
are conditions of social welfare.” They constitute the sum-total
of those opportunities which ensure the enrichment of the
individual personality together with the good of the
community. Rights are, indeed, rights of the individual, but
they exist, originate and are exercised in the society; they are
not beyond, above and/or against society; they are social in
so far as they help promote social good. Rights relate
individual with individual; they are one’s claims on others:
one’s rights are one’s duties as also the duties of the others.
They are never permanent in so far as they do not exist for all
times to come; they change with changing times.
Rights
e Right is a social claim necessary for the development
of human personality.
e |t is universal for it is the possession of every
individual, a possession in response to the duties
performed.
e It is social: exists within the society and is exercised
in the interest of the individual and that of society.
e State protects rights, and keeps recognising and
maintaining them from time to time.
\ JS
So understood, the characteristic features of rights can be

summed up as under:
1. Rights are possessions and entitlements of the
individual. They provide individual opportunities so to
help him/her develop his/her personality.
2. Rights are social by nature, social because they are not
against the social good—they are neither anti-social nor
immoral.
3. Rights exist in the society, neither before it nor above it,
nor even against it; there are no rights where there is no
society.
4. Rights are rewards in response to the responsibilities
performed; they go alongside, and in fact before duties.
5. Rights are maintained by the state; the state protects
rights of the individual, ensure them to the individual.
6. Rights are never permanent; they are dynamic in nature
and keep changing with the changing times.
Rights do not exist in vacuum. They imply a relationship:
right-holder on the one hand, and another against whom the
right is held—a claim of one over the other: one having a
claim; another, a duty. Rights presuppose’ an
institution/structure: the rights are exercised in a system;
there are institutions/structures which overview — the
application of the system of rights, and procedures in
accordance with which the rights are exercised. This is what
makes rights limited, and not absolute. Rights are
facilities/opportunities, which, as entitlements, help individuals
do certain things that enable them develop their personalities.
A right is a right because someone holds it; it is a right
because someone else recognises it; it is a right because
some institution (say the government, its officials) maintains
and enforces it and penalises those who infringe it. A right is
a right because it provides an opportunity through which a
person can grow to his/her heights. Rights tell us whether our
actions are just and proper; they inform us as to which
institutions are expected to enforce them; they help us
propose the form of government that would maintain such
rights; they prescribe the contents of the laws which would
protect such rights. Rights approve the distribution of freedom
and authority in a polity where they exist.
lll, EVOLUTION OF RIGHTS AND RELATED

THEORIES
Natural Rights Theory

To know the meaning of any concept, say that of rights, is to
go into the history as to when and in what sense the concept
or its related term was used. “Right” in its older objective
sense means “what is just” or “what is fair” (Finnis, J. Natural
Law and Natural Rights). Aristotle is said to have used the
word dikaion to indicate that a society is “rightly ordered,”
displaying the correct structure of human relationships. The
Roman jurist Ulpian held the view that justice means
rendering each his right (ius). So understood, a person’s
“right” is what is due to him given his role. Though the ancient
Greeks and Romans did not mean by right what we
understand in the modern sense of the term yet the
underlying idea of right contains the moral connotations such
as “rightly-ordered society” or right is what is due to a person.
However, the modern meaning given to the term right can be
traced to Gratian in the twelfth, Ockham in the fourteenth,
Gerson in the fifteenth, Hobbes and Grotius in the sixteenth,
and Locke in the seventeenth century. This is from where we
have the Natural rights/theory of rights. During the greater
part of the medieval ages when Christianity played an
important role in the life of people and polity, the historical
theory of rights related individual and group rights to customs,
conventions, rituals, and traditions. Freedoms of conscience,
of faith, of religion, of property, of inheritance, and the like
have been historical, and therefore, to some _ extent
hierarchical (generation after generation professing the same
religion) and authoritarian (some people being granted certain
privileges while others’ being denied the same).
The days of the Natural Rights Theory are the days of 16th-
17th centuries Europe; this era began with Hobbes and Locke
and continued to be dominated by them during the greater
part of the eighteenth century (Rousseau including). The
natural rights theory rejected the hierarchal-authori-tarian
ethos of medieval times. Hobbes and Locke rejected the
divine theory condemning it as hierarchical and authoritarian
and one that was against the idea of human equality. Hobbes’
plea for natural rights of the individual and that of Locke
differed drastically, the former relating them to natural
psychology while the latter, to natural law. Both did advocate
natural rights theory for being in existence in the state of
nature as individual properties, but it was Locke and not
Hobbes, who made a strong plea for the natural rights theory.
Regarding life as a gift of God, the basic moral law that stems
out from this theory is that any one has no right to kill, harm,
and injure others and that all are equal in the eyes of God and
equal before Him; this natural condition of equality along with
the natural condition of freedom exists in the pre-political
state of nature, regulated only by the law of nature;
individuals derived natural rights (those of life, liberty,
equality, and property) from the law of nature as an individual
protected his/her own rights himself/herself because there
was then no known settled law, no common judge, no
universal executive; the society came to build a state to
protect rights of the individual. Thus, for Locke, natural rights
are natural because they were derived from the law of nature;
because the natural law ruled in the state of nature; because
individuals possessed the natural, basic, moral rights as gifts
from God; rights are rights of the individual bestowed on
him/her by nature; this is why that rights become natural ...,
inalienable and inviolable, with the state only protecting them.
The natural rights theory has been criticised on grounds
such as
i. it being non-juristic, for such rights are not sanctioned
claims;
ii. rights being in existence in pre-social/pre-political state
of nature;
iii. rights come first and organisation such as society/state
come later; rights relate to individuals, isolated
individuals, atomistic ones.
The conservative Burke had attacked natural rights for

being non-historical rights. According to the natural rights
theorists, natural right existed in pre-political times of pre-
history; the utilitarian Bentham described natural rights as
non-sense; the idealist Hegel regarded them particularist-
egoistic; Marx objected to the isolated and atomistic
conception of individuals having rights; the feminist
Wollstonecraft pointed to the male bias in the natural rights
theory.
The Historical Theory of Rights

The Historical Theory of Rights has its advocates in men like
Burke, (1729-97) a British statesman of the eighteenth
Century. Although he did not subscribe to the medieval
historical argument of rights yet he admired the traditions,
customs, conventions, history for providing stability, and order
in the society. He rejected the natural rights theory because it
rested on individual's sense of wisdom; he had also
dismissed the Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789), based
on the ideas of liberty and equality on the ground that it was
not conducive to the established norms of the social fabric.
He was opposed to the French Revolution for it had broken its
relation with the past (i.e., history) but had supported the
arguments of the American colonies for independence; for
they were extending the past into the present. Burke was of
the opinion that rights are the product of conventions:
traditions and percepts which turn into rights, but not, of
duties: individual's right to choose a government (for
example, Locke’s social contract theory) does not give him
the right to destroy the social fabric —Rights should follow the
duties of order, discipline, and obedience to authority. Paine
(1737-1809), unlike Burke, restated the idea of natural rights
condemning Burke and landed up in jail by the French
Jacobins when in France. The American Jefferson
(Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights) sought to
restate the Lockean concept of natural rights. Wollstonecraft
(1759 — 97), following Paine, was critical of Burke’s support
of history and tradition and of hereditary rights, and in the
process, appealed that women rights were made part of the
universal rights of man. The historical theory of rights,
however, remained confined to conservatives here and there.
The Theory of Legal Rights

The Theory of Legal Rights or one may call it the legal theory
of rights finds its supporters in Bentham (1748-1832) and
John Austin (1790-1859). The utilitarian Bentham comes to
realise that no society or state could stay without laws and
that no rights can be imagined without laws around: without a
law-giver, there could be no law, no right, and no duty. Rights,
Bentham argues, exist only within the framework of law and
are not anterior to law. For him, right is a benefit and,
therefore, it has to be determinate and intelligible, and hence,
has to be legal. Austin goes a step further and regards the
sovereign state as the source of rights, demanding the
individuals habitual obedience to the laws of the “determinate
human superior”: right is a claim which the force of the state
grants to the people.
The essential features of the legal theory of rights may be
mentioned as:
that the state defines and lays down the bill of rights:
rights are not prior to the state because the state is the
source of rights;
. that the state lays down a legal framework which
guarantees rights and that it is the state which enforces
the enjoyment of rights;
that as the law creates and sustains rights, so whenever
the content of law changes, the substance of rights also
changes.
The legal theory of rights suffers from various defects such

as:
The state does maintain rights, it does not create them.

Our rights emanate because of our membership of the
society. The state comes to give the rights their
guarantees and realisation.
If for once, it is admitted that the state creates rights as
the theory affirms, it would have to be admitted that our
rights are what the state wants them to be ours’ and not
what we want for ourselves.
If the state grants a right through one law, it can take
away that right through another law. Under such
circumstances, our rights would be on mercy of the
state.
The Idealist Theory of Rights

Like the advocates of the legal theory of rights, the
proponents of the idealist theory of rights reject the natural
rights theory and like them regard the state as the source,
regulator, and protector of rights of the individual. Among the
advocates of the idealist theory of rights, the name of Hegel
(1770 — 1831) is worth mentioning. Like Burke who regards
the state as a partnership in all virtues and in all perfection,
Hegel describes it as a godly institution—a march of God on
the Earth. Hegel is of the opinion that the individual’s rights
spring from the law of the state and remain as long as the
state wants them to stay: state being an organic whole, the
interests of the part (that is the individual's interests) are
vested in the interests of the whole. Hegel would not grant the
individual any right against the state. The idealist theory of
rights suffers from all the defects as the legal theory suffers.
The Marxian Theory of Rights

This theory is a part of the whole theory of Marxism. Marx
(1818-83) and Engels (1820-95) regarded rights as bourgeois
rights: in a class society as in the capitalist one, the rights are
the rights of the propertied people and are described as being
so natural that they belong to the people from eternity. The
Marxian view of rights is that the rights are benefits in the
name of social claims, possessed by the members of the
possessing class (the slave-masters, the feudal lords, the
capitalists) and are exercised to favour them; rights are
denied to all those who belong to the non-possessing class.
The Marxists do not subscribe to either the natural rights
theory or to the legal, historical, and idealist theory. They
believe that only in the classless society, the rights would be
equally available to all and would be equally enjoyed by all.
Between the capitalistic and the communistic societies, the
socialist-transitional society — the Marxists say — will grant
to its citizens economic rights (work, social security) first,
followed by social rights (education), and political rights
(franchise rights).
The Social Welfare Theory
This is a theory of rights advocated by the non-Marxian
socialists of all shades (evolutionary socialists, Fabians,
democratic socialists, guild socialists, and the like). Laski
(1893-1950) gives a social welfare perspective of rights.
According to him, rights as social claims are given by the
society; they are social in so far as they are exercised to
promote the welfare of the individual and that of the
community; they are maintained, enforced, and protected by
the state; they help individual develop their personality; they
go along with the duties; and they are dynamic—they change
with the changing times. G.D.H. Cole (1889-1959) does not
see any conflict between the individual good and the social
good. For him, the two types of good are complementary and
that one cannot exist without the other.
(- a
Rights Quotes
“A right is not what someone gives you; It’s what no one

can take away from you.” Clarke
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have
made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty,
and property existed beforehand that caused men to make
laws in the first place.” Bastiat
“Liberty is worth whatever the country is worth. It is by
liberty that man has a country; it is by liberty that he has
rights.” Giles
“With every civil rights, there has to be a corresponding civil
obligation.” Haines
“Give to every human being every right that you claim for
yourself.” Ingersoil
“Act only on those rules of action that you would will to be
universal laws.” Kant
“In the strictest sense, all rights are claims.” Hohfeld
“A right is an established way of acting.” Martin
“Rights are permissions rather than requirements. Rights
tell us what the bearer is at liberty to do, not what he must
or must not to”. Louden
“No one has a right to do something; he only has a right
that someone else shall do (or refrain from doing)
something.” Williams
The Libertarian Theory of Rights

This theory has been best represented by Robert Nozick
(1938-2002) who like Locke regards rights as those existing
in pre-political system. Accordingly, for him, rights are natural,
inborn, and inalienable and are entitled ones, “things no
person or group may do to them’, not even the state. Rights
are absolute so far as the state is concerned: rights of the
individual cannot be taken away by the state. Nozick does not
believe in general rights. For him, rights are always particular:
“particular rights over particular things held by particular
persons and the particular rights to reach agreement with
each other.” As against the libertarians, the communitarians
(Macintyre, Taylor, and Walzer: the neo-Aristotelians as one
may describe them) dismiss the notion of natural rights and
emphasise that rights do not belong to the isolated
individuals, but to the individuals as members of the
community. Communitarianism (during the later half of the
twentieth century) is a protest against libertarianism, the
concept of rights including.
IV. ANALYSIS OF RIGHTS: WESLEY HOHFELD

AND LAWRENCE BECKER
Quite illuminating is the analyses of rights given by Wesley
Hohfeld (1879-1918 — Fundamental Legal Conceptions) and
by Lawrence Becker (Three Types of Rights). Hohfeld
describes four basic components (elements) of rights:
( >
Hohfeld, Wesley
Hohfeld, Wesley (1879-1918) was an American jurist. His

work Fundamental Legal Conceptions, remains a powerful
contribution to modern understanding of the nature of rights
and the implications of liberty. He engaged himself in a very
precise form of analysis which distinguished between
concepts and specified a framework of relationships for
those concepts. His work offers a sophisticated method for
deconstructing broad legal and moral principles into their
component elements. Hohfeld made the concept of “right”
and related terms as clearly as possible.
(a) Rights as Privileges (Liberties): A right is a privilege
or say a liberty: A has a privilege against B to a
situation X just in case B has no claim right against
A not to X. An example of right as a privilege means
that one has a right to paint one’s bedroom blue, but
one has no duty not to do it. If A has a right to stay in
the United States, then it is a privilege of A. This does
not make the US government to have a claim — right
against A, meaning thereby that A has no duty to the
US government when he leaves USA.
(b) Rights as Claims: A right is a claim: A has a claim
right against B with regard to X just in case B has a
duty to A to bring about X. An example of right as a
claim means that if B borrows a sum of rupees five
hundred from A, and then A has a claim-right against
B that B returns the money to A. The employee has a
claim that the employer pays him his wages means
that the employer has a duty to the employee to pay
their wages. The claim-right is correlated to a duty
whereas in the case of privilege-right, there is no duty
involved.
(c) Rights as Powers: A right is a power: A has a power
over B with respect to X just in case he can change B’
s rights with regard to X. An example of right as a
power means that a librarian (A) has a power over the
student, (B) with regard to the use of the library (X),
but if the student makes noise in the library, the
librarian would have the power to stop the student to
use the library. Right as power creates in the holder a
newer-duty: the right-holder, through the exercise of
the power-right, changes his/her own situation or that
of another. A person who has the property has the
power to give a part of it to anyone, may choose to
take it back or forget about it. This is a power-right
which confers on the holder a further role: ordering,
promising, sentencing, waiving, buying, selling,
abandoning, etc. of all acts by the holder come in this
category.
(d) Rights as Immunities: A right is an immunity: A has
an immunity against B with respect to X just in case B
has no power over A’s rights with respect to X. An
example of right as an immunity is the diplomats’
rights to enjoy immunities in the host country. The
Indian Parliament lacks the ability to ask every Indian
to go to the temple daily and worship there. This
immunity is a part of every Indian’s right to freedom of
religion. The senior citizens, to take another example,
are immune from being drafted into the army.
Hohfeld arranged the four incidents in tables of opposites
and correlatives so as to display the logical structure of his
system. In order to fill out the tables, he added some further
terminology. For instance, “if a person A has a claim then A
lacks a no-claim (a no-claim is the opposite of a claim). And if
a person A has a power, then same person B has a /iability (a
liability is the correlative of a power).”
Opposites
If A has a Claim then A lacks a No-claim

If A has a Privilege then A lacks a Duty
If A has a Power then A lacks Disability
If A has an /mmunity then A lacks Liability
Correlatives
If A has a Claim then some person B has a Duty

If A has a Privilege then some person B has a No-claim
If A has a Power then some person B has a Liability
If Ahas an /mmunity then some person B has a Disability
Becker, Lawrence
Lawrence Becker (born 1939) is an American philosopher.

His area of specialisatior is ethics and social, political, and
legal philosophy. A Fellow of Hollins University he has been
a Professor of Philosophy. His works include: A New
Stoicism; Reprocity Property Rights: Philosophic
Foundations, and On Justifying Moral Judgments. Hi article
“Three Types of Rights” refers to three: derivative, original,
and concurrent. He is of the opinion that each right has its
characteristic specifications which help understand its real
content.
The Hohfeldian analysis boils down to Lyons’ description of
active (privilege and power as rights) and passive (claims and
immunities as rights) rights (Lyons, D., Rights, Welfare and
Mills’ Moral Theory).
Becker suggests that a right involves the right-holder, the
right regarded, the act the right does, the relationship
between the right-holder and_ the _ right-regarder,
circumstances, under which the violation is by right-regarder,
the conditions under which the violation may be excusable,
the remedies for both the excused and unexcused violations
of the right, coercive measures for extracting the remedies,
the agent (s) who may extract the remedies, and the
justification of the right defined.
According to Becker, rights are derivative, original, and
concurrent. Drawing from Hohfeld, Becker says that the
derivative rights are held only derivatively, by way of the
existence of duties in others; the original rights originate in the
right-holders, and entail duties, or no-rights, or liabilities, or
disabilities, in others; the concurrent rights arise
simultaneously with their correlatives, as when rights and
duties are created together by the making of a contract.
The derivative rights are established entirely by derivation
from the logically prior existence of duties in others. In
derivative rights, there is first the existence, of a right
correlative of some sort. For example, one may, first of all,
have to establish that B has a duty to A. It would, obviously
then, follow that A, as the beneficiary, of that duty must have
something—in fact, must have a claim—tright; if right is
understood as the Hobhfeldian correlative duty. The
entitlement, then, by nature, would constitute derivative rights:
A duty towards A would entitle A to certain acts or
forbearances from B; a no-right with respect to A would entitle
A to act in certain ways regardless of B’s wishes; a liability
with respect of A would entitle A to alter B’s rights, duties,
liabilities, or disabilities; and a disability with respect to A
would entitle A to freedom, freedom from a liability.
Derivative rights may be held by anyone or anything, to
whom duties or no-rights, liabilities, or disabilities are born.
Do the rocks, trees, animals, and the like have derivative
rights?
The Original rights, contrary to the derivative rights, seek to
establish the right-holder’s claims or entitlements first, and
thereafter derive the appropriate correlative from that. The
original rights must originate with or in a person. There may
be numerous sources of original rights. They may emerge
from customs, as customary behaviour gradually achieves the
status of an entitlement for which there is no countervailing
argument, emerging from, in a word, conventions. These
rights may come from consensus about entitlements or
through regularised legislative executive and judicial process.
The so-called natural rights may also be described as original
rights. The original rights may emerge from the holder’s
interests, through, the holder’s wants, desires. For example,
A may have an interest in xX, and, therefore, it may be
necessary or desirable for A to have a right to X. The original
rights emerge from justifiable claims as well: a justified claim
amounts to the existence of rights. Such a right is original
because it causes from an act (the claiming) of the right-
holder. The original rights emerge from status also: People
have right to life or liberty not from the exercise of any power
but from their status as human rights.
The Concurrent rights are rights where the right and its
correlative arise simultaneously or when it appears that A’s
rights and B’s corresponding duties (or other correlatives)
arise concurrently. Example: Suppose a third party drafts a
document that, if accepted by A and B, would create a right in
A and a duty in B. The document is presented to A and B and
they say, simultaneously, “I accept.” B now has a duty toward
A, and A has a right against B. But the right is neither derived
from nor antecedent to the duty. It arises concurrently with the
duty.
V. KINDS OF RIGHTS
Rights may be classified as under:
(a) Moral, Legal, and Contractual

Moral rights exist as moral claims or are philosophical
assertions. Human rights are examples of moral rights though
they have been recognised by international bodies (United
Nations) and International Law. They lack legal sanctions. In
fact, they reflect the essence of morality, Kantian in nature,
describing virtually the rule of conduct.
Legal rights are those rights which are laid down in a law.
Accordingly, such laws are enforce-able. They are what the
law says they are. Such laws gain their force through
Constitution, legislations, or through executive’s decrees and
orders. The violation of legal rights is followed by punishment.
The rights incorporated in the Constitution are sometimes
referred to as fundamental rights or constitutional rights. Even
the rights conferred by the law, though legal rights, have to be
within the domains of such constitutional rights and
enforceable like the legal rights; but these are more
fundamental than the legal ones.
Contractual rights are those rights which derive from the
practice of promise-keeping. They apply to those individuals
to whom contractual promises are made. They, therefore,
arise from specific acts of contract making, i.e., when the
contract is made. Such contractual rights reflect the right as
well as the duty. A has, a contractual duty, say, to deliver
some goods or services to B, who possesses the contractual
right to such goods as services. The contractual rights may
be legal or may be outside the legal framework.
(b) Negative and Passive

Negative rights are those rights which mark out a realm of
unconstrained action. Accordingly, they impose restrictions
upon the behaviour of others; government including. Such
rights have their supporters in the liberals, the early ones who
see such rights as a means of defending the individuals from
arbitrary government. Traditional civil liberties (i.e. freedom of
speech, freedom of movement) are examples of negative
rights. The holder of negative rights is entitled to non-
interference.
Positive rights are those rights that impose demands upon
others, especially on government. Such rights have their
supporters in socialists, welfare liberals, and communitarians.
Social and welfare rights are examples of positive rights (i.e.
right to education, right to work). The holder of the positive
rights is entitled to provision of some good or some service.
The distinction between negative and positive rights is
difficult in so far as a right may neither be negative nor
positive. The right to enter into a binding agreement, for
example, and the right to veto a bill are neither negative nor
positive. When it comes to enforcement of rights, the
difference between the two disappears. It may require more
resources by the government to run a legal system which
enforces citizen’s negative rights than by the state to run a
welfare system which seeks to realise citizens’ positive rights.
Holmes and Sunstein (The Costs of Rights) are of the opinion
that in the context of citizens’ rights to state enforcement, all
rights become positive.
(c) Active and Passive

As stated above, Lyons regards Hohfeldian categorisation of
rights into active and passive rights. The privilege—right and
the power—right are active rights because these are rights
which their rightholders exercise. The claim-right and the
immunity-right, on the other hand, are passive rights which
their holders merely enjoy. “A” has a right to X connotates the
form of active right whereas the form of statement that A has
an indirect or hidden to X is an example of passive right. A
station master has the active privilege-right to walk on the
platform and an active power-right to give a green signal for
the train to leave the station. A teacher has a passive claim-
right that the students need not disrupt the lecture and a
passive immunity-right that the administration would not take
action if he/she indulges in tuition work.
(d) Individual, Collective (Group), and Welfare

Individual rights are those rights which are held by individuals
recognised by the legal system: when an individual is a
citizen or an enterprise, or corporation acts as a single entity.
Right to equality or right to freedom is an example of
individual rights; business firms acting individually possess
individual rights.
Collective rights are those rights which are held by an
assembly or group of people, say a minority group. Cultural
and Educational rights, given under Articles 29 and 30 are
examples of collective rights. Will Kymlicka (Multicultural
Citizenship) regards right to freedom of religion as a group or
collective right, identifying three elements to this right:
i. freedom to pursue one’s faith;

ii. freedom to seek new adherents to that faith; and
iii. freedom to renounce one’s faith.
The external protections of the religion by its followers

make this right a group right.
Welfare rights are rights which help attain development.
Such rights can be attained for the individual through the
states. The state seeks favourable socioeconomic conditions
for the betterment and upliftment of the individual. Right to
development is an example of welfare rights: development
implies constant improvement of the well-being of the entire
population of the state.
(e) Social, Economic, and Political

Social rights are those rights which are related to the
individuals as members of a given society. These rights would
include rights to life, to liberty, to equality, to education, to
family, to freedom of the religion, and to equality between
men and women. These rights are personal, civil, and
individual rights.
Economic rights are those rights which are related to the
economic life of the people. On the one end, these rights
include right to work, social security, social insurance, equal
wages for equal work; and on the other, right to property,
economic security, etc. Economic rights help to remove
unemployment, poverty, exploitation and wide economic
cleavages.
Political rights are those rights which help citizens
participate in the governance of the state. These rights
include rights: to vote, to contest elections, to hold public
office and to seek political justice.
(f) Status-based and Instrumental

Status-based rights are rights related to the status: humans,
non-humans, or objects. A human right is a human right:
being a human is a status. As human beings, people have
their rights. Natural rights are examples of status-based
rights. An animal is a non-human right. To be an animal
means having the status of an animal. Tom Regan (The Case
for Animal Rights) argues for animal rights on the ground that
animal is also a status, a creature. All creatures, he says,
have life, and therefore, all quality for rights. A tree or a rock,
or a book belongs to non-human status. As non-humans who
have no life do not have original or concurrent rights, but do
possess derivative rights, if one chooses Becker’s language,
because these non-human objects establish in themselves
the idea of a duty: a tree gives us mango; natural resources
perform their duties by providing us resources, and in return
they process the right to be protected and right not to be
exploited.
Instrumental rights depict rights as instruments for
achieving an optimal distribution of in-terests. They serve as a
means for the attainment of the best possible utility. Such
rights help us attain our goals and objectives. Most of our
rights are examples of instrumental rights: right to work, for
examples, helps us to maintain our property right.
VI. FUNCTIONS OF RIGHTS: WILL (CHOICE)

THEORY AND INTEREST THEORY
Rights are not empty words. They have a specific function to
perform: each right has a specific corresponding task. The
Functional Theory of Rights as advocated by theorists such
as John Stuart Mill refers to a valid claim of the holder of right
on the society to protect him/her in the possession of it.
There are two main theories of the functions of rights: The
Will (of the Choice Theory) and the /nterest Theory. The will
or the choice theorists maintain that a right makes the
rightholder sovereign in so far as he or she can choose to
relieve others of the duty expected of them: a promisee has a
right to waive the promisor’s duty to keep the promise. The
will or choice theorists believe that all rights confer the ability
to control whether other must or must not act in particular
ways. The interest theorists maintain that the function of a
right is to further the rightholder’s interests. An owner has a
right, according to the interest theory or rights, not because
owners have choices but because the ownership makes the
owner better off. According to the Interest Theory, a promisee
has a right because promisees have some interest in the
performance of the promise.
The contest between will-based and interest-based theories
of the function of rights has been waged for hundreds of
years. Influential will-theorists include Kant, Savigny, Hart,
Kelsen, Wellman, and Steiner. Important interest-theorists
include Bentham, Inhering, Austin, Lyons, MacCormick, Raz,
and Kramer. Each theory has its advantages and drawbacks
as an account of what rights do for right-holders.
The will-theory captures the powerful link between rights
and normative control. To have a right is to have the ability to
determine what others may and may not do, and so to
exercise authority over a certain domain of affairs. However,
the will-theorist’s account of the function of rights leaves him
unable to account for many rights that most think there are.
Within the will-theory there can be no such thing as an
unwaivable right: a right over which its holder has no power.
Yet intuitively it would appear that unwaivable rights are some
of the most important rights that we have: consider, for
example, the unwaivable right not to be enslaved. Moreover,
since the will-theorist holds that all rights confer sovereignty,
he cannot acknowledge rights in beings incapable of
exercising sovereignty. Within the will-theory it is impossible
for “incompetents” like infants, animals, and comatose adults
to have rights. The interest theory is more capacious than the
will-theory. It can accept as rights both unwaivable rights (the
possession of which may be good for their holders) and the
rights of incompetents (who have interests that rights can
protect). The interest theory also taps into the deeply
plausible connection between holding rights and being better
off. However, the interest theory is also misaligned with an
ordinary understanding of rights. We appear to accept that
people can have interests in X without having a right to X; and
contrariwise that people can have a right to X without having
interests sufficient to explain this.
Vil. CONCEPT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

(a) Meaning of Human Rights
Human rights are rights to which people are entitled by virtue
of being humans: they are, Heywood says, a modern and
secular version of “natural” rights. They are what are inherent
in our nature. S. Ramphal had very aptly stated that the
human rights were not born of men but were born with them.
They are not as much a result of the United Nations’ efforts
as are emanations from basic human dignity. They are
human rights because they are with human beings as human
beings-, entitlements to treatment which people enjoy simply
by virtue of being human beings. Human rights are essential,
universal, fundamental, and absolute: essential because they
help us develop and use our human faculties, talents, and
intelligence and seek to satisfy our needs; universal because
they belong to all humans everywhere; fundamental because
they are inalienable, i.e., may be denied or violated but
cannot be unentitled; abso/ute because they are basic to a
genuine living.
(b) History of Human rights

What is contained in the Universal Declaration of Human
rights is, indeed, modern, but the ideas cover thousands of
years and draw upon a wide range of religious, cultural,
philosophical, and legal developments throughout the
recorded history. Cyrus Cylinder of 539 BC, the Edicts of
Ashoka of 272-231 BC, the Constitution of Madica of 622 AD,
the English Magna Carta of 1215 are some such notable
documents which have in them the essence of the modern
notion of Human rights. The Bill of Rights of 1689 was an act
which declared the rights and liberties of the British subjects.
The American War of Independence of 1776 and the French
Revolution of 1789 had the very notion of the rights of man.
Thomas Paine and John Stuart Mill are better known as the
human rights philosophers. The term human rights came into
use sometime between Paine’s and Garrison’s writings in the
Liberator, saying that “the readers are being enlisted in the
great cause of human rights.” Numerous groups and
movements witnessed profound social changes over the
course of the first half of the twentieth century. The two world
wars saw huge losses of human life and gross abuse of
human rights. The League of Nations (1920) meekly and the
United Nations (UN, 1945) strongly made out a powerful case
for individuals’ human rights.
( a
Human Rights Quotes
“All humanity is one undivided and indivisible family, and

each one of us is responsible for the misdeeds of all the
others. | cannot detach myself from the wickedest
possible.” Gandhiji
“| love life and want to hold onto it. But my passion for
justice for my people, for their dignity and freedom, must be
greater still. For of what value is a life of slavery, of
humiliation and contempt for that which you hold most
dear.” Leyla Zana
“All that is needed for the triumph of evil is that the good
men do nothing.” Burka
“To have a right then, | conceive, is to have something
which society ought to defend me in the possession of it.”
Mill
“Absolute liberty is absence of restraint, responsibility is a
restraint; therefore, the ideally free individual is responsible
to himself.” Henry Adams
“We will not enjoy security without development; We will not
enjoy development without security; and we will not enjoy
either, without respect for human rights.” Kofi Annan
“True peace is not merely the absence of tension. It is the
presence of justice.” Martin Luther King Jr.
(c) Description of Human Rights

The United Nations Preamble affirmed “faith in fundamental
Human Rights, in the dignity and worth of human person, in
the equal rights of men and women, and the nations, large
and small.” The UN Charter contains a reference to the
promotion of universal respect for the Human Rights in
Articles 13, 55, 62, 68, and 76. The Committee on Human
Rights was set up by the Economic and Social Council in
February 1946 to submit proposals, recommendations, and
reports concerning an_ international bill of rights. The
Commission was formed under Eleanor Roosevelt, described
as “First Lady of the World” by President Truman. The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights was approved by the
UN General Assembly on December 10, 1948, which is
celebrated as the UN Day every year.
Articles Description
Human beings to be treated equally;
Rights to life, liberty and security;
Prohibition on slavery, on torture;
6-11 Equality before law, equal protection by the

state, prohibition on arbitrary arrest and
detention, right to fair trial.
12 Prohibition on arbitrary interference in private

life;
13-14 Freedom of movement, right to asylum;
15 Right to nationality;
16 Right to marry, prohibition of force marriage;
17 Right to own property;
18-20 Freedom of thought, conscience and religion,

of opinion, expression to peaceful assembly;
21 Right to political participation, access to

public service;
22-26 Right to social security, to work, to free
choice of employment, equal pay for equal
work, to rest and leisure, adequate standard
of living, to special care and assistance for
motherhood and childhood, right to
education, etc.
27 Right freely to participate in the cultural life of

the community.
28 Everyone is entitled to social and

international order in which UNHR rights and
freedom are set forth.
29 Rights limited in order to meet just

requirements of morality, public order and
the general welfare in a democratic society.
30 None to destroy the freedom set out in the

Declaration.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) with a

Preamble and 30 articles has been classified into four types
of rights: Civil and Political Rights, Economic and Social
Rights, Minority and Group Rights, and Development and
Environment Rights. The below classification of human rights
is described to ensure security rights, the process rights,
liberty rights, political rights, equality rights, and group
rights. These may be discussed as under:
(i) Civil and Political Rights
These rights fit the general idea of human rights in the sense
i. that they are political norms which primarily impose

responsibilities on governments and international
organisations;
ii. that they are minimal norms so far as they protect
against the worst things that happen in political society;
iii. that they are international norms which establish
standards for all countries.
These civil and political rights include rights such as rights

to life, to liberty, to security, to freedom from arbitrary arrest,
to a fair trial, to equal protection of law, to freedom of
movement, to right to nationality, to seek asylum, etc. These
rights are not absolute and they may be suspended
sometimes; may be restricted and limited so to protect public
property and to avoid violence and disaster caused through
hurricanes and earthquakes.
(ii) Economic and Social Rights

These rights include equality and non-discrimination for
women and minorities, access to em-ployment opportunities,
adequate wages, safe and healthy working conditions,
freedom to form trade unions and bargains collectively, social
security and decent standard of living, health care and
education.
(iii) Minority and Group Rights

Human rights documents emphasise that all people, including
ethnic, religious, caste, and minorities, have the same basic
rights so that they are enjoyed by them without discrimination.
These rights give the minorities special protection.
(iv) Development and Environmental Rights

These rights can be understood as rights to environment, i.e.,
healthy and safe. Such rights are human-oriented as they do
not cover directly issues related to the claims of animals,
biodiversity, and sustainable developments. But they do
concern the human beings in so far as such rights expect
people to respect, protect and promote environment and
enjoy benefits accrued from them.
(d) UN Human Rights Treaties

For making the rights in the UDHR into the norms of
international propriety, two treaties were prepared, the
International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR;
United Nations (1966)] and the /nternational Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [ICESCR; United
Nations (1966c)]. These treaties embodying the UDHR’s
rights were not approved by the General Assembly until 1966
and only received enough ratification to become operative in
1976. The ICCPR contains most of the civil and political rights
found in the UDHR. The ICESCR contains the economic and
social rights found in the second half of the UDHR.
There are many other UN human rights treaties that are
implemented in roughly the same way as the ICCPR. These
include:
e International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms

of Discrimination against Women (United Nations,
1966),
e The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women (United Nations, 1979),
e The Convention of the Rights of the Child (United
Nations, 1989),
e The Convention Against Torture and other Cruel,
Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
(United Nations, 1984)
e Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989,
e /nternational Covenant on the Protection of Rights of All
Migrant Workers, and Members of their Families (1990).
(e) Other Human Rights Agencies within the United

Nations
Human Rights treaties are only one part of the UN’s human
rights programmes. There are a number of UN agencies that
are charged with promoting human rights independently on
the requirements imposed by human rights treaties. These
bodies include the UN High-Commissioner for Human Rights,
the Human Rights Commission, and the UN Security Council.
The High Commissioner for Human Rights coordinates the
many human rights activities within the UN. The High
Commissioner receives complaints about human _ rights
violations, assists in the development of new treaties and
procedures, sets the agenda for human rights agencies within
the UN, and provides advisory services to governments. Most
importantly, the High Commissioner serves as a full-time
advocate for human rights within the United Nations.
The Human Rights Commission is a standing body,
creased by the UN Charter, composed of 53 state
representatives. Its main job is to deal with the gross
violations of human rights, whenever they occur. Because its
members are state representatives rather than independent
jurists, the Commission is more of a political body than the
Human Rights Committee established by the ICCPR. If the
Human Rights Committee established under the ICCPR deals
with human rights issues as a matter of international law, the
Human Rights Commission deals with human rights issues as
matters of international politics and diplomacy. The Human
Rights Commission’s achievements include authoring the
UDHR and many human rights treaties, as well as the
extended and successful campaign against apartheid in
South Africa.
The Security Council’s mandate under the UN Charter is
the maintenance of international peace and security. The
fifteen-member body can authorise military interventions and
impose diplomatic and economic sanctions. During the Cold
War period, the Security Council tended to avoid human
rights disputes other than apartheid in South Africa. But since
the early 1990s the Security Council has dealt with many
issues pertaining to human rights and war crimes. It
authorised the use of military force in Somalia, the former
Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Haiti, and East Timor, and sponsored a
number of peacekeeping missions. It also established
international criminal tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia.
The United Nations Human Rights Council created at the
2005 World Summit to replace the United Nations
Commission on Human Rights, has a mandate to investigate
violations of human rights. The Human Rights Council is a
subsidiary body of the General Assembly and reports directly
to it. It ranks below the Security Council, which is the final
authority for the interpretation of the United Nations Charter.
Forty-seven of the one hundred ninety-two member states sit
on the Council, elected by simple majority in a secret ballot of
the United Nations General Assembly. Members serve a
maximum of six years and may have their membership
suspended for gross human rights abuses. The Council is
based in Geneva, and meets three times a year; with
additional meetings to respond to urgent situations.
Independent experts (rapporteurs) are retained by the Council
to investigate alleged human rights abuses and to provide the
Council with reports.
The Human Rights Council may request that the Security
Council take action when human rights violations occur. This
action may be direct actions, may involve sanctions, and the
Security Council may also refer cases to the International
Criminal Court (ICC) even if the issue being referred is
outside the normal jurisdiction of the ICC.
(f) Defining Features of Human Rights

The following may be said to be the defining features of the
Human Rights:
i. Human Rights are political norms dealing mainly with

how people should be treated by their governments.
The governments are directed in two ways by rights
against discrimination.
(a) Rights forbid governments to discriminate in their
actions and policies, and
(b) they impose duties on governments to prohibit and
discourage both private and public forms of
discrimination.
ii. Human rights exist as moral and/or legal rights. A
human right can exist as a shared norm of actual
human moralities as justified moral norm supported by
strong reasons, as a legal right at the national level, or
as a legal right within international law.
iii Human rights are numerous (i.e. several) rather than
few. Locke’s right to life and liberty and property were
few and abstract but human rights address specific
problems (e.g., guaranteeing fair trials, ending slavery,
ensuring the availability of education, preventing
genocide). They protect people against familiar abuses
of fundamental human interests. The fact is that the
formulations in contemporary human rights documents
are neither abstract nor conditional. They presuppose
criminal trials, governments funded by income taxes,
and formal systems of education.
Human rights are minimal standards. They are
concerned with avoiding the terrible rather than
achieving the best. Their focus is protecting minimally
good lives for all people. Henry Shue (Basic Rights)
suggests that “ human rights concern the “lower limits
on tolerable human conduct” rather than “great
aspirations and exalted ideals.” As minimal standards,
they leave most legal and policy matters open to
democratic decision-making at the national and local
levels.
Human rights are international norms covering all
countries and all people living today. They are the sorts
of norms that are appropriately recommended to all
countries. International law plays a crucial role in giving
human rights a global reach. We can say that human
rights are universal provided that we recognise that
some rights, such as the right to vote, are held only by
adult citizens; that some human rights documents focus
on vulnerable groups such as children, women, and
indigenous peoples; and that some rights, such as the
right against genocide, are group rights.
vi. Human rights are high-priority norms. “A human right is
something of which no one may be deprivedwithout a
grave affront to justice.”
This does not mean, however, that we should take
human rights to be absolute. As James Griffin says,
human rights should be understood as “resistant to
trade-offs, but not too resistant.”
vii. Human rights have robust justifications that apply
everywhere and support their high priority. Without this
they cannot withstand cultural diversity and national
sovereignty. Robust justifications are powerful but need
not be understood as ones that are irresistible.
viii. Human rights are rights, but not necessarily in strict
sense. As rights they have several features. One is that
they have right-holders — a person or agency having a
particular right. Broadly, the right-holders of human
rights are all people living today. More precisely, they
are sometimes all people, sometimes all citizens of the
countries, sometimes all members of groups with
particular vulnerabilities (women, children, racial and
religious minorities, indigenous peoples), and
sometimes all ethnic groups (as with rights against
genocide). Another feature of rights is that they focus on
a freedom, protection, status, or benefit. A right is
always something which is the focus of the right-
holders’ interest. Rights also have addresses who are
assigned duties or responsibilities. A person’s human
rights are not primarily rights against the United Nations
or other international bodies; they primarily impose
obligations on government of the country in which the
person resides or is located.
Karel Vasak, the Czech jurist, described at the International

Institute of Human Rights at Strasbourg (1977), the three
generations of Human Rights — civil-political rights as of first,
economic and social rights as of second, and_ the
developmental and environmental rights of a third genera-
tions — the watchwords of the French revolution: /iberty,
equality, and fraternity.
(g) Human Rights Violations

Human rights violations occur when any state or non-state
actor breaches any part of the UDHR treaty or other
international human rights or humanitarian law. In regard to
human rights violations of United Nations laws, Article 39 of
the United Nations Charter designates the UN Security
Council (or an appointed authority) as the only tribunal that
may determine UN human rights violations.
Human rights abuses are monitored by United Nations
committees, national institutions, and governments and by
many independent non-government organisations, such as
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, World
Organisation against Torture, Freedom House, International
Freedom of Expression Exchange, and _ Anti-Slavery
International. These organisations collect evidence and
documentation of alleged human rights abuses and apply
pressure to enforce human rights laws.
Only very few countries do not commit significant human
rights violations according to Amnesty International. In their
2004 human rights report (covering 2003), the Netherlands,
Norway, Denmark, Iceland, and Costa Rica were only such
nations. The violations of Human Rights are of numerous
types. Some of the gravest violations include massacres, the
starvation of entire populations, and genocide. Genocide is
the intentional extermination of single, ethnic, racial, or
religious group—the most offensive crime against humanity.
Political opponents are also denied human rights—house
arrest, exile, police atrocities, apartheid, or racial
discrimination, denying people right to political and or social
participation. Women are uniquely vulnerable to human rights
abuses. There are examples of violations of human rights in
several countries, mostly unreported. Human rights violations,
attributed to the actions by the state, account for not less than
90 per cent of those reported. Sometimes, the state wipes out
its opponents —some are killed in the encounter after being
declared as criminals; others are arbitrarily executed; in some
other cases, the death squads are created by the authorities.
4
The Feminist Critique of Human Rights
Until recently it has been conventional for human rights

treaties to be cast in language in which rights-bearer used
to be a man and the head of household. Many feminists
argue that this reflects more than an old-fashioned linguistic
phrase. The classic political and civil rights (freedom of
speech, association, from arbitrary arrest and so on)
assume that the rights-bearer is a living, or would wish to
live a life of active citizenship but, until very recently, such a
life was denied to nearly all women in nearly all cultures.
Instead of this public life, women were confined to the
private spheres and subjected to the arbitrary and
capricious power of the male head of the household. It is
only very recently in the Western liberal democracies that
women have been able to vote, to stand for office, or to
own property in their own name, and such issues as the
criminalisation of rape in marriage and effective measures
to prevent domestic violence against women are still
controversial. The situation is rather worse in non-Western
politics, which is why although the feminist critique of the
privileging of the interests of men is structurally quite similar
to the “Asian” critique of the privileging of the interests of
Western conceptions of what it is to be human.
(h) Evaluation
The moral principles behind the concept of human rights
constitute the very strength of human rights but this very
strength is the weakness of the human rights in the following
ways:
The fact is that there are no universally valid moral

truths true for all times; moral truths are only
individualistic moral doctrines.
. Richard Rorty refers to another criticism of human
rights. He says that the human rights are not rationally
defensible: They do not appeal to the canons of reason,
though they are good, and are desirable things.
Culturally, human rights conflict in the face of numerous
cultures: female genital mutilation occurs in different
African societies — a tradition in many cultures. The
thrust on universalism as is evident in UDHR has
become a form of imperialism. An Iranian representative
in 1981, regarded the UDHR a Judeo-Christian tradition
trespassing the Muslim Law. Singapore and Malaysia
thought of UDHR different from the Asian values as late
as 1990s.
iv. The human rights apply on the states. The non-states
such as NGOs, companies, corporations, informal
groups, and individuals can commit human rights
abuses as they are not subject to human rights laws.
v. Human rights violate property rights if property is viewed
in the Lockean broader sense to include ‘life, liberties
and estates’.
The list of human rights is fairly large but there are certain
challenges to the human rights thinking. There is, for
example, no current universal human right to water; fetal
rights have been a controversial subject, for human rights
only belong to those who are born; certain environmental
rights are violated when the ecological balance gets
disturbed; gays’ rights do not constitute part of human rights.
Human rights make us the citizens of the world. The
essence of human rights lies in defining the essential moral
conditions, which ought to be guaranteed to citizens of any
social and political order. The significance of human rights
may briefly be summed up as under:
i. The Declaration and the Covenants of Human rights

have been the first of its kind in the history of
International Organisations.
ii. They are a sort of statement of rights considered as
essential for the development of human personality.
Indeed, they, though not binding on the members-
states, provide a yardstick to know the progress made
by the states.
iii, They have served a very useful purpose. They are often
cited in support of Human values.
iv. They exert a profound influence on the Constitutions of
new nations and regional agreements. Though not
vested with any legal force, they serve as useful
instrument in defending human dignity.
The utility of human rights cannot be denied. In fact, human

rights aim to offer a meta-political moral framework for politics
and social interaction among the states. They ensure a just
treatment of the individuals and groups and help evaluate the
activities of the numerous states.
Practice
Questions
1. How are rights described as social?

(200 words)
2. How rights help individuals develop their
personality? (200 words)
3. Describe the characteristic features of
rights. (700-800 words)
4. Do you agree with the view the human
rights are a modern and secular version
of natural rights? (200 words)
or
Analyse the relationship between natural

rights and human rights. (2013) (700-800
words)
5. Are human rights universal,
fundamental, and absolute? Explain.
(200 words)
6. Write a brief note on natural rights
theory. (200 words)
7. Explain, in detail, the Hohfeldian
classification of rights. (700-800 words)
8. Discuss the functions of rights with
particular reference to Will (Choice) and
Interest theories. (700-800 words)
9. Write a critical note on the concept of
human rights. (700-800 words)
10. Define rights and critically examine
numerous theories of rights. (700-800
words)
Democracy:Representative,
Participatory, And Deliberative
I. INTRODUCTION
f all the forms of governments, democracy is, no
doubt, the best. It is the rule of the people, by them,
and for their welfare. As the direct rule of the people
in vast countries of the world is impracticable, democracy,
now, works’ through’ the representative system.
Representation implies a whole system of elections: how fo
elect the representatives and how to make them accountable
to the people.
Democracy is a very difficult word to understand. Its
numerous connotations have so vastly been stated that there
could hardly be a definition of democracy, containing all that it
possesses. As a system of government, to some, it is a form
of government while for others, it is a way of life. It is the
government of the people, for a member of the ruling class;
but a narrow and indefensible oligarchy for the poor. As a
form of government, as Burns tells us, democracy is another
name for self-government. Lecky, on the other hand,
considers it as the government of the poorest, the most
ignorant, the most incapable. And yet it is, by far, a better
system of government as compared to monarchy, as the rule
of one; oligarchy as the rule of the few, howsoever able they
may be; dictatorship, either of one person or of one party. As
compared to the other forms of non-democratic systems,
democracy is more educative, more responsive, more
responsible, more people-friendly, and less prone to
revolution and violence. Its most important plus point is its
basis: it is based on equality, liberty, and welfarism.
The word democracy has a Greek ancestry (the Greek
historian, Herodotus, had coined the word in the fifth century
BC). The words demos and kratos mean a form of rule by a
section of the populace as opposed to the rich or the
aristocrats. The Greek meaning implies the rule of the
commoners, the poor, and the least intelligent. That is one
reason that democracy, as Aristotle thought, was a perverted
form of government, the rule of the mob. The Greeks, it may
be noted, did not include in the ruling populace the aliens, the
women, the children, and the slaves.
The dictionary says democracy is the rule of the people.
But this does not make things clear unless we know what or
who constitute the people. If by people we mean all the adults
without any other qualification attached to them, we may not
have the rule of the people, because all the people do not
rule, and in fact, cannot rule. If by people we mean those who
participate in decision-making or administering or legislating,
then such a system would be rule of the few and not of all the
people. So considered, the rule of the majority would not be
democratic (rule of the people) for it would exclude the few—
minority. Any meaning of democracy must include the people,
directly or indirectly, constituting the government. The role of
the people in the composition of the government makes it the
government of the people, but it would be a democracy if it is
controlled by the people. What it means is that the
government of the people is one constituent of its being a
democracy, its another constituent is that it has to be a
government by the people, i. e., people must control the
government. This would mean that the people should have
freedoms, liberties, and rights to check the dictatorial
tendencies, if any, of the government. There is yet another
constituent of democracy, and perhaps an important aspect,
and that is: the government has to be a government for the
people, i.e., it should exist for the welfare of the people. It is,
in this context, that Abraham Lincoln’s oft-quoted definition of
democracy in the Gettysburg address (1863) has
significance: “Democracy is government of the people, by the
people, and for the people.”
ll. DEMOCRACY:MEANING AND DEFINITIONS

The political aspect of democracy emphasises everyone’s
share in the government; its economic aspect demands
abolition of exploitation; and its social aspect seeks
elimination of all distinctions. A rather conservative definition
of democracy is given by Professor Dicey: “Democracy is a
form of government in which the governing body is
comparatively a large fraction of the entire nation.” Professor
Bryce hints at a more liberalised definition of democracy:
“Democracy is that form of government in which the ruling
power of the state is vested not in a particular class or
classes but in the members of the community as a whole.”
Maclver’s definition of democracy, highlighting the
representative system, says that it is not as much the way of
governing as is “a way of determining who shall rule and
how.
Democracy: Its Ideals
e Democracy is a shared experience—people’s

experience, not imposed one as in other forms.
e |ts ethical conceptions are individuality, liberty,
equality, and fraternity.
e |t integrates individual fulfillment and social harmony.
e |t thrives on attitudes: democratic, scientific, flexibility,
and openness.
e |t is a unity in diversity; composite culture is its merit.
e It works towards human development, and social,
moral, cultural, and environmental growth.
\ J
A despot may rule in the interest of the people but nobody

would call such a government a democratic one; a people’s
rule, either by themselves or through their representatives,
may not grant substantial liberties to the people, much less
care for their comforts and so it would hardly be a democracy.
An oligarchical rule which has existed all through the history
(as Michels would term it as “the iron law of oligarchy”) would
not be described as democratic. The idea of democracy is the
idea of participation, of representation, and of control, of
accountability, of self-development. Professor Lively
(Democracy) summarises the following major characteristic in
a democratic polity:
1. That all should govern in the sense that all should be
involved in legislating, in deciding on general policy, in
applying laws, and in governmental administration.
2. That there is a need for people’s participation in crucial
decision-making, that is to say, in deciding general laws
and matters of general policy.
3. That the rulers should be accountable to the ruled; they
should, in other words, be obliged to justify their actions
to the ruled and be removed by the ruled.
4. That the rulers should be accountable to the
representatives of the ruled.
5. That the rulers should be chosen by the ruled.
6. That the rulers should be chosen by the representatives
of the ruled.
7. That the rulers should act in the interests of the ruled.
Lakoff (Democracy) gives an elaborate definition of
democracy, saying that, “Democracy is a process of self-
government in which individuals operate upon _ their
environment directly and indirectly — directly as they make
decisions for themselves, pursue careers, enter into
relationships with others, and otherwise live their lives and
indirectly through political representatives accountable to
them. The system of government makes possible centralised
decision-making and rule-setting in matters that affect all
citizens (the responsibility that accompanies all freedoms),
and decentralised decision-making and rule-setting in those
best addressed on the local level. It is, in short, a special and
political system characterised by a high degree of personal
liberty and equally high degree of political liberty; manifested
in regular and free competitive elections, protected by a legal
system based upon a constitution, and often articulated by
means of federalism.”
It is possible to give a few general indicators which sum up
the totality of the meaning of democracy:
(a) Democracy is commonality; it is more than “one-
person, one vote”, it is the sense of awareness
which allows a consensus to be maintained.
Democracy is not majority, and if it is so, it
becomes the tyranny of majority. Consensus
makes the out-voted feel that they are part of the
whole, the community.
(b) Democracy is empowering; for it enables the
individual to exercise control over his individual life,
and acting together with others, it enables the
community to exercise control over the decisions of
its collective life.
(c) Democracy is accountability. Where accountability
lacks, the elected system becomes nothing short of
an elected dictatorship. Those elected, as rulers,
must be accountable to their electorate.
(d) Democracy is the effective representation of the
collective will of the electorate. It is not only the
people’s will, it is also their concerns in the
corridors of power. It is not simply to delegate for
the political party, slavishly following its policy; it is
the expression of the policy of the people.
The features that distinguish democracy from other forms
of government (monarchy, oligarchy, military regime,
dictatorship, etc.) are the consent of the people, control over
the rulers, and the accountability of the rulers towards the
ruled ; only democracy has these characteristics which are
missing in the other forms of government. Neither monarchy
nor oligarchy and nor any form of dictatorship admit the
democratic values of equality, liberty, and fraternity. The
attitudes of flexibility and openness, of tolerance and of
accommodation are the virtues of d emocratic polity and no
other form of government has even a shade of these virtues.
Democracy is no dogma like dictatorship; it is no hereditary
rule like monarchy; it is no hierarchical system like any
oligarchy. Democracy is a belief that the human nature is
essentially good, that a human being is a master of his/her
destiny, and that human power is capable of attaining all
possible heights. Democracy is (while other forms of
governments are not) self-corrective, self-educative, and—
always—evolving.
lll. DEMOCRACY:EVOLUTION AND GROWTH
(a) Western Concept of Democracy

The western idea of democracy had its roots in ancient
Greece. But the idea then was considered a perverted one.
Plato and Aristotle had no word of praise for democracy. As
Laski says: “It [democracy] was, of course, a limited
democracy based on slavery; and in no Greek community
[Athens including] did free citizens constitute the majority of
the inhabitants.” Aristotle’s notion of citizenship, emphasising
the virtues of being a legislator and a judge, and of polity, as
the government of all in the interest of all, were not even
labelled as “democracy”, for he had used the term in a
perverted sense. During the period of ancient Roman empire,
the ideas of good government and sound administration were
important but the democratic element then was nominal in the
republican period and non-existent in kingdoms. The idea of
plebeians never had any democratic character, much less the
power of legislation, the Senate, (or the patricians) had power
and authority together with the emperors, but they were no
commoners in the sense we use the term in democracy.
Cicero, Seneca, Gaius, and Ulpian expressed shadowy
democratic ideas by pointing out equality of men at the time
of their birth.
4 Y
Democracy Quotes
e “You can never have a revolution in order to establish

a democracy, you must have a democracy in order to
have a revolution.” Chesterton
e “At the bottom of all the tributes paid to democracy; is
the little man, walking into the little booth, with a little
pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper.”
Chesterton
e “As long as the differences and diversities of mankind
exist, democracy must allow for compromise,
accommodation, and recognition of differences.”
McCarthy
e “In ademocracy, dissent is an act of faith”. Fulbright
e “Voting is the only thing where boycotting makes the
problem worse.” Auer
e “Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where
fifty one per cent of the people may take away the
rights of the other forty-nine.” Jefferson
e “In a democracy, the individual enjoys not only the
ultimate power but carries the ultimate responsibility”.
Cousins
e “Democracy is a form of worship. It is the worship of
jackals by Jackasses.” Mencken
e “It is not the voting that’s democracy, it is the
counting.” Smith
e “Of democracy, only the shoemaker can make the
shoe. Only the wearer can tell if it fits.” Spitz
e “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon
wastes, exhausts and murders itself.” Adams
e “Democracy opens mouths, but cannot fill them.”
Sukhorukov
\ J
The middle ages had no conception of democracy. The

dominance of faith over politics, or Christendom over the
kings and the feudal lords, of birth over merit, of extinct
equality over dead liberty, made democracy and democratic
institutions a far cry in the whole period of the medieval age. It
was only during the late middle ages when the two swords
(authority: ecclesiastical and temporal) came to be separated
from each other that the ideas of benevolent rule,
representation, and contract appeared which prepared the
basis for democracy that the West was to follow.
With Renaissance, Reformation and Enlightenment grew
the present form of democracy in the West. Way back, the
Magna Carta (1215) had voiced some freedoms; the Petition
of Rights (1628) curtailed the absolute powers of the kings;
the Glorious Revolution (1688) followed by the Bill of Rights
(1689) cut short the unlimited powers of the rulers on the one
hand and made them accountable for their actions (for
example, execution of Charles | and the fleeing of James II in
England) on the other. All these developments show the idea
that government has to be a government by the people. The
American War of Independence (1776) and the French
Revolution (1789), emphasising on the Rights of Man and on
“Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” and the revolutions of 1848 in
most of the non-Anglo-French countries of Europe and later
winning of the suffrage rights, brought in focus the idea that
the government has to be a government of the people. The
introduction of the welfare state, following the 1917-Soviet
proletarian revolution, filled up the vacuum of the idea that
democracy has to be government for the people.
In the liberal-democratic world of the West, democracy was
a later addition in their liberal ethos (C.B. Macpherson: The
Real World of Democracy). The major features of democracy,
i.e. participation, control, and welfarism entered the Western
world in this order: contro/ first, participation later, and
welfarism, last of all. In the Socialist-Marxist world, the order
was: welfarism (in the form of Socialism) first, participation
later, and contro/ thereafter. In the developing societies, these
three features of democracy were introduced in one go: all
these features — participation, control and welfarism—were
incorporated in their constitutions, following the attainment of
national sovereignty.
Newer ways of democracy swept across Europe in the
1970s and the late 1980s, when representative governments
were instituted in the nations of Southern, Central, and
Eastern Europe. Much of Latin America , Southeast Asia,
Taiwan, South Korea and some Arab and African states —
notably Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority—moved
towards greater liberal democracy in the 1990s and the
2000s. An analysis by Freedom House argues that there was
not a single liberal democracy with universal suffrage in the
world in 1900 but that in 2000, 120 of the world’s 192 nations
or 62 per cent were such democracies.
(b) The Evolution of Democracy: The Philosophers’

Speak
The original meaning of democracy, in the literal sense in the
ancient Greek days, was “rule of the people.” Herodotus, the
Greek historian, included equality before the law, popular
participation in decision-making, and popular control of public
Officials in the maxim of the “rule of the people.” But thinkers
like Plato and Aristotle were hostile to the idea of democracy.
In fact, both the teacher and the pupil were typically elitists.
Plato was in favour of the ruling class which represented
“reason” — the philosopher-rulers. Aristotle was well-known
for his sympathies towards benevolent monarchy: he was, as
is known, the teacher of Alexander the Great who had taught
Alexander for sometime, though he regarded polity as the
best form of government—a combination of aristo-democratic
system.
The ancient Romans did admire constitutionalism with
emphasis on the concept of law, binding on both the rulers
and the ruled but they were monarchical in their views with
fascination for far-flung empire. Slavery was an accepted
norm both in ancient Greek and Roman societies. Cicero
(106-43 BC) had not only systematised the concept of natural
law but also formulated explicitly the idea of natural rights.
The Middle Ages are significant for emphasising the
conception of a moral law of nature, the quest for a universal
society, and the belief in the dignity of the individual. And yet,
Christianity propagated obedience to political authority as
conditional: if the ruler defies the law of God, he may be
lawfully overthrown. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-74), known
as the Aristotle of the thirteenth century, did talk of human
law, though he regarded it as inferior to the eternal law of
God.
Feudalism, as a system, was a step backward in the annals
of democracy for it represented a series of relationships
between the king, the lord, the vassal, or the self; contractual,
hierarchical, and personal relationship dominated and
supported by religion. The Reformation with religious, social,
political, and economic changes, pointed towards
individualism which is regarded as one of the major steps
towards democracy. Martin Luther (1483-1546) eliminated the
Church as the intermediatory between the individual and the
creator; John Calvin (1509-64) thought salvation a question of
individual effort and hard work. Calvinism found its supporters
in the growing industrial, commercial, manufacturing, and
business classes whose very existence sought the
emergence of a fairly permissive political environment and
thereby the development of capitalism. This, in turn, was
conducive to the development of the type of democracy that
prized individualism and liberty. The Renaissance led to
further the expression of individualism—the discovery of the
human being and the emphasis on self-expression, self-
realisation, and self-fulfillment.
Reformation and Renaissance together contributed to the
concept of the secular state. Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527)
worked for the stability and permanence of political order; his
main concern was the creation of a stable and secular state.
Jean Bodin (1530-96), Hugo Grotius (15831645), and
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) developed the concept of state
through its element of sovereignty: the ruler-as-sovereign or
the state-as-sovereign fitting neatly into the scheme of
monarchical absolutism.
The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries challenged the
notions of absolute sovereignty: the scene was England and
France and the challengers were John Locke (1632-1704)
and J.J. Rousseau (1712-78). Their “social contract” proved
to be of potential importance for the development of
democracy. Both Locke and Rousseau laid emphasis on the
intrinsic value of the individual (a democratic element) though
the latter submerged individuality into collectivity. Both
regarded the state/government as a result of individual’s
agreement. Both insisted on the consent of the individual as a
condition for an ordered political life. Both referred to rights as
almost natural, inalienable, and absolute: “Right to life, liberty,
estate” (Locke) or that “Man is born free” (Rousseau). Both
thought of the government as a trust—Locke declaring it
explicitly and Rousseau, implicitly. For Locke, if the rulers
exceed their political authority, they may be rightly overthrown
through revolution. For Rousseau, it is the general, will’ which
is the basis of government; general will as more will for the
people than of the people: the individual obeys the
government, and if he does not, he may be “forced to be
free”, meaning thereby that in obeying the government, he
obeys himself.
There were numerous factors emphasising on_ the
“democratic” elements evident from the social contract theory
— at least of John Locke and J.J. Rousseau. Some among
them were:
i. assertion on human freedom and dignity;

ii. emphasis on rights of the individual:
iii. the state as the result of individuals’ consent and their
agreement;
iv. the state to act as a means for the individual and
community; and
v. arevolt against monarchy and tyrannical rule.
The English, the American, and the French revolutions of

the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries gave concrete
reality to the social contract ideas as it came to be built in the
West. In the later centuries, writers such as Thomas Jefferson
(1743-1826), Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-59), Abraham
Lincoln (1809-65), Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), Edmund
Burke (1729-97), and John Stuart Mill (1806-73) systematised
and elaborated the concept of democracy with writers and
scholars in the greater part of the twentieth century, building a
case for representative or indirect democracy.
(c) Democracy—Thematic Models of its Growth

In order to have a clearer idea of the growth of democracy, it
would be instructive, if not informative, to give a summary of
different models of democracy as stated by David Held
(Models of Democracy).
1. Classical Democracy
In a small city-state and in slave economy, citizens, though
limited, enjoy equality among them-selves and participate
directly in legislative and judicial functions. There is a
provision for open assemblies with executives directly
elected, by lot or by rotation—assembly’s powers include all
common affairs.
2. Protective Democracy
Politically better organised and existing in a society of
patriarchal chiefs, in this model of democracy, citizens need
protection from the rulers and from one another. It is a system
where the rulers rule in the interests of the citizens only in
name; in actuality they interfere in total governance. The
model is protective because it protects
e the ruled from the arbitrariness of the rulers,

e the rulers from the infringement in one-another’s
sphere,
e the whole legal system from those who violate the rules.
3. Radical Model of Developmental Democracy

(i) Radical Model of Developmental Democracy
The system visualises small, non-industrial communities with
a society of independent producers where men are made free
from work and politics. The citizens in this model enjoy
political and economic equality; no one masters the other; all
enjoy equal freedoms, legislative powers with directly elected
legislative bodies, and executive with “magistrates.” either
appointed or elected directly or chosen by lot.
(ii) Developmental Democracy
The system visualises an independent civil society with a
laissez faire state supported by competitive market economy;
private ownership of means of production existing alongside
the community or cooperative forms of ownership. In this
model, participation in political life is regarded necessary for
protection of individual interests, and development of
informed, committed, and developing citizenry. There is
popular sovereignty with universal franchise along with
proportional system of representation; the government is
representative; the systems of checks and balances exist in
order to avoid absolutism.
4. Direct Democracy and the End of Politics

This system visualises classless society with the working
class coming victorious against the bourgeoisie and where
private property is abolished and market economy is
destroyed. It aims at achieving freedom and free development
for all, ensuring complete political and economic equality and
providing equal opportunities for all according to their abilities.
Public affairs are regulated by communes; all officials are
elected and, therefore, can be recalled; economy is planned;
and public affairs are collectively governed.
5. Competitive Elitist Democracy

The system visualises industrial society with competitive
groups competing with one another for power and benefit.
The electorate is poorly informed and therefore, is politically
almost apathetic. In this model, the elite is reelected because
it is skilled and is, therefore, capable of making decisions:
political and non-political. The essential features of such a
model of democracy are:
(a) parliamentary government with a strong executive
or presidential government with an alert legislature;
(b) competition between groups and political parties;
(c) dominance of party politics; and
(d) well-trained bureaucracy.
6. Pluralist Democracy
It visualises the existence of numerous communities in the
society with their own culture, basis, strength, and objectives
and each attempting to achieve something for its own group.
There exists active citizenry along with numerous passive
bodies of citizens with full political participation. This model
encourages government by minorities generally, prevents the
development of powerful factions and hence, has almost
unresponsive state. The essential features of such a model
are:
(a) freedoms and liberties are available;

(b) the device of checks and balances is put in place in
order to keep legislature, executive, and judiciary in
their respective domains;
(c) the presence of competitive electoral system is
ensured;
(d) the coexistence of diverse range and sometimes
overlapping interest groups seeking _ political
influence is ensured;
(e) the law and the Constitution are respected;
(f) the state, instead of being impartial, seeks to attain
its own sectional interests.
7. Legal Democracy
The system visualises effective political leadership, guided
by liberal principles; role of bureaucracy and interest groups
is minimised. The essential features of such a model are:
(a) a state that works on the basis of Constitution;
(b) rule of law prevails over those of men;
(c) free-market society is ensured;
(d) a state with minimal functions and maximal
individual autonomy is created.
8. Participatory Democracy
The system visualises a perfect and just society with
material resources available to everyone and also an open
order where informed decisions are ensured to each. This
model ensures:
i. an equal right to self-development

ii. developing a sense of political efficacy;
iii. Concern for collective problems; and
iv. contribution to the formation of a knowledgeable
citizenry.
The essential features of such a model are:

(a) direct people’s participation in each institution of
society;
(b) party leadership is made accountable to party
membership;
(c) an open institutional system is maintained to ensure
the possibility of experimenting with all political
forms.
9. Democratic Autonomy
The system visualises the availability of an open information,
ensuring informed decisions in all public affairs, setting of the
government's priorities with extensive market regulation of
goods and labour,and minimising of unaccountable power
centres in public and private life. This model expects
individuals to be free and equal in the determination of the
conditions of their own life; guarantees equal rights and
demands equal obligations. The essential features of this
model in respect of the institution of state are:
(a) autonomy enshrined in the Constitution;
(b) competitive party system;
(c) central and local administrative services internally
organised according to the principle of direct
participation.
In respect of society, the key features of such a model are:
(a) existence of diverse institutions and groups;
(b) self-managing enterprise;
(c) community services (education, health, etc.)
internally organised on the principle of direct
participation;
(d) private and voluntary enterprises to help promote
diversity and innovation.
IV. THEORIES OF DEMOCRACY

Democracy has been an evolving concept and this is its great
strength. As it evolves, it makes its meaning clear. The
meaning of democracy, used in the modern sense of the term
has its beginnings since the last quarter of the eighteenth
century. Until the greater part of the nineteenth century, the
concept of democracy remained confined to its classical form
while in the twentieth century and thereafter, the concept of
democracy entered its modern/contemporary era.
C.B. Macpherson (The Real World of Democracy) is right
when he asserts that the Western tradition was largely non-
democratic until the last quarter of the eighteenth century (i.e.
until the American and the French revolutions). This can be
substantiated if we glance the earlier pages of the Western
history.
The kind of democracy in certain city-states of ancient
Greece (especially in Athens) was no democracy:
e there was no rule of all, nor the system allowed all the
people to have a voice in the decisions — the women,
the slaves, and the resident aliens had no right to
participate in administration;
e those who participated in the open assemblies were
men of property, usually, the heads of the families, and
hardly numbered 10 per cent of the whole population—
active political participation was severely limited;
e there was neither any freedom nor any equality.
Plato and Aristotle always suspected democratic system;

Plato would give power to the few intellectuals/philosophers
whereas Aristotle, though admitted the virtues of participation
was afraid of unrestrained democracy—both feared the
degeneration of democracy into mob-rule.
The democratic Sangha, Gana, Panchayat systems are
said to have existed in ancient India in republics called the
Mahajanapadas before the 6th century BC.
The republics in ancient Roman days had elections but as
in ancient Greece, women, slaves, and large foreign
population were excluded: the votes of the wealthy Romans
were given more weight, and there were the people who held
high offices of the state. In the face of slavery and autocratic
despotic rule, the Roman administration did emphasise on the
concepts of law and justice.
During the Middle Ages, there were various systems
involving elections or assemblies, though often only involving
a minority of the population, such as the election of Gopala in
Bengal, the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, the Althing in
Iceland, certain medieval Italian city-states such as Venice,
the tuatha system in early medieval Ireland, Scandinavian
Things, the States in Tyrol and Switzerland, and the
autonomous merchant city of Sakai in the 6th century in
Japan. However, participation was often restricted to a
minority, and so these may be better classified as oligarchy.
Most regions during the middle ages were ruled by clergy or
feudal lords. The domination of Christianity during the period
restricted the arrival of democracy in the West while in India,
the monarchies flourished.
The Parliament of England had its roots in the restrictions
on the powers of kings written in the 1215 Magna Carta. The
first elected parliament was De Montford’s Parliament in
England in 1265. However, only a small minority actually had
a voice; Parliament was elected by only a few per cent of the
population (less than 3 per cent until 1780). With the coming
of the modern period though, three major historical
movements — Renaissance, Reformation and Enlightenment
—the process of the beginning of democracy through the
ideology of liberalism, had a headlong start: Renaissance
received the ciceronian republicanism through the writings of
Machiavelli (1469-1527), and later influenced by men like
Harrington (1611-77), Montesquieu (1689-1755), and
Rousseau (1712-78). Reformation eased the path of religion
taking the backseat in the affairs of the state. Enlightenment
made the contractual theory of the state, reflecting the
consent of the men necessary for the formation of the state
as is evident in Voltaire (1694-1778), David Hume (1711-76),
and Denis Diderot (1713-84). By the end of the seventeenth
century, liberalism had come out and by the end of the
eighteenth century, it had begun moving towards democracy,
its classical form.
(A) Classical Theory of Democracy
(i) Theory
The Glorious Revolution of 1688 (England), the American
War of Independence (1776), and the French Revolution of
1789 had established liberalism in the West—liberalism as
the ideology of autonomous individual and his/her rights and
liberties, and as the philosophy of the properties class
suspecting the powers of the state and professing the theory
of limited government. Building on the scattered rudimentary
democratic ideas scattered over the Western history since the
days of ancient Greece and basing itself on liberalism, the
classical theory of democracy found itself in the greater part
of nineteenth century.
The classical theory of democracy had its advocates such
as John Locke (1632-1704, Two Treatises of Government),
Montesquieu (1689-1775, The Spirit of the Laws), Rousseau
(1712-78, The Social Contract), Adam Smith (1723-90, The
Wealth of Nations), Immanuel Kant (1724-1804, Critique of
Pure Reason, Critique of Practical Reason, Critique of
Judgment), Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1806, Thomas
Jefferson: Writings), Jeremy Bentham (1748 -1832, Fragment
on Government, Principles of Morals and Legislation), James
Madison (1751-1836, The Federalist Papers), Alexis de
Tocqueville (1805-59, Democracy in America), John Stuart
Mill (1806-73, On Liberty, Considerations on Representative
Government).
The characteristic features of the classical theory of
democracy can be summed up as under:
Individual is the basic and primary unit of democracy:
essentially good, moral, rational, social (Locke), knows
his interest well enough (Bentham), a noble savage
(Rousseau), moral enough to see humanity in others
(Kant).
. Basically good, individual is autonomous and is
equipped with his property — life, liberties, and estates
(Locke); sovereign: over his body, over his mind over
himself (Mill).
Individual’s passion for his liberty is unparalleled; the
possession of rights with him help him develop his
personality; the end is the individual, the fulfillment of
his interest, his welfare, for everything revolves around
the individual.
Individual being the end, every institution exists as a
means for the fulfillment of the end of the individual; the
state exists for the individual: “the chief end of men’s
uniting into commonwealth was the protection of the
property of the people” (Locke); “the state exists for the
greatest happiness of the greater number” (Bentham);
“the state does what an individual cannot do” (Mill);
“Free the capitalist, he will free the world” (Smith).
The government is limited, both in functions as well as
in powers. It is limited: evil for most of the time,
necessary only at times; a /aissez faire institution, its
absolutism is to be checked: “The individual has the
right to revolution against the state” (Locke).
Vi. The state’s powers endanger individual liberties and
freedoms: separation of powers (Montesquieu);
institutional mechanism (checks and balances) to check
absolutism (Madison); the states’ (units) to limit the
powers of the federal government (Jefferson); defence
of liberties (Voltaire) were what the classical theorists of
democracy had always urged.
vii. The state is the result of the individuals’ deliberate
intentions. It is built on the consent of the people and
exists as long as it serves the interests of the
individuals: the general will is not as much will of the
people as is will for the people (Rousseau). The social
contract theory voiced the democratic element when it
made the state based on the consent of the people.
viii. Public participation is another basic feature of the
classical theory of democracy. Drawing largely on the
ancient Greek view of direct democracy, the classical
theory sought, year after year, suffrage rights so to
enable the people form and control their governors.
ix. The classical theory of democracy advocated
constitutionalism: government through legal norms, the
rule of law, the written constitution, control of the people
over its electors, and that of the legislature over the
executive.
x. The classical theory of democracy had a moralistic
vision, a humane and humanistic individual constituting
a just society and a state that would owe much more
than own, and serve much more than command.
(ii) Landsgemeinde, Initiative, Referendum

The thrust of the classical theory of democracy has been
political participation of the people in the affairs of the state.
This is reflected in institutions like open assemblies (known
as landsgemeinde in Switzerland) and devices like initiative
and referendum. Landsgemeinde is one of the oldest and the
simplest forms of direct democracy practised in some of rural
cantons of Switzerland. The eligible citizens of a canton meet
on a particular day in the open air. They decide on laws, and
vote for expenditure and income. They can deliberate any
question. Voting is done by raising hands. It is still in effect in
two cantons: Glarus and Appenzell Innerrhoden, though in
small municipalities and at the district level, it still exists.
4 a
Uri : last assembly of the landsgemeinde on May 6, 1928

now abolished.
Schwyz : abolished, 1848
Obwalden : abolished by ballot vote on November 29,
1998.
Nidwalden : abolished by resolution of the Landsgemeinde
on December 1, 1996.
Glarus : landsgemeinde, still in effect.
Zug ‘abolished, 1848.
Appenzell Innerrhoden : landsgemeinde, still in effect.
Appenzell Ausserrhoden : abolished by vote on
September 28, 1997.
\ J
Initiative is a means by which a petition is signed by a

certain member of registered voters, forcing a public vote on
(i) a proposed statute, (ii) constitutional amendment, (iii)
ordinance, and (iv) consideration of the passage of a bill.
Initiative is direct when a measure is put to vote; it is indirect
when a measure is put to vote after the legislative bodies
have considered it. Initiative is available in a Swiss federal
assembly on a question of amendment, though it is used in
cantons for both legislative as well as amendment proposals.
In the USA, the initiative is in use at the level of state
government—in 24 states and in the district of Columbia.
Referendum is a principle or practice of referring measures
passed upon by the legislative bodies for acceptance or
rejection. The measure may include the adoption of a new
constitution, a constitutional amendment, a law, etc. A
referendum may be mandatory when the law or the
constitution directs authorities to hold referendum on specific
matters and is usually binding. It may be facultative when it is
initiated at the will of a public authority (President of the
Republic as in France or Government/Parliament as_ in
Greece or Spain) or at the will of the citizens as in
Switzerland. Such a referendum can be binding or non-
binding. In Switzerland, referendums are binding at the
federal, cantonal, and municipal level. They are of two types:
1. Facultative referendum: Any federal law, certain other
federal resolutions, and international treaties that are
either perpetual and irredeemable, joinings of an
international organisation, or the changed Swiss law may
be subject to a facultative referendum if at least 50,000
people or eight cantons have petitioned to do so within
100 days. In cantons and municipalities, the required
number of people is smaller, and there may be additional
causes for a facultative referendum, e.g., expenditures
that exceed a certain amount of money. The facultative
referendum is the most usual type of referendum, and it
is mostly carried out by political parties or by interest
groups.
2. Obligatory referendum: There must be a referendum on
any amendment to the constitution and on any joining of
a multinational community or organisation for collective
security. In many municipalities, expenditures that
exceed a certain amount of money also are subject to the
obligatory referendum. Constitutional amendments are
either proposed by parliament or the cantons, or they
may be proposed by citizens’ initiatives, which—on the
federal level—need to collect 100,000 valid signatures
within 18 months, and must not contradict international
laws or treaties. Often, parliament elaborates a counter-
proposal to an initiative, leading to a multiple-choice
referendum. Very few such initiatives pass the vote, but
more often, the parliamentary counter-proposal is
approved.
Referendum exists in Australia, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand,
and France largely for constitutional proposals and in the
United States, in the constitutions of 24 states.
(b) Contemporary Theories of Democracy

The classical theory of democracy, laying emphasis on
autonomous-active individual, political participation, direct
democratic institutions with constitutionalism at its base,
became irrelevant with the introduction of party systems,
electoral patterns, and economic inequality. These also
became obsolete with vast size of populations and territories
of the numerous countries. With such developments,
individual who was at the heart of the classical democracy,
and sovereign in his own right became sovereign in the
rhetorical sense of the term. Representation has come to
replace direct participation.
(c) Representative Theories of Democracy

The following are some representative theories of democracy:
(A) The Elitist Theory of Democracy
(i) Background of the Theory

The elitist theory of democracy is an amalgamation of two
opposing, rather conflicting strands: elitism and democracy.
Elitism implies the rule of the few, whereas democracy, in its
direct form, means the rule of all. The elitist theory of
democracy is not elitist in so far as it claims to be democratic;
it is not democratic in so far as it traces its roots in elitism.
The elitists, notably Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1927) and Gaetano
Mosca (1858-1941), both Italians, and Robert Michels (1876-
1936), a German, never found democracy as a viable
proposition. Their arguments are: democracy in the sense of
popular exercise of power and peoples’ participation in
society’s public affairs cannot in practice, be realised; power
is, and has always remained the privilege of the dominating
few; democratic system is impossible and impracticable. The
elitists, therefore, accept the view that democracy is a device
that marks the harsh reality of elite rule and that history is
nothing but the graveyard of oligarchies — or what Michels
declared as “the iron law of oligarchy.”
The classical elite theorists such as Pareto, Mosca, Michels
together with the present-day elitists such as C. Wright Mills,
(1916-62), Schumpeter, Mannheim, Sartori oppose the
classical form of democracy as the direct rule of the people
themselves. Mosca’s words still serve an authoritative
statement of the elite theory. “In all societies — two classes of
people appear: a class that rules and a class that is ruled.
The first class, always the less numerous, performs all
political functions, monopolises power, and enjoys the
advantages that power brings, whereas the second, the more
numerous class, is directed and controlled by the first... .” In
other words, the elitists hold the view that it is always the few
who have ruled the many; the elite that rules the masses.
Michels puts forth the elite argument by talking about “the
political immaturity of the mass”, “the organic weakness of the
mass”, “the need which the mass feels the guidance”, “the
apathy of the masses and their need for guidance.” The elitist
conclusion is: as the masses are incompetent, so there arises
the need of the leaders; as the masses are politically
immature, so the idea of mass sovereignty is always a myth;
as the masses are apathetic, so they are not political; as the
masses are disorganised, so they are irrational; and as the
masses are irrational and manipulable, so there are
possibilities of demagogic leaders destroying democracy and
then turning it to fascism.
The “democracy” theorists have been skeptical about
elitism as have been the elitists about classical democracy.
Each knows its merits as also its weaknesses. The elitists
know how practical they are, and how undemocratic they are
at the same time. Similarly, the “democracy” theorists know
how great servants of the people they are, and how
impracticable they are at the same time. The fusion of one
into the other produces a form of government which is called
“elitist theory of democracy”, “democratic _ elitism’,
“competitive theory of democracy”, “plebiscitary elitism” as
Max Weber would have called it. The necessity of the growing
industrial society during the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries necessitated the need of one by the other.
Summing up the idea of democratic elitism, Schwarzmantel
(Structures of Power, 1987) says: “The fact that masses have
a choice between different elites, satisfies all the
requirements of a democratic system. Organisation implies
oligarchy, as Michels asserted; democracy needs leadership.
In this sense, the elite-mass distinction is preserved and the
analysis remains in the elitist tradition. On the other hand, it is
a necessary and sufficient condition for a democratic system
that, at stated intervals, the masses decide which elite is to
rule.”
(ii) The Theory Explained

Joseph Schumpeter (Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy,
1943) may rightly be called the most influential proponent of
the elitist theory of democracy. He attacks democracy by
saying that there is no such thing as “the will of the people’,
that the masses being ill-informed do not formulate the
agenda of politics, that the political issues are always raised,
articulated, and debated by the leaders, and that initiative in
politics travels from top to bottom and not from bottom to top.
When the masses elect the leaders or a particular elite, the
government is formed. In such a situation, Schumpeter says,
the leaders should be free and autonomous to formulate and
carry out policies of the government as composed by the
people. The democratic element, in a situation like this, is
preserved in
(a) periodic elections of the leaders by the masses and
(b) in the accountability of the leaders towards the
electorate.
The elitist element is preserved in
(a) enough autonomy of the leaders to formulate the
policies and
(b) enough freedom to execute them.
The elitist view of democracy may be summed up as
Weber once described in a situation like this: “In a
democracy, people choose a leader in whom they trust. Then
the chosen leader says, ‘Now shut up and obey me.’ People
and party are then no longer free to interfere with his
business... Later the people can sit in judgment. If the leader
has made mistakes—to the gallows with him.”
( '
Joseph Schumpeter (1883—1950)
Schumpeter, a Moravian (now part of the Czech Republic)

born US economist and political scientist. His major work
was: Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy; a classical
liberal, Schumpeter rejected Keynesianism; sympathetic as
he was to Marx’s theory, he talked about “creative
destruction” of capitalism—old ways are replaced by new
ways; critical as he was about the classical doctrine of
democracy—“rule by the people” concept was both unlikely
and undesirable, he argued in favour of a mechanism in
which there is a competition among the leaders; periodic
elections making the government legitimate and
accountable to the voters, and a system where the
participatory role of the individuals in day-to-day
administration is severely limited.
X J
For an order of democratic elitism, Schumpeter insists on

the following conditions:
i. The caliber of politicians must be high.

ii. Competition between rival leaders (and parties ) must
take place but within the prescribed norms.
iii. There has to be a well-trained independent bureaucracy
to aid and advise politicians.
iv. Excessive criticism of government on all issues be
permitted.
v. A political culture capable of tolerating differences of
opinion be guaranteed.
In democratic elitism, the following features should

constitute a broad framework of the elitist theory of
democracy:
i. The elite’s unflinching faith in democratic norms. It

needs to realise that it possesses power as long as the
electorate wants it.
ii. The establishment of the elite-masses contact is the
only basis of the elitist democracy.
iii. Non-interference of the masses in elite’s business: in
the formulation of policies and in the conduct of
administration.
iv. The elite’s capabilities and experiences in political and
public issues are a matter beyond any doubt.
v. Effective and active competition among the groups —
constant and always continuing.
vi. Circulation of elite from among the masses.
(iii) The Theory’s Evaluation

The elite theory of democracy has the following inherent
limitations:
The theory is no longer democratic if by democracy we
mean a system where there is a substantial amount of
popular power and involvement of the citizens. In this
sort of democracy the masses only produce a
government, they do not sustain it.
. The elite theory of democracy does ensure a measure
of responsiveness by the leaders to the led, but
democracy, in its essence, is not just confined to
responsiveness, nor is it limited to checking and
controlling the executive. Democracy implies people’s
participation at each level of governance, from initiating
a legislative proposal to vetoing the other.
The elitist thesis that the masses, in general, need not
interfere in elite’s public affairs and the insistence that
the politicians may keep “get on with the job” attitude
are not compatible with classical democracy and is, in
fact, a surrender of sovereignty. Indeed, democracy
does mean citizens’ participation in politics, but it also
means right of the citizens to judge or pass judgment on
their rulers. Real democracy is not only descriptive in
the sense of being a way of electing the governors, but
is normative in the sense of being a way of judging the
rulers and the existing power system.
Democratic elitism cuts out from democratic theory its
very heart—the idea of participation. Schwarzmental
writes: “it (democratic elitism) takes a purely static view
accepting the features of present-day mass society
fixed for ever instead of envisaging a process that would
transcend the elite-mass dichotomy. The stability of the
existing order is, thus, made the chief value, and
democratic involvement then appears to threaten that
value.”
V. The democratic elitism alienates the ruled from the
rulers. Despite the fact that the ruled can exercise
control over the rulers, it does not imply that the ruled
control the rulers. All the agencies and devices, through
which the masses can possibly control the rulers,
remain under the control of the rule. The distance
between the ruled and the rulers keep widening.
vi. Democratic elitism is more elitistic than democratic. The
fact remains that the rulers — the elite—remain a class
in themselves. As such, the theory is more elite-oriented
and its democratic convictions are both formal and
imaginary.
vii. The elitist theory of democracy is anti-liberal for it does
not recognise the individual as a rational being. It is anti-
socialist for it has a theory of political democracy and
has, in fact, no theory of socioeconomic democracy.
viii. The elitist theory limits democracy only to “governance”
level.
ix. In terms of progress, the elite theory of democracy is a
step backward. It has removed, from its essence, the
moral content of democracy, a feature the classical
theory of democracy had possessed. What was the
heart of the classical theory of democracy — democratic
humanism—was replaced by the elitists with what they
made—democratic mechanism. The elitist theory of
democracy is retrievessive. Macpherson writes: “...
democracy is reduced from a humanistic aspiration to a
market equilibrium society.”
The strength of the elitist theory of democracy lies in the

fact that effective political power has always, in all societies
and in all ages, remained in the hands of the few—a select
minority. It also lies in the fact that such a system of
democracy has, in reality, worked effectively well in Western
political systems, that any other alternative of democracy
could not and has, in fact, not worked, and that the socialist
model as against the elitist one, has proved infeasible.
(b) The Pluralist Theory of Democracy
Pluralism, as it developed especially in the United States of
America in 1940s, 1950s, and later, was a reaction against
elitist theory of democracy. While the elitist democracy
advocated the exercise of power by a dominant and relatively
united group, one or strictly very few (C. Wright Mills, The
Power Elite, 1956), the pluralists had an absolutely opposite
thesis, saying that power is held not by one or the other
group, but by groups. Within the framework of liberalism,
pluralism demonstrated a more democratic orientation than
elitism. The pluralist-democratic theory admits numerous
groups of all shades, competing to obtain power of the state.
The pluralists are more democratic than the elitists in so far
as the former do not allow the state to act arbitrarily: for there
is a network of parties, groups, associations, in the pluralist
frame, exercising their democratic rights to check the
absolutism of the state. The elitists do presume a fragmented
society, not the one in which numerous groups are equally
powerful, but the one where there is the monopolistic control
of the group which is more powerful. In pluralism, on the other
hand, the state is highly responsive to numerous groups. In
elitism, there is no group conflict; in pluralism, there is. In
pluralist democracy, the people, though non-political, are not
apolitical, but in elitist theory, the people are regarded
apolitical, and therefore, made to act as non-political. Elitism
is a matter of containment; Pluralism, of democratisation.
Following are the factors that separate neo-pluralism from
pluralism:
(a) neo-pluralism is an extension of pluralism, but the
one in which the role of the business groups is
relatively crucial;
(b) in a pluralist democracy, groups are powerful, more
or less, equally, whereas, in a_neo-pluralist
arrangement, dominant groups are seen distinct
from secondary and weak groups;
(c) power is an observable phenomenon and is
relatively dispersed in pluralism, whereas, in neo-
pluralism, power is unobservable, hidden
structurally and ideologically, and therefore, is
concentrated in big issues but dispersed in
secondary ones;
(d) in the pluralist theory, democracy exists through
conflictual groups whereas in neo-pluralist theory, it
exists but very little; and
(e) in pluralism, society is distinct and in a way, non-
political; in neo-pluralism, society is distinct, but
with limited influence.
(i) Development and Growth

Pluralism as it grew and developed in the United States,
was largely the result of the writings of Truman, Bentley,
Dahl, and Lindblom, though its ancestry is related to
Schumpeter, Weber, Madison, and others. It has, in the
Western political system, travelled through various phases
and assumed the names of “empirical democratic theory”
which is a descriptive-explanatory account of democratic
politics. With the changing times, pluralism has passed
through its classical stage to its reformed and then to its neo-
pluralist ones. Each subsequent stage of pluralism was a
variant of the preceding one.
Robert A. Dahl (born 1915)
Robert Alan Dahl is the Sterling Professor of Political

Science at Yale University. He was also the President of
the American Political Science Association. He is described
as “the Dean” of American Political Scientists for his prolific
writings. His works include:
e A Preface to Democratic Theory,

e Who Governs? Political Oppositions in Western
Democracies,
Pluralist Democracy in the United States,
After the Revolution,
Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition,
Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy: Authority vs.
Control,
A Preface to Economic Democracy,
Democracy and its Critics,
On Democracy,
How Democratic Is the American Constitution?
On Political Equality.
Dahl regards democracy as theoretical utopia and as such

calls politically advanced countries “polyarchies”. The
ideals of democracy, he insists, must meet criteria such as
effective participation, voting equality at the decisive stage,
enlightened understanding, peoples’ right to control
agenda, and inclusiveness - everyone to have legitimate
stake within the political processes.
(ii) Pluralist Democracy—Features
Although there are numerous variations of pluralism yet it is
possible to state some recognisable features common to all.
Pluralism is a process; a process of political action, and a
process which, in Lasswell’s phrase, settles who gets what,
when and how. It assumes a multiplicity of groups/ actors
competing for power, influence, job, status, and so on in a
variety of political arenas. It minimises the conflicts between
the different arenas and maximises the openness of the
contests. In it, democracy is competitive rather than
consensual and one where politics is pragmatically focussed
upon the “here and now’ situation.
The characteristic features of pluralist democracy, common
to all shades of pluralism, as summed by Schwarzmantel,
are:
i. There is no single group which is able to exercise

systematic and pervasive control over more than one
range of issues. What it means is the existence of
numerous groups in the society and the fact that each
group is dominant in its own area—all trying, in varying
degrees, to influence the government. More the issues,
more the groups and more dispersed and varying is the
influence.
ii. The idea of countervailing power (as used by J.K.
Galbraith) exists in a pluralist scheme. Galbraith
explains that in an advanced economy, there exists a
balance between the capital and the labour with no one
having an in-built advantage over the other. Both exist,
not in a situation of perfect competition, but in one, that
is imperfect, where both hold power and both can
influence and restrain governmental action.
Although the pluralists do not have any coherent theory
of state yet they seek a state which is neutral. Indeed,
the role of the dominant business groups is growing
fast, yet the pluralist democracy envisages a state
which acts as an umpire, impartially controlling the
conflicts of groups, supervising and regulating social
antagonisms.
As the pluralist democracy survives in a multiplicity of
groups with their own interests and demands, pluralism
is not committed to any ideology. There is, thus, the
plurality of ideas, and therefore, no uniformity of belief,
any belief, “a society of publics” as C. Wright Mills would
have used the phrase.
The pluralist democracy is a democracy of competition,
consent, and accountability. It is a democracy of
competition because it allows competition among the
numerous groups; it is a democracy of consent because
it is run by a group which has a considerable support
and base, and it is a democracy of accountability
because the elected representatives have to be
responsible to the electorate for their deeds.
Vi. The pluralist democracy is a democracy in the sense
that it prevents the concentration of political power in
the hands of few. It is also a democracy in the sense
that it permits the numerous groups and all citizens their
democratic right of participation in politics.
Charles E. Lindblom (born 1917)
Like Robert Dahl, Lindblom is also a Sterling Professor of

Political Science, though he is Professor Emeritus with
interest in Economics. Like Dahl, he has been the
President of the American Political Science Association.
His works include:
The Market System,

The Policy-Making Process,
Politics and Markets, Usable Knowledge,
Politics Economics,
Welfare,
The Intelligence of Democracy.
Together with Dahl, he also advocated polyarchy, holding

the view that elite controls government and society, though
he would also criticise polyarchy turning into corporatism.
\ J
(iii) Assessment of the Pluralist Theory of Democracy

The pluralist theory of democracy remains within the ambit
of Western political systems: systems which allow economic
inequality and political democracy, separation of powers, rule
of law, con-stitutionalism, competitive society, citizenship
rights, a system of freedoms and liberties, and a talented
bureaucracy. Its strength lies in its effective application in the
Western society, in whatever form it suits a system.
And yet its weaknesses can be highlighted:
The assumptions that a society has numerous groups,

and that the groups play a significant role is to assume
that the numerous groups are equally powerful. Indeed,
certain groups, mostly the economically dominant
groups, have more resources and more means, and
therefore, hold more powers in the society at the cost of
others. This makes the whole pluralist assumption
undemocratic.
. The pluralist theory of democracy, while making group
as a political unit, ignores the emphasis on individual
which was the hallmark of the classical democratic
theory. The pluralists have reduced individual to a
rhetorical sovereign: making him almost a slave to the
groups around him and submerging his identity in that of
the group.
As the pluralist democracy is a group democracy, it is
always likely that politics may not be able to receive the
attention of the problems and issues concerned with the
average citizen or an ordinary group. To put the point
the other way, power may prevent certain issues to
come before open discussion. Bachrach and Baratz
rightly point out that a group may be powerful enough to
determine the “agenda” of politics, and to make sure
that certain items are never put on that agenda. This
kind of process may make the pluralist democracy as
the democracy of the dominant.
The pluralist view of the democratic state as neutral
arbiter is countered by
(i) The assumptions that a society has numerous groups,
and that the groups play a significant role is to
assume that the numerous groups are equally
powerful. Indeed, certain groups, mostly the
economically dominant groups, have more resources
and more means, and therefore, hold more powers in
the society at the cost of others. This makes the
whole pluralist assumption undemocratic.
(ii) The pluralist theory of democracy, while making group
as a political unit, ignores the emphasis on individual
which was the hallmark of the classical democratic
theory. The pluralists have reduced individual to a
rhetorical sovereign: making him almost a slave to the
groups around him and submerging his identity in that
of the group.
(iii) As the pluralist democracy is a group democracy, it is
always likely that politics may not be able to receive
the attention of the problems and issues concerned
with the average citizen or an ordinary group. To put
the point the other way, power may prevent certain
issues to come before open discussion. Bachrach
and Baratz rightly point out that a group may be
powerful enough to determine the “agenda” of politics,
and to make sure that certain items are never put on
that agenda. This kind of process may make the
pluralist democracy as the democracy of the
dominant.
(iv) The pluralist view of the democratic state as neutral
arbiter is countered by
(a) ever-increasing power of the state, and
(b) imposing and influential business groups in the
society.
As the state assumes more powers, it becomes more
bureaucratic and hence, less democratic. As the economically
powerful groups exert influence on the state, they make the
state their instrument. And, if the state is in a situation like
that of neo-pluralism where the state comes to forge its own
interests, it hardly remains neutral then.
In an unequal and market sort of society where the power
is captured through competition, the emerging victorious
group not only holds the power but attempts to retain it.
Power, in the hands of the small cohesive group dominating
the society, fades the pluralist vision of dispersion of power
and thus, makes the whole politics oligarchical.
But upto a point, pluralism has a value and an appeal to
those who believe in liberty and in democracy. To those who
hate tyranny and concentration of powers and to those who
favour dispersion of power, pluralism must provide a workable
system and to that extent, it may appear to be democratic.
(c) The Concept of Peoples’ Democracy
(i) Peoples’ Democracy

“Peoples’ democracy” is associated with the Marxian theory
of democracy. The Marxists do not think bourgeois
democracy as the real one. For them, it is the dictatorship of
the capitalists: rule of the capitalists, by them and for them; it
is a class democracy i.e., democracy of a class, a dominant
class, an economically dominant class — the rule of minority
over majority. Giving the Leninist account of Westernal
democracy, Neil Harding (Lenin’s Political Thought) says:
“Western-style representative democracy was no more than a
sometimes convenient constitutional form, through which the
real economic dominance of the capitalist class was
exercised. In the epoch of monopoly or finance capitalism, it
had become redundant and potentially destabilizing: From all
this’, Harding continues, “it followed that representative
democracy, with its elaborate division of power and its
attendant separate jurisdiction for legislative, executive,
judiciary, army, and police could not possible serve as the
political form of the realisation of socialism. Liberal
democracy had not merely preserved, it had refined and
sanctified the age-old and basic division of society into
governors and governed.”
(ii) Explanation of the Concept of Peoples’ Democracy

For the Marxists, democracy and its full form can only be
found in a classless society, beginning from the socialist
society onward. Revolutionary as Marx was, he saw in a
revolution an engine of history, pushing history ahead to
unfold an era of real human freedom. “The political instrument
of their enslavement cannot serve as the political instrument
of their emancipation”, for “a master of society” will not
become “a servant on request"— so writes Marx (The Civil
War in France, 1870). Once the bourgeois democracy is
abolished by the working class, there would usher, the
Marxists say, a transitional period of the dictatorship of
proletariat which would eventually pave the way for a
classless and a stateless society—the real permanent
democratic society. Lenin believed that though the
dictatorship of proletariat would be a bourgeois state without
the bourgeoisie yet it would be, as compared to the
dictatorship of the capitalists under capitalism, democratic in
so far as it would be the rule of the majority (therefore, by
them and for them) over the minority—both quantitatively and
qualitatively rule of the working class over the erstwhile
exploiters. The socialist state would be quantitatively better
than the bourgeois state, for socialism would mean the rule
not of the rich, the capitalists, the few, but would mean the
rule of the common man, the workers, the majority. Under
socialism, after adopting the socialist economy, the power of
the state would be reclaimed by the people; the people would
debate, discuss, and finally decide all public issues; they
would implement what they decide and would adjudicate all
their disputes themselves. Marx and Engels had stated (The
Communist Manifesto, 1848) that socialism would be “an
association in which the free development of each is the
condition for the free development of all.”
f- YY
Mikhail Gorbachev (born 1923)
That the Marxist-Leninist socialist-state would rise and fall

within a short period of a litter over than seventy years
would be a shock for the dead Lenin—thanks to
Gorbachev's efforts of perestroika and glasnost. He was
the last President of the USSR and the last General
Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union when
Soviet Russia disintegrated as a single country in 1991
though he obtained the Nobel Prize in 1990. During his
leadership, Gorbachev, affectionately called Gorby, sought
to liberalise polity as well as economy—well-intentioned
measures which doomed not only his career but also the
socialist model in the world to a great extent.
About the Bolshevik peoples’ democracy, Harding says,
“Democracy was to be_ direct, participatory, and
transformative. Its purpose was to transform people from
passive objectives of the purposes of the others into
conscious and active subjects.”
So considered, the features of the peoples’ democracy as
stated by Professor Held, may be summed up briefly as
under:
i. Regulation of public affairs by councils organised

pyramidically in the socialist era, and leading ultimately
to self-regulation under communism.
ii. Election and recall of all the officials of the state under
socialism while governance of the public affairs by the
people collectively under communism.
iii Peoples’ militia to sustain the socialist society, leading
to a system without coercion and with self-evolving
norms under communism.
iv. Defeat of the bourgeoisie, unity of the working classes
and elimination of all class privileges of the socialist era
to be followed by abolition of private property, scarcity,
market system, and the establishment of a citizen-
centric society.
v. Beginning with the free development of each, and
ending with the free development of all would make way
for a free society where each and all would have all
freedoms, end of exploitation, and ultimately the
achievement of complete political, social, and economic
equality.
The concept of peoples’ democracy, as suggested by

Professor Held, would make somewhat a picture like this:
“The machinery of the state would be replaced by the
commune structure. All aspects of ‘government’ would then
be fully accountable: the general will of the people would
prevail. The smallest communities would administer their own
affairs, elect delegates to larger administrative units, and
these would, in turn, elect candidates to still larger areas of
administration. This arrangement is known as the ‘pyramid’
structure of direct democracy; all delegates are revocable,
bound by the institutions of their constituency and organised
into a ‘pyramid’ of directly elected committees.”
(iii) Assessment of Peoples’ Democracy
The peoples’ democracy smacks of an authoritarian

form of politics in the face of the rule of the single
communist party. In such a society, Professor Held
says, there is “no longer a place for systematically
encouraging and tolerating disagreement and debate
about public matters. There is no longer scope for the
mobilisation of competing political views.”
. The society of the whole people or what may be called
“the commune structure,” where there is no public
discourse, and the procedure to protect peoples’
autonomy, there is no guarantee that those elected by
the people into high offices would like their action to be
scrutinised or their behaviour checked. The limitless
powers with the communes would generate and foster
dictatorship.
The Marxian picture of the communist society as “an
association of free men, working with the means of
production held in common and expanding ... in full self-
awareness as one single labour force; ... an association
in which the free development of each is the condition
for the free development of all” are all good democratic
words, but without practical application, only blueprints
of the new society.
Numerous difficulties arise when the ideals of
government of the people are replaced by “the
government of things,” “self-regulating,” and “self-
evolving system”. Things, in fact, are not as simple as
they are viewed to be so. There has to be someone to:
initiate a tangible proposal; suggest as to where a steel
plant is to be built; and make a beginning. To say that
things would begin themselves is a position which is
untenable.
There are severe limitations of smooth functioning of
institutions in a classless society. The idea that the
executive tasks can be spread amongst the population,
that the delegates act under and within instructions, and
that the representatives are recallable — are all very
attractive but, at the same time, unworkable.
vi. The assumption that a person can be trained to become
active through Lenin’s vanguardism is a position which
stands in direct opposition to what Marx and Engels
repeatedly held: “We cannot ally ourselves, therefore,
with people who openly declare that the workers are too
uneducated to free themselves...”
Vii. Marx did not, Professor Held thinks, produce an
adequate theory of institutional structures of the
classless society. He reduces political institutions to an
undifferentiated type, to a complex of organisations
which are not clearly separated; he makes power
conceal in a hierarchical form and then assumes the
new system would be transparent, open, and accessible
to all. All this is a gamble — “a gigantic gamble.” A.J.
Polan (Lenin and the End of Politics, 1984) says, “the
gamble that it will be possible to set about constructing
the state ‘in the best of all possible words.’ The odds
against the gamble are astronomic. It demands, in
short, ... an absence of politics.”
V. MODELS OF DEMOCRACY
There are a number of models of democracy. The Athenian
direct form of democracy was based on continuous and direct
participation in the processes of government. Protective
democracy was an indirect democracy designed to protect
the individuals against the government. Developmental
democracy is a model to broaden participation, to advance
freedom, and ensure wellbeing of the individuals.
A brief discussion of the major models of democracy is
given here:
(a) Liberal Democracy

Liberal democracy is a model of democracy which is most
popular in the West. It is a model which began as a liberal
idea and to which the democratic content was added later:
the greater parts of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries
provided the liberal base and with the broadening of franchise
rights and the welfare activities, the twentieth century made
the Western countries democratic. Now the West is called the
liberal democracies. With the collapse of the socialist-
communist model in late 1980s and early 1990s, men like
Fukuyama have pronounced the defeat of communism and
the triumph of liberal democracy.
(
Anthony Down
Anthony Downs is a noted a scholar in public policy and is

a senior Fellow at Brookings Institution in Washington. His
works include: An Economic Theory of Democracy, Inside
Bureaucracy, and Struck in Traffic. The Downsian Axis is a
left-right axis in which he places socialists and communists
on the ‘left’, and the Christian democrats, social
democrats, and liberal in the “centre”, and_ the
conservatives and fascists on the “right”; where
communism allows O per cent private ownership, and
fascism 100 per cent private ownership. Voters while voting
contemplate on “how much government intervention in the
economy there should be. he Downsian Axis has been
integrated into the median voters’ theory articulated first by
Duncan Black.
\ JS
The kind of democracy in liberal democracies is known as

the representative democracy: periodic, free, and _ fair
elections; the system of rights, liberties and freedoms; the
essence of constitutionalism; free press; the rule of law;
universal adult franchise; devices of elections and electoral
systems; and the like are the basic characteristics of liberal-
representative democracy. Anthony Downs (An Economic
Theory of Democracy) explains that competitive elections
achieve the goals of democratic government. He drew upon
the ideas of market economics to help explain political
behaviour in a liberal democracy. Politicians seek to acquire
power by gaining votes in an election as is usually done while
businessmen sell goods in the market place: elections are like
political markets where voters exercise choices and select
products from the policies (goods) offered by the competing
political parties.
Liberal democracies are based on principles such as
i. a belief in the individual who is both moral and rational;

ii. a belief in reason and progress: growth and
development to be sought through the art of
adjustments and compromises;
ili. a Consensual society based on cooperation
iv. a belief that power has to remain decentralised.
Liberal democracies seek a political system:
i. where rights and liberties are defended against the

encroachments of the state;
ii. where government intervention is restricted or
regulated;
iii, where society's opportunities are open to talents or
merits rather on privilege or status;
iv. where the rules are framed for the maximum well-being
of the citizens
C. B. Macpherson (1911-87)
Macpherson was a noted Canadian political scientist who

taught political theory at the University of Toronto. His
works include:
The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism,

The Real World of Democracy,
Democratic Theory,,
The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy, ,
A Past-Master Volume on Burke,,
The Rise and Fall of Economic Justice.
An avowed socialist, Macpherson believed that the culture

of possessive individualism prevented individuals from
developing their powers of rationability, moral judgment,
contemplation, and even friendship and love.
(b) Participatory Theory of Democracy

The participatory theory of democracy has its advocates in
scholars such as Carole Pateman (Par-ticipation and
Democratic Theory, The Problem of Political Obligations),
C.B. Macpherson (The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy),
and Poulantzas (State, Power, Socialism). Professor Held
(New Forms of Democracy, Models of Democracy) tells us
that “Participatory democracy” is the main counter-model on
the left to the “Legal democracy” of the right—counter model
on the left, so far as it condemns closed society of the
socialist societies, and a critique of the right in so far as it
exposes the so-called “equalities” which the Western
societies claim to have won. Pateman questions the idea of
“free and equal” citizens and says that the existing
inequalities of class, sex, and race have gone to denounce
the equalities among the citizens. Poulantzas holds the view
that the socialist democratic model has failed to train citizens
in the art of democratic administration. Macpherson doubts if
liberalism would succeed in shouldering the weight of
democracy as seen in the direct participation of the people in
administration.
(i) Participatory Democracy — Explanation of the Theory

The theory of participatory democracy as advocated by
Pateman, Macpherson, and Poulantzas, can be briefly stated
as under:
(a) Democratisation of parliaments, bureaucracies,
political parties, and the like is the first condition of
participatory democracy so as to make them all
more open and more accountable.
(b) Drastic decentralisation of powers, both vertically
and horizontally, so as to enable the formulation of
policies and decision-making run from the bottom to
the top.
(c) Reorganisation of political parties, while making
them less hierarchical, on the principles of
procedures of participatory democracy.
(d) Accountability of the political administrators and
managers to the people they represent.
(e) Direct participation of citizens in the regulation of
the key institutions of society, including the
workplace and the local community.
(f) Maintenance of an open institutional system to
ensure the possibility of experimentation with
political forms.
So understood, participatory democracy envisages an
equal right to self-development; a type of society which
fosters a sense of political efficacy, prepares people to solve
collective problems, and contributes to the formation of a
knowledgeable citizenry, capable of taking a sustained
interest in the governing process. Birch offers, rather a
relatively negative meaning of participatory democracy. He
says in his work, (The Concepts and Theories of Modern
Democracy): participatory democracy “means a system in
which small local units, informally organised, would have a
veto power over national decisions.” The participatory theory
is subject to the following criticism:
Participatory model of democracy fails to specify the

conditions necessary for such a democracy, as also the
means of securing such conditions.
. ndeed, there is no better method of learning than
practising what we want to learn. Accordingly, we learn
to participate by participating but there is no evidence to
show that participation would help, as Professor Held
says, “to trigger a new renaissance in human
development.” It would be unwise to think that
participation would make people cooperative and
dedicated; it would rather be wise to presuppose that
participation would not make people morally or
intellectually better than what they are.
ndeed, there is no better method of learning than
practising what we want to learn. Accordingly, we learn
to participate by participating but there is no evidence to
show that participation would help, as Professor Held
says, “to trigger a new renaissance in human
development.” It would be unwise to think that
participation would make people cooperative and
dedicated; it would rather be wise to presuppose that
participation would not make people morally or
intellectually better than what they are.
The crux of participatory democracy is the availability of
specialised information and expertise to the decision-
makers. “In such a situation, groups of amateur
politicians,” Birch says, “may lend themselves to
manipulation by demagogues or by ideological factions.’
Participatory democracy envisages substantive
involvement in all spheres and at all levels. The
important question is, as to how these spheres and
levels are to be connected with each other, and how the
different aspects of these spheres and levels would
come together. The participation theorists never thought
that such problems would ever be there. To that extent,
the terms of references with regard to participation
theory have been too narrowly drawn.
Vi. Participatory theory is too demanding. It makes a
politician out of each citizen. A chemist may not like to
indulge in politicking; an astronomer may not find time
for politics; a businessman may not have an aptitude to
know as to what goes on in the debates of the municipal
committees. Why demand so much from the people?
Why seek so large changes in the lives of the common
people? Why not leave politics to the politicians?
The merit of the theory of participatory democracy lies in
the fact that
i. it focusses on the individual not in isolation but in the

context of cooperative effort with others;
ii. it engages in finding out the means for achieving the
ideal of self-rule;
iii. it provides, or at least attempts to provide suggestions
for remedying the ills of the existing societies; and
iv. it helps us to know or discover the limitations of the
existing systems and thereafter, to envisage changes in
the political, economic, and social conditions of the
people.
(c) Radical Democracy

Although Fukuyama’s proclamation of the triumph of liberal
democracy has attracted many in the West, it would be a
mistake to say that his conception has earned universal
acceptance. The critics of liberal democracy point out to the
gulf between the government and the people despite the
periodic, free, fair, and competitive elections in liberal-
democratic societies; the rulers, in these polities, are more
accountable to the powerful economic interests than to the
people; the participation of the people in this model of
democracy, people in the affairs of the government, in such
societies has been reduced to casting votes every few years.
Thus, there have been doubts about the realities on which the
liberal democratic theorists usually boast of.
John Burnheim
Burnheim is a former Professor of General Philosophy at

the University of Sydney (Australia) . His work, /s
Democracy Possible? (1985), has been well received.
Drawng the word DEMARCHY from F.A. Hayek, Burnheim
has used this word to decribe a political system without
state, without elections, without bureaucracies, and instead
based it on randomly selected groups of decision-makers.
Burnheim was a one-time Roman Catholic priest.
Ss J
The rise and growth of the radical democracy model

represents a _ cocktail of elements of postmodernist
(openness), neo-Marxist (equality), and the republican-
democratic (active citizenship, partnership) theories. The
advocates of radical democracy include J. Burnheim (/s
Democracy Possible?, Democracy, Nation-states and the
World System), W.E. Connolly (“Democracy and
Territoriality”), H. Patomaki (Republican Public Sphere and
the Governance of Globalising Political Economy), R.B.J.
Walker (International Relations and the Concept of the
Political International Theory). This model of democracy has
its sympathisers in groups and social movements such as the
peace-campaigners, gay-rights advocates, feminist and
environmentalist proponents who help broaden individuals’
continuous participation in social and political life.
Joshua Cohen in his article “Radical Democracy,” points
out certain flaws in liberal-competitive democracy which have
helped the rise of the radical democracy. Citing Rousseau’s
argument, Cohen refers to the /ack of responsibility in the
representative democracy: “As soon as public business
ceases to be the citizens’ principal business, they
(representatives) prepare to serve with their purse rather than
with their persons, the state is already close to ruin.”
Competitive representative—liberal democracy abandons
equality, for in such a form of democracy, people are so
mobilised that they become subordinate to the more dominant
economic groups and lose their political equality. The
competitive-representative-liberal democracy fails to ensure
political autonomy because in such a democracy there is
always a better measure of bargaining than of self-
government.
Radical democracy, Cohen explains, has two major strands
of democratic thought
i. a broader participation in public decision-making, and

ii. deliberations so as to reach decisions that affect the
people, though between the two, radical democracy has
a better share of the former.
Radical democracy is essentially a “bottom up” theory of

democratisation, articulating itself through the multiplicity of
self-governing and self-organising collectivities, without the
sovereign or centralised structures of authority. To a great
extent, radical democracy presents a substantive view of
democracy in so far as it refers to the creation of good
communities based on normative principles of equality, active
citizenship, the promotion of the public good and humane
governance, and the accommodation of diversity.
Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe (Hegemony and Social
Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics) seek to
incorporate in democracy elements of not only freedom and
equality but also difference. It is not only the acceptance of
difference, dissent, and antagonisms, but also dependence
on them. Laclau and Mouffe are of the opinion that in a
society of power relations or what they call “the site of
agonism,” oppressive relations are always visible and they
need to be renegotiated and that is what makes radical
democracy radical.
The assumptions and characteristic features of radical
democracy are:
Society consists of plurality of power relations.

Democracy’s main concern is the acceptance of power
relations as they exist together with the oppressive
relations which emerge.
Democracy’s main task is to accept, debate, discuss,
negotiate, and resolve such relations: democracy is a
matter of participation as well as deliberation.
Democracy not only represents the plurality of voices; it
also fosters the continual proliferation of new voices,
new identities, and new communities through the
process of democratisation.
Democracy does not simply mean participation, it also
means constituting people into citizens and achieving
what is common among them.
Vi. Political parties, pressure groups, and other centres of
power need to go under scrutiny of the entire assertive
civil society.
Vii. The communicative channels could help broaden
participation of numerous elements which can make the
civil society more assertive and alert.
To conclude, one may say with Kate Sandilands (“Radical

Democracy: A Contested/ing Terrain”) that radical democracy
is a form of democracy that can never claim itself to be fully
“democratic”. What constitutes the “common” and _ the
“specific” is always subject to change; what constitutes
“democracy” is thus also necessarily mutable, subject to
debate. And with the changes come new modes of political
speech, new meanings for “empowerment” and
“participation”, new shapes, new directions, and new floor
plans for the forum. Thus, we can never precisely define just
what a “true” radical democracy might look like, which is why
it’s so “radical”.
Radical democracy model makes the participatory
democracy model relatively more understandable. But it is not
understandable as to how the multiplicity of groups and
movements would resolve their conflicts in the absence of the
fading sovereignty of the fast-shrinking role of the state.
(d) Deliberative Democracy

The rationale behind the deliberative democracy model is
what may be called the principle of stakeholding: that all
those affected by or with a stake in the decisions of public
authorities have the right to a voice in the governance of
those matters. Pettit (Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom
and Government) puts the notion of deliberative democracy
as one in which “the people individually and collectively enjoy
a permanent possibility of contesting what the government
decides: public authorities are expected to justify their actions
whilst those affected must have the right to contest such
actions ... .” As against the traditional theory of democracy
which emphasises voting as the central institution in
democracy, deliberative democracy theorists argue that
legitimate law-making can only arise from the public
deliberations of the citizens. Deliberative democracy
strengthens citizens’ voices in governance by including
people of all races, classes, ages, and geographies in
deliberations that directly affect public decisions. The term
“deliberative democracy” was originally coined by Joseph M.
Bessette, in Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in
Republican Government (1980) and he_ subsequently
elaborated and defended the notion in The Mild Voice of
Reason (1994). Others contributing to the notion of
deliberative democracy include Jon Elster, Jurgen Habermas,
Joshua Cohen, John Rawls, Amy Gutmann, John Dryzek,
James Fishkin, Dennis Thompson, and Seyla Benhabib.
4 YY
Joshua Cohen
Joshua Cohen (born in 1951) is a political philosopher and

Professor at Stanford University where he_ holds
appointments in the department of Political Science and
Philosophy and in the School of Law. At Stanford, Cohen is
the head of the new centre for global justice. Much of his
work concerns philosophy of law, political philosophy,
democratic theory, especially deliberative democracy, and
global justice. Previously, a professor of Political Science
and Philosophy at MIT, he was educated at Yale University
and Harvard University, where he earned his Ph.D. under
the direction of John Rawls. His works with Joel Rogers
include On Democracy, Inequality and Intervention, Rules
of the Game, Associations and Democracy. He has also
edited several books.
Joshua Cohen, a student of John Rawls, outlines some
conditions that he thinks constitute the root principles of the
theory of deliberative democracy in the article “Deliberation
and Democratic Legitimacy” in the book, The Good Polity.
These include:
An ongoing independent association with expected

continuation
The citizens in the democracy structure and their
institutions are such that deliberation is the deciding
factor in their creation and that they allow deliberation to
continue.
A commitment to the respect of a pluralism of values
and aims within the polity.
iv. The participants in the democracy regard deliberative
procedure as the source of legitimacy and as such they
also prefer those casual histories of legitimation for
each law to be transparent and easily traceable back to
the deliberative process.
Each member and all members recognise and respect
each other for having deliberative capacity.
Cohen also goes further than deliberative democracy as a

theory of legitimacy and forms a body of substantive rights
around it based on achieving “ideal deliberation”:
1. It is free in two ways:
(a) The participants regard themselves as bound solely
by the results and preconditions of the deliberation.
They are free from any authority of prior norms or
requirements.
(b) The participants suppose that they can act on the
decision made, the decision through deliberation is
a sufficient reason for compliance with it.
2. It is reasoned: parties to deliberation are required to
state reasons for proposals, and proposals are
accepted or rejected based on the reasons given, as
the content of the very deliberation taking place.
3. Participants are equal in two ways:
(a) Formal— Anyone can put forth proposals and
criticise and support measures.
There is no substantive hierarchy.
(b) Substantive— The participants are not limited or
bound by certain distributions of power, resources,
or pre-existing norms. “The participants ... do not
regard themselves as bound by the existing system
of rights, except in so far as that system establishes
the framework of free deliberation among equals.”
4. Deliberation aims at a rationally motivated consensus:
it aims to find reasons acceptable to all those who are
committed to such a system of decision-making.
When consensus or something near enough is not
possible, majoritarian decision-making is utilised.
Describing deliberative democracy as_ discursive
democracy, Dryzek (Discursive Democracy, Deliberative
Democracy and Beyond) refers to its following features:
i. It is pluralistic in embracing the necessity to

communicate across difference without erasing
difference.
ii. It is reflective in its questioning orientation to
established traditions.
iii. It is transnational in its capacity to extend cross-state
boundaries into settings where there is no constitutional
framework.
iv. It is ecological in terms of its openness to
communication with non-human nature.
v. It is dynamic in its openness to ever-changing
constraints upon and opportunities for democratisation.
Dryzek’s advocacy of discursive democracy broadly implies

that participation in relatively unrestrained discourses in civil
society is valuable for the development of individual
capabilities and for generating an authentic and informed
public opinion under free and equal conditions of deliberation,
which benefits the political decision-making process as a
whole. Lyn Carson writes:
“Deliberation is not a debate and is more than a dialogue.
Deliberations are conversations that matter because they
work methodically toward consensus, attempt to build
common good...”.
Two conceptions of deliberative democracy are usually
talked about: (i) micro and (ii) macro. Micro deliberative
democracy concentrates on the ideal deliberative procedure:
a form of face-to-face communication which emphasises on
reasoned argument and persuasion rather than’ on
manipulation, coercion and deception. Habermas and Dryzek
take the macro perspective of deliberative democracy,
emphasising on the loose unstructured forms of deliberation
where discourses are free to overlap and engage with one
another. Scott London (Tele-democracy vs. Deliberative
Democracy) refers to a term “teledemocracy” in which
innovative form of “electronic discourse” is said to remedy
numerous’ shortcomings of representative democracy:
interactive telecommunication fosters increased civic
participation: telecommunication links citizens together across
the boundaries of time and space; a direct link between
citizens and government ensures the accountability of the
representatives; electronic media can function as a mass
feedback system, providing the legislators with instant public
opinion; electronic media can provide vast amount of
information to the citizens almost instantaneously.
The strength of the deliberative democracy models is that
these models tend to generate ideal conditions of impartiality,
rationality, and knowledge of the relevant facts. The more
these conditions are fulfilled, the greater is the likelihood of
decisions being made morally correct.
The political philosopher Charles Blattberg (From Pluralist
to Patriotic Politics) has criticised deliberative democracy on
four grounds:
i. the rules for deliberation that deliberative theorists affirm

interfere with, rather than facilitate, good practical
reasoning
ii. deliberative democracy is ideologically biased in favour
of liberalism as well as republican over parliamentary
democratic systems;
iii. deliberative democrats assert a too-sharp division
between just and rational deliberation on the one hand
and self-interested and coercive bargaining or
negotiation on the other; and
iv. deliberative democrats encourage an adversarial
relationship between state and society, one that
undermines solidarity between citizens.
Contemporary Democratic Theory
Contemporary Democratic Theory has its own issues which

are being debated from time to time and from issue to
issue. With regard to the representation, electoral
representation to informal kinds of representation, interest
in the fairness of electoral representation, a renewed focus
on political judgment and democratic theory, a new
appreciation that participation and representation are
complementary forms of citizenship.
Another issue that is being debated in the contemporary
democratic theory is the relationship between democracy
and majoritarianism and between majoritarianism and
counter majoritarianism. Such debates affect the
functioning of democratic working.
Issues which are being debated reflect the contemporary
democratic theory in various aspects.
Practice
Questions
1. Explain the meaning of democracy.

(200 words)
2. Comment on the’ issues_ of
contemporary democratic theory. (2012)
(200 words)
3. What distinguishes democracy from
monarchy, oligarchy, and dictatorship?
(200 words)
4. Write a note on “developmental”
democracy. (200 words)
5. Highlight the major characteristics of the
classical democracy. (700-800 words)
6. Write a brief note on “referendum”. (200
words)
7. Explain clearly the meaning of radical
democracy. (700-800 words)
8. Critically examine either the elitist or the
pluralist theory of democracy. How far
does any one of the two match the
characteristics of representative
democracy? (700-800 words)
9. Evaluate the participatory theory of
democracy. (700-800 words)
10. Examine critically the features of
deliberative democracy. (2014)(200
words)
0
Concepts: Power, Hegemony,
Ideology, Legitimacy
| INTRODUCTION
ower, as a concept, is central to any study of politics.
To say that politics is all about power or the term
“power” is the one around which politics revolves, is
not surprising. Power, in politics, is always political power,
power of the state, power of the government, and power of
the laws through which governments operate. Power is a
means through which the state or the government or any
other agency (governmental or non-governmental) gets
something—done which others do not, otherwise, want to do;
— it is a power to influence others. Power, as an end, is
power over others, i.e., to dominate, to control, to exert.
Power as a means is “power-to” and power as an end is
“power-over.”
The concept of power in politics is closely related to terms
like “hegemony,” “ideology” and “legitimacy” and authority.
Through” hegemony,” a class or a group (social, economic, or
political) attempts to dominate the other classes/groups. In
this sense, hegemony is one aspect of exercising power.
Ideology, as the science of ideas, is yet another device
through which the dominant class (economic, social, or
political) seeks to influence and control and activate the
behaviour of others (in politics particularly). Legitimacy makes
the power-holder exercise his/her power in a manner which is
considered permissible, sanctioned, and legal.
li CONCEPT OF POWER
(a) Meaning and Definitions

Power is the ability to do or act, control, and influence others.
Dahl defines it as a “relationship among actors in which one
actor induces other actors in a way that they would not
otherwise act.” For Morgenthau (Politics among Nations),
power is “man’s force, persuasion, authority, control over the
minds and actions of other men.” Easton says power is a
relationship in which one person or group is able to determine
the actions of another in the direction of the former’s ends.”
Russell (Power) views it “as the production of intended
results.” Indeed, power, as Tiberius had said, has no limits. It
is not power of money, but it is always political power. The
word power is derived from the Latin word Potere meaning “to
be able.”
Principal Forms of Power
e Force in its narrow sense implies a control of the body

rather than the person. We may kill, bind, or render
comatose without being able to get a person’s actions
to our will. Only when they comply because of the
threat of force can the relationship be called power
and this becomes, strictly, coercion.
Persuasion by which the slave may persuade the
emperor or the professor, the Prime Minister. In other
words, the powerless may persuade the powerful; the
offering of ideas is not controlled until it creates a
dependency and, therefore, the capacity to
manipulate.
Authority is sometimes defined as “legitimate power’.
But it can also be unerstood as the existence (in
various senses) of rights to command and
corresponding duties to obey. Authority is, therefore,
separate from power, though it constitutes a resource
for power in the same way as does money and a
capacity for rational persuasion. It can exist in a pure
form, without power, as, for instance, the authority of
a priest over his flock in a secular society.
Coercion is perhaps the paradigm form of power and
is said to consist of controlling people through threats,
whether overt or tacit. Although, it is extremely difficult
to distinguish a threat from other forms of relationship.
Is it a threat if we say we are going to make a person
worse off than he/she expected to be? Or worse off
than if we were not to act? Most modern
relationships, whether children’s pocket money or
promotions at work, seem to exist in a middle territory
between threats and others for which we have no
established word in English (though Hillel Steiner
suggests “throffers”).
Manipulation involves control exercised without
threats, typically using resources of information and
ideas. Usually people do not realise they are being
manipulated or the process would not work. Arguably,
it is a more durable form of power. Subversive
obedience to superior is more securely founded on
the belief that God wants him to obey than on the fear
of being whipped. Increasinglyas power has failed as
a concept for the positive investigation of political
systems, it has been taken over by writers like
Foucault who see power as permeating all social
relationships. This tradition of thought does not,
generally, seek to easure or attribute power or to
distinguish its forms, but is consent to emphasise its
transcendence and the effect of power in distorting
social relations. Politics (Oxford Dictionary)
\ J
The purpose of the modern concept of power was

recognized as early as 1748 with the publication of Hume’s
essay, “Of the Original Contract,” associating power with
either force or violence or both.” Almost all of the
governments, which exist at present ... have been funded
originally either on usurpation or conquest or both, without
any pretence of a fair consent or voluntary subjection of
people.” Power is not merely force or violence; it is not only
different than these but is much more than them.
The term “power” has been a term contested by many
scholars, each one defining it on his/her own terms. Some
theorists define power as getting someone else to do what
one wants rather than doing it him self/her self (power-over)
whereas others define it more broadly as an ability or a
capacity to act (power-to). In the first case, power is
domination or control over others while in the other case,
power is influence. Max Weber (The Theory of Social and
Economic Organisation, and Economy and Society) defines
power as “the probability that one actor within a social
relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will
despite resistance.” According to Robert Dahl. “A has a power
over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B
would not otherwise do.” Dahl’s one dimension of power has
been recognised by Bachrach and Baratz (Power and
Poverty) who emphasise on two-dimensional view of power,
and Lukes (Power: A Radical View) who refers to three-
dimensional view of power. Michel Foucault
(Power/Knowledge) almost gives the one-dimensional view of
power when he says: “... if we speak of the structures or the
mechanisms of power, it is only in so far as we suppose that
certain persons exercise power over others.” All these
definitions relate power as power-over. Others define power
as an ability or capacity to do something (power-to). Thomas
Hobbes’s (Leviathan) definition of power as a person’s
“present means ... to obtain some future apparent Good.”
Hannah Arendt’s (“On Violence”) has given definition of
power as “the human ability not just to act but to act in
concert.” Hanna Pitkin (“Obligation and Consent”) notes that
power is related etymologically to the French word pouvoir
and the Latin potere, both of which mean “to be able.” “That
suggests, in turn, that power is a something—anything—
which makes or renders somebody able to do, capable to
doing something. Power is capacity, potential, ability, or
wherewithal.” Similarly, Peter Morriss (“Essentially
uncontestable concepts of power’) and Lukes define power
as a dispositional concept, meaning, as Lukes puts it, that
power “is a potentiality, not an actuality — indeed a
potentiality that may never be actualised.” Some of the
theorists who analyse power as “power-to” leave “power-over”
entirely out of their analysis. For example, Arendt
distinguishes power sharply from authority, strength, force,
and violence, and offers a normative account in which power
is understood as an end in itself. As Jurgen Habermas has
argued, this has the effect of screening any and all strategic
understandings of power (where power is understood in the
Weberian sense as imposing one’s will on another) out of her
analysis (Habermas—On Arnat’s power). Others suggest that
both aspects of power are important, but then focus their
attention on their “power-over’ or “power-to.” Still others
define “power-over” as a particular type of capacity, namely,
the capacity to impose one’s will on others; thus, “power-over”
is a derivative form of “power-to.” However, others have
argued “power-over” and “power-to” refer to fundamentally
different meanings of the word “power” and that it is a mistake
to try to develop an account of power that integrates these
two concepts. Mann (The Sources of Power) regards power
as a social power, both as a matter of domination and of
collective organisation. Giddens (The Constitution of Society)
regards it as a structural property of society or the social
community.
“Power,” as a concept, is to be distinguished from its other
closely related terms. Power is not force because force refers
to events humanly uncontrolled circumstances while power is
always, a function of human relations ; power is a social
force. Power is not strength because strength is usually
individual-related whereas power is a human ability to act in
concert to persuade or coerce others; power is usually a
socially-related force. Power is not authority, for authority is
always a source of power: power is always the child of
authority. Power is not violence because violence is unlawful
exercise of power; power is the legalised exercise of power.
( »'
Power Quotes
e “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Acton
e “Power does not corrupt men; fools however, if they
get into a position of power.” G.B. Shaw
e “Power is everywhere ... because it comes from
everywhere.” Foucault
e “A friend in power is a friend lost.” Henry Adams
e “Absolute power does corrupt and those who seek it
must be subject and must be opposed.” Barry
Goldwater
e “Justice without force is powerless; force without
justice is tyrannical.” Pascal
e “Power can be taken, but not given. The process of
taking is empowerment in itself.” Steinam
e “No science is immune to the infection of politics, and
the corruption of power.” Bronowski
e “Washing one’s hands of the conflict between the
powerful and the powerless means to side with the
powerful, not to be neutral.” Freire
e “| hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and
teach us, that the less we use our power, the greatest
wisdom will be.” Jefferson
Indeed, power is force, lawfully exercised, exercised when
security and protection and peace are to be sought. Power is
manipulation, a manipulation of open intent of those who
exercise power: power is never secretive. Power is
persuasion when it has to operate while arguments of right
and wrong are debated. Power is domination when it is
legitimately used, and indeed is, coerced, competent.
Power is both negative as well as positive. Negative power
is related to one’s ability to get things done which would
otherwise not be done. It is a capacity of the individual to act
freely, with responsibility. It is a notion associated with the
liberal tradition— a notation where a one is authorised to
e exercise power;
© punish those who violate the lawful authority;
e be account able for the exercise of power. It is a
“power-over.”
Positive power is expressed as empowerment. It is seen as

the ability to do things; it is a capacity to
e develop one’s personality,

e achieve social good,
e work toward the attainment of the welfare of the
community as a whole.
It is a “power-to.” Elshtain (“The Power and _ the
Powerlessness of Women”) makes a distinction between
Potestas which relates to control, supremacy, domination
(negative power) and po-tential which relates to ability,
efficacy, and potency (positive power).
(b) Power: Nature, Bases, and Characteristics

The term “power,” when used in politics, is always political.
Power and politics go together. It is seen in the operations of
the government—in the laws made by the government, in the
sanctions that capacitate punishment, and in the legalised
exercise of power. Power is, therefore, /egal; illegal power is
sheer force—force with laws connotes power; power without
laws connotes force. Power is a relationship between the
ruler and the ruled, The between one who commands and the
one who obeys. It helps influence others; it helps conduct the
behaviour of others. It is an instrument through which desired
ends are achieved, obedience is extracted, justice is
maintained, criminals are punished; though the anarchists
and the Marxists hold the opposite view—the anarchists see
in the power of the state absence of individual liberty while
the Marxists, the exploitation of the non-possessing class.
French and Raven (The Bases of Social Power) refer to the
following bases of power. Legitimate Power
Legitimate power
Legitimate power refers to power of an individual because of
the relative position and duties of the holder of the position
within an organisation. Legitimate power is formal authority
delegated to the holder of the position. It is usually
accompanied by various attributes of power such as uniforms,
offices, etc. This is the most obvious and also the most
important kind of power.
Referent Power
Referent power means the power or ability of individuals to
attract others and build loyalty. It is based on the charisma
and interpersonal skills of the power holder. Here the person
under power desires to identify with these personal qualities,
and gains satisfaction from being an accepted leader.
Nationalism or patriotism counts towards an intangible sort of
referent power as well. For example, soldiers fight in wars to
defend the honour of the country. This is the second least
obvious power, but the most effective.
Expert Power
Expert power is an individual’s power deriving from the skills
or expertise of the person and the organisation’s needs for
those skills and expertise. Unlike the others, this type of
power is usually highly specific and limited to the particular
area in which the expert is trained and qualified.
Reward Power
Reward power depends upon the ability of the power wielder
to confer valued material rewards. It refers to the degree to
which the individual can give others a reward of some kind
such as benefits, time of desired gifts, promotions, or
increases in pay or responsibility. This power is obvious but
also ineffective if abused. People who abuse reward power
can become pushy or are reprimanded for being too
forthcoming or “moving things too quickly.”
Coercive Power
Coercive power means the application of negative influences
onto employees. It might refer to the ability to demote or to
withhold other rewards. It is the desire for valued rewards or
the fear of having them withheld that ensures the obedience
of those under power. Coercive power tends to be the most
obvious but least effective form of power as it builds
resentment and resistance within the targets of coercive
power.
With the meaning of the concept of power together with the
nature and bases of power, it becomes pertinent to highlight,
though briefly, the characteristic features of the concept of
power:
i. The concept of power is a contested concept and

significant disagreement exists among the scholars as
to what it really means.
ii. The concept exists where there exist a number of
people; it does not exist in a vacuum, but exists among
the people, assuming a relation among them—
someone to command, someone else to obey.
iii, The concept of power is, thus, a relational concept:
allotting individuals is their position and the role relating
to the position: there is the ruler because there are
people who recognise him so.
iv. The concept of power is something that depends upon
the relationship between group members, such as
father-son, employer-employee, leader-follower,
teacher-student, ruler-ruled, etc.
v. The concept of power is legal, formal, impersonal. What
is not legal has no sanctions; what is not formal has no
recognition; and what is not impersonal is not public.
vi. The concept of power is public in the sense that it is not
privatised; it is external in the sense that it has nothing
to do in what we think in our minds.
vii. The concept of power is a concept of granting benefits
and sanctioning depravation—the state institutes
awards and punishes criminals.
viii. The concept of power as such is casual in the sense
that it is caused, i.e., it helps happen something or
prevents something from happening.
ix. Intentionality is another feature of power: without
intentionality, the concept of power is vague, i.e.
meaningless, the power is used for attaining desired
objectives.
x. Power operates reciprocally: to control others, one must
have control over things: an employer wields power
over his/her workers because he/she has control over
wages, on working conditions, and the like.
(c) Analysis of Power

The evolution and the growth of the concept of power in the
history of Western Political Thought reveals its numerous
facets. Some political philosophers view it as a means while
others regard it as an end. Those who view it as a means are
(i) those who think it as an ability or a capacity to act, and (ii)
those who regard it as a right to act.
Among those belonging to the former are philosophers
such as Hobbes, the elitists, Weber, the behaviouralists, and
those who belong to the latter include Arendt, and the
sociologist Parsons. There are still others who see in the
concept of power, the capacity to make political decisions,
i.e., to formulate political agenda, as well as to obstruct
decision-making, i.e., non-decision making. There are
scholars who regard power as a device of manipulation i.e.
doctrinising ideas, others who relate power to knowledge and
still others who associate it with violence and wealth. A brief
discussion of the concept of power, while analysing it, can be
given, here, as follows.
The ancient Greeks, Plato and Aristotle, took the normative
view of power and sought through the state the better and
relatively a full-fledged life of the individual. The ancient
Romans saw in the state’s power the capacity or the ability of
one person or thing to affect another. In the medieval ages,
the concept of political power was that it was regarded lower
than the spiritual power. Machiavelli defined politics as the
struggle for acquisition, maintenances, and consolidation of
political power. Hobbes, while attempting to analyse power
scientifically and empirically, thought of power as a relation
between cause and effect, between an active “agent” and
passive “patient.” Locke’s view of power was different from
that of Hobbes; he viewed power as based on the consent of
the people (Hobbes also did so), and seeking the
powerholder accountable to the ruled (Hobbes did not do so).
Locke defined power as a trust of the general community
which specifies purposes and limits of power. Locke’s
treatment of the concept of power came to be followed during
much of the time in eighteenth-nineteenth centuries though
the state’s power came to be challenged by numerous
groups: anarchists, Marxists, and the elitists. The anarchists
(Stirner, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin) suspected political
power endangering individual liberty (early liberals Locke,
Smith, Bentham permitted to the state be limited power as
possible). The Marxists (Marx, Engels, Lenin, and_ their
followers) found in power a class mechanism of exploitation.
The elitists (Pareto, Mosca, Michels, and Mills), while
attacking the concept of direct rule of the people as
impracticable and impossible, advocated the exercise of
power by an elite, psychologically elevated (Pareto),
sociologically nominated (Mosca), organisationally chosen
(Michels), and institutionally drafted (Mills) class of people. It
was left to Schumpeter (Capitalism, Socialism and
Democracy) and Sartori (The Theory of Democracy
Revisited) to make a case for the elitist theory of democracy.
Burnham (Managerial Revolution) referred to the power of
professionalism while Dahl (Pluralist Democracy in the United
States) advocated a relatively better view of power in a
pluralist society.
Keith Boulding (Three Faces of Power) refers to the use of
power as intimidation (the stick); productive exchange
involving mutual gain (fhe deal); the creation of
obligations, loyalty, and commitment (the kiss). This may
be stated as under:
(i) Power as Decision-making
The open face of power it the one that can be exercised
when a decision is taken. This type of decision-making can
nevertheless be influenced in a variety of ways. For examples
Boulding said that it may not be that open but it may influence
by intimidation (the stick) or productive exchanges involving
gain (the deal) or the creation of obligations, loyalty, and
commitment (the kiss).
(ii) Power as Agenda Setting
The secret face of power is exercised behind closed doors.
Those who have power to set the political agenda have the
power to determine not only what can be discussed but also,
more importantly, what cannot be discussed. Power is also,
therefore, about preventing decisions being taken, i.e., “non-
decision making.”
(iii) Power by Manipulating Desires
People with such power can persuade others to think that
what is being offered is desired — such a power is related
with the ability to shape what someone thinks.
Steven Lukes
Steven Lukes (power: A Radical View) seeks to sketch three
conceptual maps which receal the distinguishing features of
the three views of power: the pluralist view which he calls
onedimensional view, the critics of pluralist view which he
calls two-dimensional view, and the third view of power which
he calls the three-dimensional view. According to the one-
dimensional view, power is thought of as intentional and
active, and thus, can be measured (see Dahl's Who
Governs?). Conflicts exist and power aims at defeating the
opponents’ preference. The focus, thus, is on decision-
making behaviour on issues where there is an observable
conflict of subjective interests as revealed by policy
preferences.
( Y
Steven Lukes
Professor Steven Lukes (born in 1941) is the author of

numerous books and articles on political and social theory;
a professor of politics and sociology at New York
University. His main academic interests include the
sociology of Durkheim, individualism, rationality, Marxism,
conceptions of power. His works include: /ndividualism,
Power: A Radical View, Power, and MoConflicts and
Politics.
According to the two-dimensional view of power, power is
limited in that it focusses on observable conflicts. Lukes
claims that A can also exercise power over B by influencing,
shaping, or deter-exists where there are grievances in the
form of issue which are devised entry into the political
process. Lukes argues that power can also be exercised by
preventing grievances—by shaping, for example, perceptions
and preferences in a way that they secure the acceptance of
the status quo and may be seen natural, unchangeable, and
beneficial.
The three dimensional view of power, Lukes argues, may
prevent the formation of grievances by shaping perceptions
and preferences in such a way as to ensure the acceptance
of a certain role in the existing order. Though contentious, this
may, at the same time, be a beneficial view. Of the three
views of power, Lukes regards the third one as better for the
investigation of power relations.
According to Lukes, power is the imposition of internal
constraints, and those subject to it acquire beliefs that result
in their consent or their adaptation to domination, by either
coercive or non-coercive forms. This radical view of power is
argued to be empirically useful in the sense that it allows the
framing of hypotheses that are in principle verifiable or
falsifiable. Lukes maintains that power is one of those
concepts which is unavoidably value-dependent, that is, “both
its definition and any given use of it, once defined, are
inextricably tied to a given set of value-assumptions which
predetermine the range of its empirical application.”
Foucault
For Foucault, power is exercised with intention. Instead of
analysing the difficult problem of who has what intentions, he
focusses on what is inter-subjectively accepted knowledge
about how to exercise power. For Foucault, power is actions
upon others’ actions in order to interfere with them. Foucault
does not recur to violence, but says that power presupposes
freedom in the sense that power is not enforcement, but ways
of making people by themselves behave in other ways than
they else would have done. One way of doing this is by
threatening with violence. However, suggesting how happy
people will become if they buy an off-roader is an exercise of
power as will; marketing provides a large body of knowledge
of techniques for how to (try to) produce such behaviour
Foucault’s works analyse the link between power and
knowledge. He outlines a form of covert power that works
through people rather than only on them. Foucault claims
better systems gain momentum (and hence power) as more
people come to accept the particular views associated with
that belief system as common knowledge (hegemony). Within
such a belief system — or discourse — ideas crystallise as to
what is right and what is wrong, what is normal and what is
deviant. Within a particular belief system, certain views,
thoughts, or actions become unthinkable. These ideas, being
considered undeniable “truths,” come to define a particular
way of seeing the world, and the particular way of life
associated with such “truths” becomes normalised.
Bachrach and Baratz
Bachrach and Baratz (Two Faces of Power) refer to two faces
of power: one is the participation in decision-making, and the
second is the capability, primarily through manipulation of the
prevailing mobilisation of bias, i.e., the efforts to prevent the
decision being taken.
(d) Models of Power

Four models of power usually referred to are:
i. A voluntarist model rooted in the early liberal tradition,

relating to mythological individualism.
ii. A hermeneutic or communicative model of power rooted
in German phenomenology.
iii. A structuralist model of power developed differently in
the writings of Marx and Durkheism.
iv. A postmodernist model of power developed differently in
the writings of Foucault and other feminists.
The Voluntarist Model

Its chief advocate is Robert Dahl (“Power” in /nternational
Encyclopedia of Social Sciences). Dahl holds the view that
power is a capacity to get others to do what they would not
otherwise do, to set things in motion, and change the order of
events, i.e., produce movement, “a cause-effect relationship,”
“Newtonian in nature.” He says. “Power terms in modern
social sciences refer to subsets of relations among social
units such that the behaviour of one or more units depend, in
some circumstances, on the behaviour of other units” and
“whenever A does something, what follows, or what probably
follows, is an action by B.” This model is criticised for its
atomistic assumptions. It does not give a_ satisfactory
explanation as to how and why the agents are able to
exercise power as they do.
The Hermeneutic Model

This model has its advocates in philosophers like Bernstein
(Praxis and Action) and Taylor (Hegel and Modern Society). It
argues that the first principle of any social explanation must
be uniquely linguistic and a conceptual character of human
social life. According to Taylor, rituals, festivals, etc. are not
like the facts of nature, and they cannot be separated from
experience they give rise to; they are, rather, constituted by
the ideas which underlay them. The political philosophers like
Aristotle, Machiavelli, Montesquieu, Tocqueville, etc. sought
to account for the norms, mores, and the spirit that
constituted forms of social power. Hegel is undoubtedly an
important mentor of the hermeneutic thinking who insists that
all relationships of domination are sustained by mutual
recognition on the parts of agents. Peter Winch (The /dea of a
Social Science) argues that the exercise of power
presupposes a normative context. Arendt (On Violence)
writes that “power is never the property of the individual; it
belongs to a group and remains in existence only so long as
the group keeps together” and that the humans are always
communicative and that this shared relationship (acting in
concert) sustains their capacities to act. This model is
criticised on the ground that its over-emphasis on languages
blinds it to the more “material” dimensions of power.
The Structural Model

With the hermeneutic model, the structuralist model is averse
to atomistic and methodological individualism, though it
avoids the normative treatment of power as advocated by the
hermeneutic model. The structuralist model contends that
power has a structural objectivity. This model can be traced to
the writings of Marx (Capital) in his analysis and of
Durkheim’s (Rules of Sociological Method) analysis of the
capitalist mode of production. Its advocates include Bail
(Power, Causation and Explanation) and Isaac (Power and
Marxist Theory). According to this model, power can be
defined as the capacities to act and power can be derived
from its attachment to structural rules, resources, positions,
and relationships. The critical theory advocates (Frankfurt
School and the neo-Marxists) share with the structuralist-
theorists the idea that power is embedded in structural
relationships.
The Post-Modernist Model

Common with the hermeneutic, and the structuralist models,
the post-modernist model rejects individualism and
voluntarism. The post-modernist model believes _ that
language and symbols are central to the concept of power. Its
advocates include Flax (Postmodernism and Gender
Relations in feminist theory), Ferguson (Male-ordered
Politics), Foucault (Power/Knowledge), some feminists, and
some modernists. The feminists argue that the conceptions of
power are gender-specific. Foucault described power as a
complex phenomenon and, therefore, regarded it as
discursive, as knowledge, and as production.
lll. CONCEPT OF HEGEMONY

Among numerous values that sustain a system, mention may
be made about political culture on the one hand, and
hegemony, on the other. The concept of “political culture” is
used to refer to the pattern of orientations to political objects
usually expressed in beliefs, symbols, norms, and attitudes.
Almond and Verba (The Civic Culture), while explaining
political attitudes and democracy in certain nations, are of the
opinion that political culture affectively uphold the democratic
politics. What is important to note is the fact that a system
sustains because of certain values, traditions, ideas, or
cultures. Burke wrote about customs and traditions; Marx,
about ideology, and Herder about national spirit. Almond and
Verba have concluded that a system survives or is sustained
when its inhabitants participate in its functioning—more the
participation, more the support for the system, and greater the
chances of democracy maks its place in the system. This may
be called participant culture. The subject culture characterises
the passivity of the citizens they influence the functioning of
the system in a limited way while the parochial culture,
Heywood (Politics) says, shows “the absence of a sense of
citizenship” as the citizens have “neither the desire nor the
ability to participate in politics.”
Within the Marxist tradition, a different view and role of
political culture developed. For the Marxists, culture is a
specific-culture — the members of a class in a society share
the same ideas, the same values, and the same beliefs. It is
in this sense that there is the bourgeois culture of the
bourgeoisie and the proletarian culture of the working class —
each class shares the same ideas, ideals, values, and beliefs.
There is another sense in which the term culture is used in
Marxism. The ideas of the ruling class become the ruling
ideas of the age, i.e., the ideas take the form of power—the
power of the ruling class (in the capitalist society, as a class
society, the capitalists’ power) seek to reconcile the
subordinate classes to their exploitation on the one hand, and
its domination over the deprived classes on the other. These
ideas of the capitalists in the capitalist class society,
subordinating the exploited classes, take the form of
bourgeois “hegemony”. Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937, Prison
Notebooks) is known for his theory of “hegemony.”
Hegemony is drawn from the Greek word “hegemon” which
means “leader,” or “chieftain.” According to Heywood,
“Hegemony is, in its simplest sense, the ascendancy or
domination of one element of a system over the others.” The
Marxists use the term “hegemony” in a technical and specific
sense. In the writings of Gramsci, Heywood says, “hegemony
refers to the ability of a dominant class to exercise power by
winning the consent of those it subjugates.” “As a non-
coercive form of class rule,” Heywood explains the term,
“hegemony is typically understood as a cultural or ideological
process that operates through the dissemination of bourgeois
values and beliefs throughout society.”
(a) What is Hegemony?

The Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), used the
term hegemony to describe how the domination of one class
over others is achieved by a combination of political and
ideological means. Although, political force—coercion—is
always, Gramsci accepts, important, the role of ideology in
winning the consent of dominated classes may be even more
significant. “. . Dominant groups in society, including
fundamentally but not exclusively the ruling class, maintain
their dominance by securing the spontaneous consent of
subordinate groups, including the working class, through the
negotiated construction of a political and _ ideological
consensus’ which incorporates both dominant and
dominated”. Hegemony is the ascendancy, Gramsci says, of
a class, not only in the economic sphere, but through all
social, political, and ideological spheres, and its ability to
persuade other classes to see the world in terms favourable
to its own ascendancy. The historian Howard Zinn writes: “If
those in charge of our society — politicians, corporate
executives, and owners of press and_ television—can
dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They
will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control
ourselves.”
4 Y
Antonio Gramsci (1891—1937)
Gramsci was an Italian philosopher, writer, politician, and

political theorist. A founding member, and one time
Secretary General of the Communist Party of Italy (founded
in 1921), he was imprisoned by Mussolini in 1926. During
his trial, Mussolini had said: “We have to prevent that this
mind continue thinking, and prosecutor having said, “For
twenty years, we must stop this brain from functioning.”
Gramsci was then 35 years old. He died in prison in 1937
at the age of 46. His writings have appeared in the form of
Prison Notebooks. His contribution to the Marxist tradition
included: his theory of hegemony, role of ideology as
developed by the intellectuals so to bring about the
proletarian hegemony, distinction between the state and
the civil society, historicism, and critique of economic
determinism.
Drawing on the work of Machiavelli and the elite theorist
Pareto, Gramsci used the concept of hegemony to describe
the way in which he believed the bourgeoisie, in the capitalist
class, establish and maintain control even in a democratic
society in which the workers and peasants make up an
electoral majority. The dominance of the bourgeoisie, he
says, is not based on their control of the coercive power of
the state, but rather rests upon their ability to exercise moral
and political leadership and to win consent for their vision of
what is possible and worthwhile. In Gramsci’s thought, each
political system requires the creation of a “historic bloc,”
unified around the hegemonic project headed by the
dominant ruling class. To win the consent for its institutions
and ideas, the intellectuals build this historic bloc.” Through
this “historic bloc,” the dominant class (the state) earns the
consent of the civil society: the more prominent the civil
society, the more likely it is that hegemony will be achieved
by ideological means (the civil society constituting the whole
arena of the family, the trade unions, the public sphere, etc.).
The dominant class maintains hegemony not simply by force
or threat of force or coercion, but also, more importantly, by
consent. The power of hegemony is, thus, primarily through
coercion and consent (also called cultural hegemony) rather
than through armed forces. Laclau and Mouffe (Hegemony
and Socialist Strategy) define hegemony as_ discursive
strategy of combining principles from different systems of
thought into one coherent ideology. Slack (Contextualizing
Technology) defines hegemony as “a process by which a
hegemonic class articulates the interests of social groups
such as that those groups actively ‘consent’ to their
subordinated status.”
(b) Gramsci’s Rationale for the Concept of Hegemony

Marxism is a methodology of interpreting the world. Marx
interpreted the world though he insisted on changing the
world in his own times, and in the process analysed things
that were around or would come about. The later Marxists not
only contributed to Marxism in their own right, they also
explained as to why things did not happen the way Marx and
Engels had predicted. Lenin (1870-1924, The State and
Revolution), in his /Imperialism: the Highest Stage of
Capitalism, stated the emergence of imperialism as a stage
between the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of
socialism (and later communism). Gramsci took upon himself
the task of explaining as to why the revolution (as predicted
by Marx) did not occur in the industrially developed countries.
He argued that the anti-capitalist revolution did not usher in
the industrially developed countries because of the following
reasons:
i. The successful capture of the workers’ ideology and

self-understanding along with the organisation of the
homogenic culture of the dominant class.
ii. The workers had absorbed in themselves the
perspective of the ruling class.
iii. The homogenic cultural innovatives such as the
capitalistic ideas, values, mass-media, popular culture,
etc. had indoctrinated the workers’, and they had begun
embracing the bourgeois ways of life, accepting and
consenting their system.
The bourgeois hegemony, in the advanced capitalist

societies, was not the result of their exercise of military force,
but of the consent the dominating class was able to achieve
through ideological and political means; any social class
which comes to power is also a class with its own ideas; it
does not merely control, it cultivates consent of the people on
whom it rules. Gramsci was of the opinion that capturing
power is not as important as maintaining it. He held the view
that consent, and not coercion, helped maintain the
ascendancy of the dominant class. That is why Gramsci
suggested the growth of the proleterarian hegemony to
combat the bourgeois one.
(c) Gramsci’s Explanation of the Concept

For Gramsci, hegemony is a form of control exercised by a
dominant class: when a class succeeds in persuading the
other classes of a society to accept its own moral, political,
and cultural values, it is called hegemony. Hegemony
therefore, is, the exercise of power based on the consent of
the people. It is a domination accepted by those who are
being dominated. It is ascendancy where force and coercion
do not stand by the power that be, but it is the willingness of
the people which makes the power-holders legal and
legitimate.
If hegemony is a form of control exercised by a dominant
class in Gramsci’s views, what constitutes the dominant class
and what classes are dominated by the dominant class?
These questions bring to the fore what Marx had described as
the superstructure — the whole range of institutions. Gramsci
would call it the institution of the state and the institution of
civil society. According to Gramsci, “civil society” corresponds
to hegemony while “state” corresponds, to direct domination;
civil society provides spontaneous consent by the masses to
the general directions imposed on social life by the dominant
ruling class while the state as political government provides,
the apparatus of coercive power enforcing discipline on the
groups which do not consent. The state, in the capitalist
societies, is a bourgeois state and controls the various
classes under it through (a) domination, and (b) intellectual
leadership, i.e., through control and the ideological power to
attain consent. Gramsci recognises the role of ideology — the
role of the intellectuals in creating and strengthening
“consent.”
Gramsci is of the opinion that the ideas play no less role in
the society and, therefore, the role of the intellectuals in
society is no less significant. He does not discredit Marx’s
famous lines: “It is not the consciousness of men that
determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being
that determines their conscious”; rather he improves upon
them by emphasising that the ideas are as important as the
matter. Accordingly, the intellectuals have a role in the
society. Gramsci divides intellectuals into two types: organic
and _ traditional. The organic intellectual holds a_ close
relationship with the world as also with the experience of the
class he represents he is the. one who is guided by a vision
of emancipation and common good. He is the one who
shares class experience with those he represents and
articulates that experience in political terms whereas a
traditional intellectual stands apart from his class in order to
represent the lofty ideals of universal interests. Each social
group has its own intellectuals creating their respective ideas
and ideologies so as to help their respective groups.
The bourgeois hegemony, if it is to be dismantled, has to
be replaced by the proletarian hegemony. The working class
has to develop its own hegemony asa strategy to control the
state: “A social group (say the working class) can, indeed,
must’, Gramsci says, “already exercise leadership
(hegemony) before winning governmental power.”
Nevertheless, he insists that the only way for a group to have
control is to take into account the interests of other groups
and social forces and combining them with its own. The
strategy to be adopted, as Gramsci says, has to be “the war
of position” and “the war of manoeuvre.” The war of position
is a culture war in which anti-capitalist elements seek to gain
a dominant voice in mass media, mass organisations, and
educational institutions to heighten class-consciousness,
teach revolutionary analysis and theory, and_ inspire
revolutionary organisation. Following the success of the war
of position, the working class leaders would be empowered to
begin the war of manoeuvre, the actual insurrection against
capitalism, with mass support.
The critics hold the view that Gramsci’s hegemony tends to
imply a false consciousness of the working class. It also
suggests that the masses, being gullible, can be easily
manipulated.
IV. CONCEPT OF IDEOLOGY

Ideology may be described as an organised collection of
ideas, the science of ideas as such. It refers to
comprehensive vision and a way of looking at things. It is no
ideation, but an assemblage of thought viewing society, state,
nature, world, in short any phenomenon, offering to change
them, reform them, or retain them.
(a) Ideology: Meaning and Definitions
Coined by Count Destutt de Tracy (though its original
meaning is traced to Hippolyte Taine, Origins of
Contemporary France, who had described it as rather
teaching philosophy through the Socratic method), the term
ideology is related to the science of ideas: the systematisation
of ideas. According to Webster’s dictionary, “Ideology” is a
“visionary theorising,” alternatively, it is “a systematic body of
concepts about human life or culture”. Malcolm Hamilton in
his article “The Elements of the Concept of Ideology” writes
that ideology is “a system of collectively held normative and
reputedly factual ideas and beliefs and attitudes advocating
and/or justifying, thus, a shared belief system that may serve
at once to motivate and to justify. It generally asserts
normative values and includes causative beliefs. It offers a
way in which to order the world, defining “enemies and allies,
dangers and opportunities, us and them.” Ideologies are
formal, structured, and involve their own particular logic, often
appearing in the guise of science or objective knowledge.
Ideology is implicated in collective action, as criticism, good
explanation, or promise. It is represented in symbols and
beliefs held by a community and is publicly expressed.
Ideology is at once philosophy, science, religion and
imagination.
David W. Minar, in an article “Ideology and Political
Behaviour,” describes six different ways in which the word
ideology has been used:
i. As a collection of certain ideas with certain kinds of

content, usually normative
ii. As the form or internal logical structure that ideas have
within a set
iii. By the role in which ideas play in human-social
interaction
iv. By the role the ideas play in the structure of an
organisation
v. AS meaning, whose purpose is persuasion and
vi. As the /ocus of social interaction, possibly.
Jorge Larrain (The Concept of Ideology, 1979) draws

attention to its meaning taken from different angles. (i) In its
negative terms, ideology means aé_ form of false
consciousness, a_ deception which distorts men’s
understanding of social reality. In its positive terms, it means
the expression of the world-view of a class . the opinions,
theories, and attitudes formed within a class in order to
defend and promote its interests. (ii) With regard to its
character, the concept of ideology can be termed either as
subjective and psychological or as dependent on objective
factors. If subjective, ideology is conceived of as a
deformation of consciousness unable to grasp reality as it is.
If objective, ideology appears as deception induced by reality
itself. (iii) As to its range to the area, the concept of ideology
may be restrictive when it does not cover all cultural objects.
It may mean to be free when it covers all forms of social
consciousness, i.e., all cultural objects within the society. (iv)
With regard to its relationship with science, ideology may be
regarded as an antithesis of science when it may be
conceived with pre-conceptions which disturb reason and
hamper it from reaching the truth. Ideology, when considered
as a companion of science, may mean to be a science that
helps in having the truth reached scientifically.
Some major definitions of ideology are:
(a) "A political and social ideology, is a system of
political, economic, and social values and ideas
from which objectives are derived. These objectives
form the nucleus of a political programme. Political
ideologies ... are more or less consistent ... Often
they form a complete harmonious, and consistent
system of explanation of the purpose of society and
of the surrounding social, economic, and political
phenomenon. Setting forth dynamic and practical
objectives to influence future social and _ political
developments, they try . with a most ambitious
design . to decide mankind’s destiny.” (Mac /ver)
(b) "An ideology is a value or belief system that is
accepted as fact or truth by some group. It is
composed of sets of attitudes toward the various
institutions and processes of society. It provides the
believer with a picture of the world both as it is and
as it should be, and, in so doing, it organises the
tremendous complexity of the world into something
fairly simple and understandable.” (Lyman)
(c) "An ideology is a belief system by virtue of being
designed to serve on a relatively permanent basis a
group of people to justify its reliance on moral
norms and a modicum of factual evidence and self-
consciously rational coherence the legitimacy of the
implements and technical prescriptions which are to
ensure concerted action for the preservation,
reform, destruction, or reconstruction of a given
order”. (Seliger)
These definitions of ideology highlight the following
characteristics of ideology:
i. Ideology is a value or a belief system;

i. It pertains to the world-view of a social group ... which
the social group holds to be a matter of fact.
iii. It explains and analyses the world as it is . the
foundations on which the given society stands.
iv. It exists to perform an inspirational function.
v. It attempts to explain the cause-effect relationship of a
given society.
vi. It is always an action-oriented programme, either to
justify the status-quo or to construct in new society.
Willard A. Mullins says in his article “On the Concept of

Ideology” that an ideology is composed of four basic
characteristics:
i. It must have power over cognitions.

ii. It must be capable of guiding one’s evaluations.
iii. It must provide guidance towards action.
iv. It must be logically coherent.
Ideology
e In the negative sense, ideology means a form of false

consciousness; in the positive sense, it means the
expression of a world-view of a social group.
e It is a collection of ideas correlating ideas with
society.
e Inspirational in so far as it guides and inspires.
e Action-oriented in so far as it either helps to conserve
things, reform society or reconstruct it afresh.
The concept of ideology has been viewed differently by
different philosophers. Destutt de Tracy described it simply as
the science of ideas. Napoleon Bonaparte took the word
“ideologues” to ridicule his opponents. Marx used it to refer to
ideas that serve the interests of the ruling class by concealing
the contradictions of class society, thereby promoting false
consciousness. Antonio Gramsci, arguing in a rather neutral
sense, holds that the ruling class (say, the capitalists in the
capitalist society) upholds the system by what he terms the
“hegemony” i.e. dominant hegemony ideas/theories, and,
therefore, insists on establishing “proletarian hegemony” that
is on socialist ideas/ theories. The neo-Marxists (Herbert
Marcuse: One Dimensional Man) have pointed out the
totalitarian tenets in the concept of ideology. The non-
Marxists (Karl Mannheim: /deology and Utopia) think of
ideology as thought systems that serve to defend a particular
social order. Karl Popper and Hannah Arendt view ideology
as an instrument of social order to ensure compliance and
subordination. The cold war theorists describe it as a “closed”
thought. The conservative Oakeshott describes ideology as
an abstract “system of thought,” i.e. a set of ideas which
“distort political realities.” William Bluhm (/deologies and
Attitudes: Modern Political Culture) writes: “In its most
developed form, an ideology constitutes an explanation of the
nature of man in the universe, a critique of existing society
from the standpoint thus established, and a description and
justification of the good or legitimate political and social order.
In revolutionary ideologies, the critique of the status quo and
the vision of the new society are separate enterprises. In
conservative ones, they constitute a single descriptive-
evaluative statement.” C.B. Macpherson (Democratic Theory,
1973) says, “I take ideology to be any more or less systematic
set of ideas about man’s place in nature, in society, and in
history (i.e., in relation to particular societies) which can elicit
the commitment of significant number of people to (or
against) political change.” Seligar holds the view that ideology
is “a set of ideas by which men posit, explain, and justify the
ends and means of organised social action irrespective of
whether such action aims to preserve, amend, uproot, or build
a given social order.” For whatever truth ideologies may
claim, there is no objective standard of truth with which
ideologies may be judged. Ideologies are neither good nor
bad, neither true nor false, neither open nor closed, neither
liberating nor oppressive—they can be all these things, and
yet they may not be all these.
(b) Ideology: Development of the Concept

Destutt de Tracy (1754-1836) was the first to use the term
“ideology” (Elements d’ Ideologie and his other work, Treatise
on Political Economy). By ideology, he meant the science of
ideas aiming at what H.M. Drucker (The Political Uses of
Ideology) calls “the correction of ideas about society.” In its
origin, Larrain says, “the term ideology had a positive
connotation,” as the rigorous science of ideas which ... “may
serve as a new basis for political education.” It was Napoleon
who used the concept as a tool against his one-time friends,
referring them now as the ideologues, thus, giving it a
negative connotation. Karl Marx caught the term ideology and
gave it negative and critical character. He did something more
as well. He liberated the term ideology from its psychological
character and brought it in relation to the historical
development. His argument runs as follows:
All social life, Marx explains, is essentially practical. In The
German Ideology, he says that the real individuals and the
material conditions constitute the materialist base when men,
through their activities, produce material means and the
consequent social life. The social conditions, Marx says,
which are the result of men’s activity, do not flow from their
will. The social conditions emerging and existing as they are
as a consequence of the division of labour and already
established classes, are conditions already in existence in
which men have to work despite their wills. The social
conditions are, thus, independent of men’s will—the fact that
determines the constitution of social reality as a contradictory
reality. Explaining this contradiction, Marx says that the
development of the division of labour ultimately leads to the
separation of individuals into social classes. The social
conditions under which men are to carry out their activities
are conditions of the rule of a definite class which holds
contradictory relations with other classes. Contradictions arise
not because of human practice, but because of the structures
which control human activity. Man is not the conscious master
of these structures, but is rather controlled by them.
Ideology Quotes
e “Ideology is just an escape from thought.” Galbriath

e “The death of dogma is the birth of reality.” Kant
e “A fanatic is some one who cannot change his mind
and would not change the subject.” Churchill
e “The third world is not a reality but an ideology.”
Arendt
e “Ideology has very little to do with ‘consciousness’. It
is profoundly unconscious.” Althusser
e “Ideas are what men and women live by and will
consciously die for.” Eagleton
e “Power can be taken, but not given. The process of
taking is empowerment in itself.” Steinam
e “Everything ideological possesses a meaning: it
represents, depicts, or stands for something lying
outside itself. In other words, it is a sign. With out
signs, there is no ideology.” Voltaire
e “Great ideologies create great times.” Kin Jong !!
e “I like villians because there is something so attractive
about a committed person ... They have a plan, an
ideology, no matter how twisted.” Russel! Crowe
e “We are born in relation, we live in relation, we die in
relation. There is no such human place as simply
“inside itself’. Nor is any person, creed, ideology or
movement entirely outside myself.” Hayward
\ J
So, for Marx, the division of labour culminates in the

division of contradictory classes — the domi-nant class,
ultimately, controlling the dominated class. So contradictions
creep in. As contradictions emerge and reach consciousness
before men can solve them in practice, they are given
distorted solutions in the mind. As men in their reproductive
practice are unable to solve these contradictions, they project
them in ideological forms of consciousness. Ideology
therefore, is, a solution in the mind to the contradictions which
can be solved in practice. It is the necessary projection in
consciousness of man’s practical inabilities. Ideology
attempts to solve the contradictions in consciousness by
negating and concealing them. “Ideology has the precise
function,” Poulantza says “of hiding the real contradictions
and of reconstituting on an imaginary level a relatively
coherent discourse which serves as the horizon of agents’
experience.”
The social conditions, being the conditions of the rule of a
definite class, the ideological hidings of contradictions are
bound to emanate and also serve that definite class alone,
the economically dominant class in a given society. “In sum,
ideology for Marx” Larrain says, “is a distorted consciousness,
has a particular negative connotation whose two specific and
connected features are, firstly, that it conceals social
contradictions and, secondly, that it does it in the interests of
the dominant class.”
Hence for Marx, ideology has always meant to be a
distorted knowledge which works in the interests of the
dominant class. Such a conception of ideology, negative in
character as it is, was also given a positive connotation by
Lenin with whom ideology was a set of cognitions and
theories which express the interests of a class — the
worldview of a class. In this sense, the class can be both a
bourgeois class and a proletarian class. As such, ideology
can be a bourgeois ideology as well as proletarian ideology.
Thus, ideology, so understood, as by Lenin, can encompass
distorted as well as true forms of consciousness. Now by
Lenin’s times, the concept of ideology came to be understood
both in negative and positive senses. Lenin merely added the
positive sense to Marx’s negative meaning of ideology. He
also added, to its critical connotation, a constructive role of
establishing a socialist system. But he, following Marx,
adhered to the objective character in the meaning of ideology
by emphasising that the true ideology is one that remains akin
with reality.
Another contribution in the development of the concept of
ideology comes from Karl Mannheim’s_ sociology of
knowledge. For Mannheim, ideology develops from a
particular conception to a total conception, and from the
special formulation of the latter to its general formulation, that
is, the sociology of knowledge. The particular conception of
ideology—being skeptical with which one judges the
adversary’s ideas and operating as it is at a psychological
level—is more or less a conscious deception disguising the
pursuance of particular interests. The total conception of
ideology, being concerned with the characteristics and
composition of the total structure of the mind of a social group
of a given age and operating as it is at the sociological level,
challenges the whole outlook of the opponent’s social group.
Condemning Marx’s concept of ideology as only the analysis
of opponent's ideas, /.e., a special formulation, Mannheim
contends (/deology and Utopia) that the notion of ideology
“cannot, in the long run, remain the exclusive privilege of one
Class..., it is no longer possible for one point of view and
interpretation to assail all others as ideological without itself
being placed in the position of having to meet that challenge.”
The total general formulation means the analysis of all points
of view, signalling thus an important change in the concept of
ideology which (now with Mannheim) is based on the fact that
all social knowledge is determined by the social structure.
( a
Karl Mannheim (1893—1947)
Mannheim was a Jewish Hungarian-born sociologist who

taught sociology at Heidelberg and at London School of
Economics (after he fled Germany in the wak of Nazi
regime and settled in Britain). He died at the age of 53. His
work /deology and Utopia (1936) has been a great
contribution in the field of sociology. His othe works include:
Man and Society in an Age of Reconstruction; Diagnosis of
Our Time; Freedom, Power, and Democratic Planning;
Sociology as Practical Education; Structures Thinking;
Conservation: A Contribution to the Sociology of
Knowledge. Unlike Marx, he found in utopianism a forward-
looking tendency. Rejecting Marx’s view of ideology, he
thought of it as a system of ideas firmly rooted within the
confines of existing reality.
“Mannheim contends,” Larrain holds, “that when the theory of

ideology becomes the sociology of knowledge, a qualitative
change occurs: what was a part weapon becomes a scientific
method of research. This new method has, as its main
purpose, the task of finding the factors in the social situation
which determine, and consequently revitalise, the thought of
each social group.” Mannheim thus universalises the concept
of ideology by making it the same as the social determination
of historical knowledge, affirming thus that the thought of all
parties throughout history has been of an_ ideological
character and that no particular point of view has any special
claim over any other. So understood, Larrain comments, “It is,
therefore, difficult to envisage what is really specific to the
concept of ideology. When the concept is universalised in
such a way that it may cover all parties in all epochs, it ends
up with very little meaning and loses its critical capability.”
Concluding his remarks on Mannheim’s concept of ideology,
Larrain says, “In Marx, ideology has a historical character, as
it is directly related to the evolution of social contradictions
and economic forms. In Mannheim, on the contrary, specific
economic forms play no role in determining ideology. To this
extent ideology is again pscyhologised, that is, found upon
the very nature of human thought ... Hence, with Mannheim,
the concept of ideology maintains the subjective status which
it had before Marx and which it regained with the
psychological and Durkheimian conceptions.”
Mannheim’s definition of ideology takes away from ideology
its very essence. It gives the concept a psychological and a
subjective character, but in the process makes the concept
exist only in one’s mind. If Mannheim’s definition of ideology
is accepted, it would throw very little light on the analysis of
the contradictions in a given society which, for Marx, was an
important factor for understanding any history. Nor does his
definition give a clear idea of what the future society possibly
should be, something which Lenin valued so much.
Mannheim’s meaning of ideology, in short, hardly explains as
to what the world is at present and as to what it can be in
future.
The common usage of the term ideology followed the
Marxian thinking on the subject—i.e., ideology is distorting
and irrational, an instrument of power—while most of the
people and scholars, after having witnessed the World War |
and Il, the rise of Hitler and Mussolini and of Stalin, identified
ideology with totalitarianism. Hannah Arendt, in her The
Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) wrote that the totalitarian
states demonstrated a neglect of national interests, a
contempt for utilitarian motives and unwavering faith in the
ideological fictitious world, while terror and ideology became
inseparable in her interpretation.
(c) Ideology: Functions, Components, and Elements

Describing the functions of ideology, Bluhm (/deologies and
Attitudes) refers to four theories:
i. The Interest Theory—a theory that views ideology as a

rationalisation of non-rational interests.
ii. The Truth Theory—a theory that describes ideology as
an independent cause grounded not in social or material
status or non-rational necessity but in the rational desire
to know the truth.
iii. The Social Strain Theory—a theory that patterns
ideology as a symptom of, and to some degree a
remedy for, emotional ills produced by the role and
demands of modern society.
iv. The Cultural Strain Theory — a theory that demands of
ideology to act as a means for rebuilding the polity both
in its authority structure and in its purpose... a
programme, a culture pattern which provides “a
template or blueprint for the organisation of social and
psychological processes”, as Clifford Geertz aptly
remarks.
In the words of Willard A. Mullins “Ideology incorporates a
type of ‘historical consciousness’ characteristic of the modern
age in which a high degree of social change is recognised,
where ‘change’ (means) the coming into being of new and
specifically different constellations and not merely the
replacement of one set of conditions by a new set of the
same specific type ..”
Ideology comes to perform definite functions in a given
society. It explains, analyses, and criticises, and in the
process inspires. It, thus, performs explanatory, analytical,
and advocatory functions. So understood, ideology’s
components would include, as Martin Seliger (Ideology and
Politics) says, descriptions, analysis, moral prescriptions,
technical prescriptions, implements (i.e. the ways and means
of implementation), and rejection. Rational presentation and
justification or logical coherence, action-orientation, and
emotive appeal are already the pre-supposed components
which any ideology must have in its description of a given
society. Similarly, “factual statements” being the very subject-
matter of ideology, are in themselves part of “description and
analysis’.
Related with the functions and components of ideology is
the problem of what an ideology must contain. One of the
elements of ideology is its goal value. Every ideology, quite
interestingly it can be said about any ideology, has, to a great
extent, the same goal value, i.e., material abundance. The
liberal and the Marxist ideologies, both, seek to promise
maximum economic growth. Another element of modern
ideology is its affinity with change. Every ideology, for that
matter, is dynamic. Ideology, today, does not consider the
world as a static order, but rather, something that is on its
way to development. Progress is the belief that each ideology
cherishes. Similarly, ideology today is not the concern of a
solitary individual. It signifies group membership and group
identity. It is always, now, the outlook of a numerous body, a
social group, a class view as the Marxists prefer to call it.
Ideology, being action-oriented, must concern itself with
change—“re-form” in the liberal ideology and “revolution” in
the Marxist one. Ideology, as has been shown above, has its
own conception of the world as it sees it—for a liberal, the
world is all peace, all harmony whereas for a Marxist, it is all
conflict, all struggle. Each ideology, mainly political in
character, strives to capture power and authority and through
them aims to establish its own authority structure. And where
a particular ideology is already in power, (this is true about
both the liberal ideology as well as the Marxist ideology) it
only justifies the status quo. C.B. Macpherson (Democratic
Theory) says, “Ideologies contain, in varying proportions,
elements of explanations (of fact and of history), justification
(of demands), and faith or belief (in the ultimate truth or
rightness of their case). They are informed by, but are less
precise and systematic than, political theories or political
philosophies. They are necessary to any effective political
move ment, hence to any revolution, for they perform the
triple function of simplifying, demanding and justifying.”
V. CONCEPT OF LEGITIMACY
Legitimacy is the state or quality of being legitimate. It is
legitimacy that makes force as power and power as authority.
It entails a set of rights as well as duties. If those, who are in
authority, do not perform their duties, they lose their claim to
rule. To understand legitimacy, we seek to understand,
power, force, and the like. Authority is legitimate and rightful
power—it is a right, and as a right, it is empowered to
command; it is an authorisation. Authority is, as Erich Fromm
(The Fear of Freedom), an interpersonal relation in which one
person looks upon another as somebody superior to him.
Normatively, it is supposed to be used cautiously (like a
heavy ace without an edge, fitter to bruise than to polish), and
descriptively, it means peoples’ faith in rightfulness. It is, in
this sense, that authority is legitimate power, and accordingly
is associated with legitimacy. Power is what is exercised
legitimately by an authority. It is, in this sense, that power like
authority is always legal, both possessing the feature of
influence, i.e., both have the influencing effect. Power is
distinguished from force — power has the legitimate or
legalised right, force is never legal, never legitimate; force
does not constitute “right”; one who has force does not mean
that he has the right to exercise power; force becomes power
when it is embedded with the legal right to do so.
(a) Legitimacy: Meaning and Definitions

Derived from the Latin word /egitimare, legitimacy means “to
declare lawful’, meaning, broadly speaking, rightfulness or
lawfulness. It is through legitimacy that power is transformed
into au-thority — power legitimised is authority; legitimation of
authority is what may be called “power”. But this does not
make the meaning of legitimacy clear. In fact, like any other
concept, the concept of legitimacy has also been the subject
of debate and discussion. There is no universally accepted
definition of legitimacy. Weber’s definition of legitimacy refers
to nothing more or less than a belief in the “right to rule,” a
belief in legitimacy. Aristotle had argued that only that rule is
legitimate which operates in the benefit of the whole society.
Rousseau had said, that the government was legitimate if it
was based upon the “general will’. David Beetham (The
Legitimation of Power) referred to three conditions to be
fulfilled for legitimacy to exist:
i. power to be exercised according to the established

rules;
ii. such rules need to be justified in terms of the shared
beliefs of both the rulers and the ruled;
iii. legitimacy must be demonstrated through consent of the
ruled.
Beetham’s understanding of the concept of legitimacy was

a critique of Weber’s meaning of legitimacy which,
normatively, centred around belief in legitimacy. Rosemary
O’Kane (“Against Legitimacy”) understands legitimacy as
‘rationally legitimate” if the government, as Ronald Rogowski
(Rational Legitimacy), “maximises the expected utility of its
citizens.” Lipset (Political Man) holds the view that legitimacy
is “the capacity of the system to engender and maintain the
belief that the existing political institutions are the most
appropriate ones for the society.” The non-Marxists lay
emphasis on the effectiveness as the characteristic of
legitimacy whereas the neo-Marxists, Habermas particularly
point out at the manufacturing of consent in the capitalist
societies, the legitimation crisis to which Habermas hints at.
The sociologists define legitimacy as the formula by which
individuals accept a power and consider their obedience as a
just commitment. They regard it as
i. a social relationship,
ii. a relationship which is meaningful for the people who
are involved in it;
iii. power that includes the ability to use violence; and
iv. the powerholders are able to manipulate such
relationships.
(b) Legitimacy:Legitimation Process

Not only is there a disagreement among philosophers with
regard to the meaning of the concept of legitimacy, debates
continue, among the philosophers, relating to the legitimation
process, i.e., the debate as to how power is legitimized. Some
such theories relating to the debate are given lete.
The Belief Theory

There is the belief theory with regard to the legitimation
process. It states that it is the belief which legitimates power,
the power of the rulers — citizenry believes in the rulers’
claims to power. Weber is a prominent belief theorist.
Legitimacy exists when people believe power to be just
referring to three regimes/states as follows:
e Traditional states were valid because they were always

that way, or a product of “ancient recognition” whereas
the populace believed in the old ways.
e Charismatic states were legitimate, based on the rule of
charismatic leaders who by a “gift of grace” possessed
authority.
e Legal legitimacy existed and was based on “the belief in
the validity of legal statutes and functional ‘competence’
based on rationally created rules”.
Legitimacy Quotes
Government loses its claim to legitimacy when it fails to

fulfil its obligations.” Martin Gross
“,.a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its
power.” Colin Powell
“Love as a relation between men and women was ruined
by the desire to make sure of the legitimacy of children.”
Bertrand Russell
“The wisest have the most authority.” Plato
“My people and | have come to an agreement which
satisfies us both. They are to say what they please and |
am to do what | please.” Frederick the Great
“The primary criterion of legitimacy of any regime —
should be its degree of commitment to the protection of
human lives.” Bey
“,.Without a minimal amount of legitimacy, a government
will collapse.” Robert Dah!
Power-Based Theorists
Power-based theorists have included such scholars as Tilly
and Stinchcombe. Drawing inspiration from the philosophy of
Rousseau, both scholars have questioned legitimacy based
on the belief and “conformity to an abstract principle.” The
citizenry of the state, in fact, has little choice in the matter of
legitimating government. When, for example, we believe in
the police officer, it is not because we actually believe in him.
But we do not know of the power those above him have and
the consequences of crossing him. Or in Tilly’s example in
“War Making and State-Making as Organised Crime,” where
he says that legitimate state is the one that makes war,
extracts resources, and provides protection before any other.
Therefore, legitimacy does not arise from believing, or
choosing anything, but arises from power. Power is
legitimised through the process of power—a ruler is accepted
as legitimate by the people because he is a ruler.
Constitution
Power is legitimised by constitution. A constitution is
understood as the embodiment of rules which govern the
government. It confers legitimacy upon the rulers to make and
execute laws, such activities legitimise their power, though
Beetham insists on the adherence to the principles of values
and beliefs by the constitution.
The Consent Process

John Locke can be said to be an advocate of the consent
process of legitimacy. His social contract developed the
notion of consent—an implied agreement among the people
to obey the law and respect the government. In democracies,
consent provides legitimacy to the rulers. In dictatorships,
especially with single party system and military regime, the
consent is said to be achieved and usually demonstrated
through arranged “marches”.
(c) Legitimation Crisis

Legitimation Crisis is a condition during which a political order
or government is unable to evoke sufficient commitment or
sense of authority to proper government. Whenever the
justification for authority is not accepted by society or by
some powerful group in society, there occurs a crisis of
legitimation. There are only two alternatives: a change in the
form of government, sometimes through revolution, to reflect
a different legitimation of authority, or a modification of the
current legitimation in an effort to retain unchanged the same
structure of governmental authority. Habermas, in his
Legitimation Crisis, argued that the traditional Marxist
analysis of crisis tendencies in the capitalist society had
become outdated, given the relative success of the welfare-
state compromise. He claimed instead that crisis tendencies
generated in the economic sphere would be displaced, via
state action, into the cultural sphere. This would in turn create
problems of social integration, undermining many of the
resources that the state requires for its ongoing management
of the economy. In particular, it creates the possibility of a
large-scale loss of legitimacy for government institutions.
f- >
Jurgen Habermas (Born 1929)
Habermas, a German philosopher, is a sociologist of the

critical theory tradition. His theoretical system is related to
revealing the possibility of reason, emancipation, and
rational-critical communication. His works include: The
Structural Trans-formation of the Public Sphere; Toward a
Rational Society; Legitimation Crisis; The Theory of
Communicative Action, Post-metaphysical Thinking; The
Philosophical Discourse of Modernity; The New
Conservatism; Rationality and Religion, Truth and
Justification, The Future of Human Nature; The Divided
West, The Dialectics of Secularisation. His areas of interest
include: the German political thought, especially of Kant
and Hegel, the study of the Marxian theory, of Marx and the
neo-Marxists (Horkheimar, Adorno, Marcuse), the
sociological theories of Weber, Durkheim and Mead, the
study of American pragmatic tradition, relating especially to
John Dewey.
\ J
Legitimation crisis arises as and when legitimacy is

questioned on one ground or the other. It is an indication that
something is not aright in the system; it is, therefore, an
opportunity to deliberate if possible and to act if necessary. In
times of crisis, liberal democratic states, Habermas believes,
will not be able to maintain legitimacy. The 1970s presented
situations of crises which were beyond, as he claimed, the
capacity of liberal democracies to control, though the electoral
mechanism did provide them to adjust their policies. In fact,
the rise of the New Right, as represented by Reagan and
Thatcher, did manage the “crises” in the West. The collapse
of the regimes in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union
(1989-91) is another significant example of the legitimation
crisis or a series of legitimation crises. These crises have
shown that something was, indeed, wrong in these socialist
societies because of which legitimacy, in such societies, was
severely undermined and which had led to the debacle of the
socialist model.
Practice
Questions
1. Describe briefly different models of

Power. (700-800 words)
2. Give a brief account of the three faces
of power, with special references to
Lukes’ views. (700-800 words)
3. Elucidate the concept of power. (200
words)
4. Explain Gramsci’s theory of hegemony.
(700-800 words)
5. What is ideology? What are _ its
characteristics? (200 words)
6. Compare Marx’s views on ideology with
those of Mannheim. (700-800 words)
7. Explain the term legitimacy with
reference to the term “power” and
“authority”. (2012) (700-800 words)
or
Distinguish between the concepts of

legitimacy and hegemony . (2012) (700-
800 words)
8. Write a brief note on “legitimation crisis.”
(200 words)
9. Compare the belief theory of legitimacy
with that of the power theory. (200
words)
10. What functions does _ ideology
perform? (200 words)
or
Comment on the marginalisation of the left

ideology in India. (2014) (200 words)
11. Explain, as per Gramsci, the distinction
between hegemony and = (2013)
domination. (2013) (200 words)
12. Examine the conditions that are
required for the maintenance of
legitimacy in modern societies. (2014)
(700 words)
Political Ideologies: Liberalism,
Socialism, Marxism, Fascism,
Gandhism, Feminism
I. INTRODUCTION
olitical ideology may be described as a set of ideals,
i principles, doctrines, myths, or symbols of a
movement by an institution, a class, or a large group
that explains how a society should work, and offers some
political, social, and economic blueprint for a certain order.
There are two major dimensions of a political ideology:
i. How a society should work? - It is a goal;

ii. How to achieve the ideal? - This is what would
constitute methods.
Political ideologies are identified, by their position, as /eft

(communist, socialist, etc.), right (conservative, fascist,
totalitarian), centre (neither left nor right, usually liberal, neo-
liberal, and the like), though such a division is very often
controversial. They relate to particular times and
circumstances and have a significant impact on societies. As
they are circumstantial and time-related, they fade away with
the changing times — new ideologies keep emerging.
ll. LIBERALISM AND ITS VARIANTS
(a) Liberalism
It is a political ideology founded on
i. the natural goodness of humans and

ii. the autonomy of the individual (earlier liberalism was
called individualism), favouring
(a) individual’s civil and political liberties,

(b) government through law,
(c) the consent of the people,
(d) an economic theory —the maximum individual
initiative and the minimum — governmental
interference in economic affairs.
According to Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, liberalism is a
“political and economic doctrine that emphasises on the rights
and freedoms of the individual and on limited powers of the
state.” Its basic ideas were given formal expression in the
works of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, both of whom
argued that the powers of the state have ultimately to be
justified by the consent of the governed. In the economic
realm, liberals in the nineteenth century urged the end of
state interference in the economic life of society. Following
Adam Smith, they argued that economic systems based on
free markets are more efficient and generate more prosperity
than those that are partly state-controlled. In response to the
great inequalities of wealth and other social problems created
by the industrial revolution in Europe and North America,
liberals in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries
advocated limited state intervention in the market and the
creation of state-funded social services, such as free public
education and health insurance.
Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasises on_ individual
rights. It seeks a society characterised by:
e freedom of thought for individuals,

e limitations on power (especially of government and
religion),
e the rule of law,
e free exchange of ideas,
© amarket economy that supports free private enterprise,
and
e a transparent system of government in which the rights
of all citizens are protected.
In modern society, liberals favour a liberal democracy with

open, free, and fair elections, where all citizens have equal
rights and equal opportunities.
Liberalism has been the result of numerous events which
occurred in the West during the sixteenth, seventeenth, and
eighteenth centuries. These events’ included the
Enlightenment, the Glorious Revolution, and the French
Revolution. The Enlightenment refused to accept moral goals
as absolute rights; Glorious Revolution denounced the divine
(and, therefore, the absolute) rights of the kings; and the
French Revolution gave the idea of individual liberty and
made it so sacred that no one could suppress it. Liberalism
fought simultaneously on two fronts:
i. against the unlimited and unrestricted powers of the

monarchs; and
ii. against the landed aristocracy.
It was, thus, a war against feudalism and absolute

monarchy. As the war was launched by the bourgeoisie,
liberalism has been till date the political philosophy of the
capitalists.
Table 9.1 Liberalism
Classical Modern
Freedom as absence of Freedom as self-mastery,

interference autonomy
Egoistic individual Developmental individual
Limited government Enabling government
Unhindered economy Societal concerns
Laissez-faire state Caring State
Rights-oriented Justice-oriented
Maximisation of the Maximisation of national

individual growth
Traces of liberalism go back to the days of John Locke

(1632-1704) and not Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) who did
begin with the individual but did not end up with the individual
—his philosophy ended with the concept of a powerful
sovereign, Leviathan. Locke was an individualist (and as such
the forerunner of liberalism). His work, Two Treaties of
Government, established the fundamental liberal idea—
economic liberty, meaning the right to have and use property,
and intellectual liberty, including freedom of conscience,
which he expounded in A Letter Concerning Toleration
(1689). However, he did not extend his views on religious
freedom to Roman Catholics. Locke developed ideas of
natural rights, which he saw as “life, liberty, and property,”
and which can be seen as the distant forerunner of the
modern conception of human rights. However, to Locke,
property was more important than the right to participate in
government and public decisionmaking; he did not endorse
democracy, because he feared that giving powers to the
people would erode the sanctity of private property.
On the European continent, the doctrine of laws restraining
even monarchs was expounded by Charles de Secondant,
Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755) whose The Spirit of the
Laws argues that “Better is it to say that the government most
conformable to nature is that which best agrees with the
humour and disposition of the people in whose favour it is
established.” The late French Enlightenment saw two figures
who were to have tremendous influence on later liberal
thought: Voltaire (1694-1778)—who argued that the French
should adopt constitutional monarchy and disestablish the
Second Estate — and Rousseau (1712-78)—who argued for
a natural freedom for mankind. Both argued, in different ways,
for changes in political and social arrangements based
around the idea that society can restrain a natural human
liberty, but not obliterate its nature. For Voltaire the concept
was more intellectual, for Rousseau, it was related to intrinsic
natural rights, perhaps related to the ideas of Diderot.
The Scotsman Adam Smith (1723-90) expounded the
theory that individuals could structure both moral and
economic life without direction from the state, and that
nations, would be the strongest if their citizens are free to
follow their own initiative. He advocated an end to feudal and
mercantile regulations and to state granted monopolies and
patents, promulgating a /aissez faire government. In The
Theory of Moral Sentiments, 1759, he developed a theory of
motivation that tried to reconcile human self-interest and an
unregulated social order. In The Wealth of Nations, 1776, he
argued that the market, under certain conditions, would
naturally regulate itself and would produce more than the
heavily restricted markets. Those were the norms at that time.
He assigned to government the role of taking on tasks which
could not be entrusted to the profit motive, such as preventing
the individual from using force or fraud to disrupt competition,
trade, or production. Following him were Jeremy Bentham
(1748-1832), and De Tocqueville (1805-1859) and with them,
the early liberalism (may be called classical liberalism or
negative liberalism) was complete.
f-
Adam Smith (1723 -1790)
Adam Smith was a Scottish philosopher and a pioneer of

political economy. His works included :7he Theory of Moral
Sentiments and An Inquiry into the Nature ant Causes of
the Wealth of Nations. Adam Smith sought to explain as to
how rational self-interest and competition could lead to
economic prosperity and well-being. His invisible hand
metaphor had gained widespread use in the discussion of:
free markets. His work provided one of the best known
rationales for free trade. He is rightly called the father of
modern capitalism. Politically, he belonged to classical
liberalism.
The features of early liberalism were:
i. Individual is a rational being, capable of taking

decisions.
ii. A good society is one in which individuals’ satisfaction is
maximised.
iii. Society is a conglomeration of individuals who maximise
their interests.
iv. Increased production, market mechanism, and
competitive devices all work for the maximisation of
individual’s interest.
v. Individual enterprise and unlimited rights to property are
instruments working for the satisfaction of the
individual’s interests.
Liberalism Quotes
e “Liberalism is totalitarianism with a human face”.

Sowell
e “Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by
prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people
tempered by fear.” Gladstone
e “A man who has both feet planted firmly in the air can
be safely called a liberal as opposed to the
conservative who has his feet jeet firmly in his
mouth”. Brazun
e “The liberals have tails, and chase them all”. Mencken
e “Liberals tend to put the onus of your success on
society, and c on you and your family”. Prager
e “If you are a liberal, anything you say is protected. If
you are a conservative, any thing you say is hateful.”
Schiesinger
e “Liberalism is an attitude rather than a set of
dogmas”. Cohen
\ JS
From classical liberalism, liberalism moved to become

positive liberalism (J.S. Mill and T.H. Green). Its advocates
thought of the state as no more a necessary evil but an
institution which could do something for the individual. It
emerged in the second half of the nineteenth century, thanks
to the industrial revolution with its laurels. The larger part of
the first half of the twentieth century saw welfare liberalism
(Laski, Maclver), when the state exists to contribute in the
fuller development of individual’s personality on the one hand
and regulating market rules on the other. The second half of
the twentieth century, i.e. since the 1960s, had libertarianism
followed by neo-liberalism (Hayek, Nozick, Rawls, and the
like) demanding more free and autonomous individual and the
least role of the state in affairs relating to the individual and
the economy. Pluralism (Dahl, for example) in the 1950s and
1960s, communitarianism (Walzer, Sandel in 1970s), and
republicanism (Skinner), while criticising one or the other
aspect of liberalism, remained inclined towards it.
Forms of Liberalism
Liberalism, with all its shades, has its basic essentials almost
the same—a belief in the autonomy of the individual, a
passion for the existence and protection of the rights, liberties
of the people, rationalism with an eye on future progress,
consent of the people in the formation and in the functioning
of the state, free economy, constitutionalism and toleration,
and limited government. Scholars have pointed out the
following forms of liberalism.
Political Liberalism
This is the belief that individuals are the basis of law and
society, and that society and its institutions exist to further the
ends of individuals. It enfranchises all adult citizens
regardless of sex, race, or economic status. It emphasises on
the rule of law and supports liberal democracy.
Cultural Liberalism
This focusses on the rights of individuals pertaining to
conscience and lifestyle, including such issues as sexual
freedom, religious freedom, cognitive freedom, protection
from government, and intrusion into private life. John Stuart
Mill aptly expressed cultural liberalism in his essay “On
Liberty”. He wrote: “The sole aim for which mankind are
warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the
liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That
the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised
over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is
to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or
moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” Cultural liberalism generally
Opposes government regulation of literature, art, and
academics.
Economic liberalism
Also called classical liberalism or Manchester liberalism, this
is an ideology which supports the individual rights of property
and freedom of contract, without which, it argues, the
exercise of other liberties is impossible. It advocates /aissez-
faire capitalism, meaning the removal of legal barriers to trade
and cessation of government-bestowed privileges such as
subsidy and monopoly. Economic liberals want little or no
government regulation of the market. Some economic liberals
would accept government restrictions of monopolies and
cartels, others argue that monopolies and cartels are caused
by state action. Economic liberalism holds that the value of
goods and services should be set by the unfettered choices of
individuals, that is, of market forces. Some would also
associate market forces to act even in areas conventionally
monopolised by governments, such as the provision of
security and courts. Economic liberalism accepts the
economic inequality that arises from unequal bargaining
positions as being the natural rights of competition, so long as
no coercion is used. Of late, there has been a tendency to
reduce governmental interference to the minimum.
Social liberalism
Also known as new l/iberalism and reform liberalism, this from
of liberalism arose in the late nineteenth century in many
developed countries, influenced by the utilitarianism of
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Some _ liberals
accepted, in part or in whole, the Marxist and socialist
exploitation theory and critiques of “the profit motive,” and
concluded that government should use its power to remedy
these perceived problems. According to the tenets of this
form of liberalism, as explained by writers such as John
Dewey and Mortimer Adler, since individuals are the basis of
society, all individuals should have access to basic
necessities of fulfillment, such as education, economic
opportunity, and protection from harmful marco-events
beyond their control.
Conclusion
A distinction has to be made between conservative liberalism
which is a right-wing of the liberal movement, and /iberal
conservation which is a variety of conservation with some
liberal elements, influenced largely by Edmund Burke.
Liberalism is stated to have achieved worldwide triumph
during the late twentieth century, with Fukuyama proclaiming
the universalisation of the Western liberal democratic system.
And yet its challenges, coming from communitarianism and
feminism, are no less real; its tensions, therefore, are, indeed,
real. On the one hand, it unfurls the flag of liberty, and on the
other, it argues for equality. On the one hand, it works, and in
fact, has to work within the framework of market society, and
on the other, it promises equal opportunities to all. On the one
hand, it is wedded to the unlimited rights of man for
acquisition of property and on the other, it seeks to curb the
property rights for the common good. On the one hand, it
views, as Macpherson says, man as “desirer of utilities” and
on the other, it wants him as “the enjoyer and the developer”
of his powers. On the one hand, it builds a capitalist economy
leading ultimately to inequality and on the other, it seeks to
establish an egalitarian society.
Liberalism is a philosophy of an individual—an individual
with abstraction. The communitarians attack liberalism for
building the case of an egoistic individual, an isolated entity.
Liberalism is also attacked for its advocacy of individual
liberty; the liberals’ passion for liberty is untenable in so far as
their view of liberty is an empty liberty. Barker had aptly
remarked about J.S. Mill, describing him as the prophet of
empty liberty and abstract individual. The liberals build a
police state and a capitalist society of the propertied people.
(b) Libertarianism
Libertarianism is political philosophy of individual rights and
free will. It believes that individuals have complete freedom of
action provided their actions do not harm others or their
freedoms. For the libertarians, deprivation of individual rights
is immoral. Obviously, the libertarians oppose governmental
control over individual’s life. They view government as both
the cause and the effect of all societal ills. It is the cause of
crime and prejudice because it robs people of their
independence and frustrates initiative and creativity. Then,
having created the sources of crime and prejudice by
depriving individuals of their natural rights, government
attempts to exercise the evils with more controls over natural
rights. Libertarians believe that government should be limited
to the defence of its citizens. There are broadly two types of
libertarians: consequentialists and rights theorists. Rights
theorists hold that it is morally imperative that all human
interactions, including government interactions with private
individuals, should be voluntary and consensual. They
maintain that the initiation of force by any person or
government against another person or his/her property is a
violation of that principle. Consequentialist libertarians do not
have a moral prohibition against “initiation of force” but
believe that allowing a very large scope for political and
economic liberty results in the maximum well-being or
efficiency for a society— even if protecting this liberty involves
some initiation of force by government. It just so happens that
such governmental actions are limited in the free society they
envision. This type of libertarianism is associated with Milton
Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich Hayek.
f-
Libertarianism Quotes
e “A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can

always count on the sup port of Paul”. G.B. Shaw
e “Giving money and power to government is like giving
whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.” O’ Rourke
e “The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates’”.
Tacitus
e “When the government’s boot is on your throat, it is of
no consequence whether it is a left boot or a right
boot”. Liayd
e “The government was set to protect man from the
criminals - and the constitution was written to protect
man from the government”. Ayn Rand
e “It is dangerous to be right when the government is
wrong.” Voltaire
e “You cannot adopt politics as a profession, and
remain honest’. Bierce
e “Whoever prefers life to death, happiness to suffering,
well-being to misery must defend, without any
compromise, private ownership in the means of
production”. Von Mises
Y J
Libertarians generally do not oppose force used _ in

response to initiatory aggressions such as violence, fraud, or
trespassing. Libertarians favour an ethics of self-responsibility
and strongly oppose the welfare state, because they believe
forcing someone to provide aid to others is ethically wrong,
ultimately counterproductive, or both.
Libertarians’ passion for property rights is their chief merit.
They hold the view that individuals have right to fully own and
acquire property. There is, however, a distinction to be made
between right-libertarianism and _ left-libertarianism, though
both endorse full self-ownership.
( Y
Ronald Dworkin (Born 1931)
Dworkin is a Professor of Philosophy as also of law. He is

the author of several works: Taking Rights Seriously,
Freedom’s Law, Ils Democracy Possible Here? Principles
for a New Political Debate, A Matter of Principle, Life’s
Dominion. He belongs to the libertarian tradition and
believes that the rights and the liberties of too significant for
the development of individual personality.
e Right-libertarianism holds that typically such resources

as property may be appropriated by the first person who
discovers them, mixes her or his labour with them, or
merely claims them—without the consent of others, and
with little or no payment to them.
e Left-libertarianism, by contrast, holds that the
appropriated natural resources belong to everyone,
requiring the first users to make a payment to others for
the value of those rights, who make a claim.
Libertarianism can be traced back to ancient China, where

philosopher Lao-tzu advocated the recognition of individual
liberties. The modern libertarian theory emerged during the
sixteenth century in the writings of Etienne de La Boetie
(1530-63), an eminent French theorist. During the
seventeenth century, John Locke and a group of British
reformers known as the /evellers fashioned the classical basis
for libertarianism. Its advocates, in late twentieth century,
included Nozick and Rawls as well.
The central tenet of libertarianism is the principle of self-
ownership. To libertarians, an individual human being is
sovereign over his/her body, extending to life, liberty, and
property. As such, libertarians define individual as being
completely free in action, while not initiating force or fraud
against the life, liberty, or property of another human being.
Libertarians generally view constraints imposed by the state
on persons or their property (if applicable), beyond the need
to penalise infringement of one’s rights by another, as a
violation of liberty. Anarchist libertarians favour no
governmental constraints at all and advocaite a society,
based on the naturally formed self-governing social bonds
and rules. Libertarians generally defend the ideals of
freedom, the perspective of how little one is constrained by
authority, that is, how much one is allowed to do, which is
referred to as negative liberty. This ideal is distinguished from
a view of freedom focussed on how much one is able to do,
which is termed as positive theory, a distinction first noted by
John Stuart Mill, and later described in fuller details by Isaiah
Berlin. Many libertarians view life, liberty, and property as the
ultimate rights possessed by individuals, and argue that
compromising one of these necessarily endangers the rest. In
democracy, they consider compromise of these individual
rights by political action to be “tyranny by the majority,” a term
first coined by Alexis de Tocqueville.
Rawls, in his A Theory of Justice, regards liberty of the
individual strengthening the tenets of justice, and the state,
amidst inequalities, providing opportunities equal to all while
caring for the least advantaged ones. Nozick (Anarchy, State
and Utopia), is all for the individual—for his/her rights (which
are inalienable) — and for the most minimal state. Critics of
libertarianism from both the left and the right claim that
libertarian ideas about individual economic and_ social
freedoms are contradictory, untenable, or undesirable. Critics
from the left tend to focus on the economic consequences,
free markets, or /aissez-faire capitalism, and of social
inequality, poverty ,and lack of accountability for the most
powerful. Criticism of libertarianism from the right tends to
focus on issues of tradition and personal morality, claiming
that the extensive personal freedoms promoted by libertarians
encourage unhealthy and immoral behaviour and undermine
religion.
(c) Neo-liberalism
It is often called neo-classical liberalism. Ever since the 1970s
or so, the revival of economic liberalism, evident through
developments during the times of Reagan, Thatcher, Roger,
and Manmohan Singh, has sought to halt the trend towards
collectivistic government and state intervention. Close to
“New Right” and “globalisation,” neo-liberalism argues for
unregulated market capitalism and for an individual who is
“free” and “autonomous.” Neo-liberalism, in the words of
Margaret Thatcher, is nothing but individual: “there is no such
thing as society, only individuals and their families.” It
opposes the ‘nanny’ state (a state, acting as a nurse-maid,
doing extensive social responsibilities, i.e. welfare type of
state), and reposes faith in self-help and entrepreneurialism.
Neo-liberalism, Andrew Heywood (Political Ideologies) says,
“amounts to a form of market fundamentalism’. “The market,”
he continues, “is seen to be morally and practically superior to
government and any form of political control.” Elizabeth
Martinez and Arnoldo Garcia (What is Neo-liberalism?)
specify the following main points of neo-liberalism:
Ronald Reagan (1911—2004)
Ronald Reagan was the fortieth US President (between

1981-89). Born in Illinois, Reagan moved to Los Angeles in
1930s where he became an actor and also the spokesman
of General Electric (GE). Originally, a member of
Democratic Party, he switched to the Republican Party in
1962. He served as the Governor of the State of California.
Though defeated twice, in 1968 and 1976, Reagan won the
Presidential election in 1980 and got re-elected in 1984. His
economic policies, dubbed “Reaganomics” included
substantial tax cuts, and he rose as an advocate of free
market trade.
N S
e The rule of the market—freedom for capital, goods, and

services, where the market is self-regulating allowing
the “trickle down” notion of wealth distribution. It also
includes the deunionising of labour forces and removal
of any impediments to capital mobility, such as
regulation. The freedom is from the state or
government.
e Reducing public expenditure for social services, such as
health and education—by the government.
e Deregulation, to allow market forces to act as a self-
regulating mechanism.
e Privatisation of public enterprise (things ranging, for
example, from water to even the internet)
e Changing perceptions of public and community good to
individualism and individual responsibility.
Overlapping the above are also some of the guiding
principles behind the ideology of neoliberalism which Richard
Robbins, in his book, Global Problems and the Culture of
Capitalism, summarises as follows:
e Sustained economic growth as the way to human

progress.
e Free market without government “interference” as the
most efficient and socially optimal allocation of
resources.
e Economic globalisation as beneficial to everyone.
e Privatisation as helpful in removing inefficiencies of the
public sector.
e The main function of governments as that of providing
the infrastructure to advance the rule of law with respect
to property rights and contracts.
So explained, Martinez and Garcia define neo-liberalism as

a set of economic policies that have become widespread
during the last 25 years or so. Although the word is rarely
heard in the United States, one can clearly see the effects of
neo-liberalism as imposed by powerful financial institutions
like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank,
and the Inter-American Development Bank. The capitalist
crises over the last 25 years, with who shrinking profit rates,
inspired the corporate elite to revive economic liberalism.
That's what makes it “neo” or “new”. Its specific aspects
include:
i. new space for the market; i.e., new areas of market

ii. emphasis on property;
iii. private expansionism;
iv. contract; and
v. transaction of intensive markets.
Neo-liberalism is reigning all over Latin America. The first

clear example of neo-liberalism at work came in Chile after
the ClA-supported coup against the popularly elected Allende
regime in 1973. Other countries followed, with some of the
worst effects in Mexico where wages declined by 40 to 50 per
cent in the first year of NAFTA while the cost of living rose by
80 per cent. Over 20,000 small and medium businesses have
failed and more than 1,000 state-owned enterprises have
been privatised in Mexico. As one scholar said, “Neo-
liberalism means the neo-colonisation of Latin America.” In
the United States, neo-liberalism is destroying welfare
programmes; attacking the rights of labour (including all
immigrant workers); and cutting-back social programmes. The
Republican “Contract” on America is pure neo-liberalism. Its
supporters are working hard to deny protection to children,
youth, women, the planet itself—and trying to trick people into
acceptance by saying this will “get government off their back.”
The beneficiaries of neo-liberalism, the critics argue, are a
minority of the world’s people. For the vast majority, they say,
it brings even more sufferings than before — sufferings
without the small, hard-won gains of the last 60 years
sufferings without end.
Opponents argue that neo-liberalism is the implementation
of global capitalism through gov-ernment/military intervention
to protect the interests of multinational corporations. Notable
opponents to neo-liberalism in theory or practice include
economists such as Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen, Noam
Chomsky, and the anti-globalisation movement.
(d) Republicanism
Though closely related to the word “republic,” republicanism
implies essentially two phenomena: (i) public domain and (ii)
popular rule. Much more than a mere non-monarchy,
republicanism is rooted in civic virtues which include public
spiritedness, patriotism, public concern, and active citizenship
— all these forming the notions of republicanism.
Republicanism, as developed during the Renaissance, is
known as Classical republicanism whose numerous notions
included mixed government, common good, a definite view of
liberty, social contract, separation of powers and rule of law.
The modern view of republicanism, referred to often as neo-
republicanism, lays emphasis on a general revival of republic
thinking. The most important theorists of “neo-republicanism”
are Philip Pettit and Cass Sunstein of whom each has written
a number of works defining republicanism and how it differs
from liberalism. A late convert to republicanism from
communitarianism, Michael Sandel, is perhaps the most
prominent advocate in the United States for replacing or
supplementing liberalism with republicanism as outlined in his
Democracy’s Discontent: America in Search of a Public
Philosophy. Republicanism is a system that replaces
monarchical-absolutist rule with citizenship based on
individual liberty and civic virtues. Positively, it emphasises on
liberty; negatively, on the rejection of all forms of autocracies
and aristocracies. Though, separate, conceptually, from
democracy, republicanism includes the key principles of rule
by law, the consent of the government and sovereignty of the
people. In effect, republicanism means that the kings and the
aristocracies are not the real rulers, but rather, the people, as
a whole, certainly are. As republicanism has, at its base, the
core notion of the people, it must stand for protecting and
promoting liberties of the people. So considered, liberties are
related more to republicanism that to democracy.
& ~
Philip Pettit (born 1945)
Philip Pettit an Irish philosopher is a political theorist. His

works include: The Common Mind, Republicanism; Three
Methods of Ethics; A Theory of Freedom sons and Norms.
He is known for defending republicanism in_ political
philosophy. He has developed the idea of how laws should
be based on non-domination as a route to liberty.
NL
Republicanism is usually used in two senses.
e In the first sense, it refers to a loose tradition for a family

of writers as diverse as Machiavelli; the Italian, the
English republicans such as Milton, Harrington; Sidney;
the French—Montesquieu, Rousseau; the Americans—
Jefferson and Madison. These writers lay emphasis on
the importance of civic virtue, political participation, the
dangers of corruption, the benefits of mixed
constitutions, and the rule of law, drawing heavily on the
writings of Cicero and the Latin historians.
e The other sense in which the term republicanism is
used is evident from the works of Quentin Skinner and
Philip Pettit who see in the term the core value of liberty
—one that is understood as non-domination or
independence from arbitrary power which is, to a great
extent, a “negative” concept. Pettit who has done more
than anyone else to develop this concept of republican
freedom, philosophically, puts it thus: a person and
group enjoys freedom to the extent that no other person
or group has “the capacity to interfere in their affairs on
an arbitrary basis.” On a plausible rendering of the term
“domination” as roughly speaking, arbitrary power (see
Wartenberg; Pettit; Lovett), one may equivalently say
that freedom in the republican sense is the enjoyment of
non-domination. Such a meaning does not help
exercise of “self-mastery”; it is essentially negative.
Republican freedom merely requires the absence of
something, namely, the absence of dependence on
arbitrary power or domination. And yet it is not
absolutely “negative,” for it seeks to enlarge liberty
through rightly-ordered laws, institu-tions and norms. It
is what separates them from the liberals and libertarians
on the one hand, and classical republicans, on the
other, who do not have such a comprehensive view of
libarty as the modern republicans, neo-republicans, or
civil republicans have.
Republicanism
Lays emphasis on liberties of the individuals

Popular rule, i.e., rule of the people
Citizens’ practice of civic virtues
Opposed to aristocracy, oligarchy, monarchy, and
dictatorship.
Republicanism (i.e. civil republicanism) remains committed
to institutional devices (the rule of law, separation of powers,
federalism, constituently entrenched basic rights, and so on).
Republican theorists insist that lest the authorities use their
power to reduce the quantum of republican notions,
discretionary authority should be left in the hands of courts
and public agencies. Republicanism sees remedy in
enhanced democracy. The idea is that properly designed
democratic institutions should give citizens the effective
opportunity to contest the decisions of their representatives.
This possibility of contestation will make government agents
wielding discretionary authority answerable, rendering them
non-arbitrary. In many respects, civic republicanism remains
an underdeveloped political doctrine. There are many issues
that civil republicans have barely touched on. To mention just
a few, multiculturalism distributive justice, conservation and
environmentalism, and international relations still await
substantial treatment. Heywood (Key Concepts of Politics)
criticises republicanism as politically incoherent and illiberal.
(e) Communitarianism
The term communitarianism is of twentieth century origin,
though it is derived from the 1940s term communitarian, a
word coined by Goodwyn Barmby to refer to a member or an
advocate of a communalist society. The modern use of the
term is a redefinition of the original sense. It may not be
regarded as ideology as Heywood insists, but is a theoretical
position. It opposes individualism and emphasises on the
importance of community in the functioning of political life, in
the evolution and analysis of political institutions, and in the
understanding of human identity. As a critique of Rawls’ A
Theory of Justice and a reaction to his assumption that the
task of the government is to secure and distribute fairly the
liberties and economic resources of the individuals, relying on
a conception of the individual who is atomistic and abstract
(opposing Nozick, Dworkin, and Hayek), the communitarians
(MacIntyre, Taylor, Walzer) advocate phenomena such as
civil society, community oriented citizens, and active
citizenship.
( \
Communitarianism
e Individual does not exist in isolation, but is constituted

through the community; he/she is born in the society,
in a cultural milieu.
e Individuals do not have rights — inalienable. They
have duties as well—inalien able.
e The communitarian state is democratically constituted
with citizens shaping it from time to time.
e The communitarian state is responsible, so are its
members.
The term communitarianism is used in two senses:
Philosophical communitarianism which considers

classical liberalism to be incoherent, and opposes it on
that ground. Unlike classical liberalism, which construes
communities as originating from the voluntary acts of
pre-community individuals, it emphasises on the role of
the community in defining and shaping individuals.
Communitarians believe that the value of community is
not sufficiently recognised in liberal theories of justice.
. Ideological communitarianism which is a radical middle
ideology that emphasises on the com-munity, and is
sometimes marked by leftism on economic issues and
conservation on social issues. This usage was coined
recently. When the term is capitalised, it usually refers
to the Responsive Communitarian Movement of Amital
Etzioni and other philosophers.
As a philosophy, communitarians claim that values and

beliefs exist in public space. They argue that individual
is not an isolated self, but is one rooted in the

community where he/she is born,
e inherits the culture in which he/she is nurtured, and
e owes obligations to the society which help him/her in
raising his/her personality, and expects respect and
consideration from the individual.
Ideologically, the communitarians seek to support the

institutions of civil society; and advocate positive rights such
as free education, housing, safe and clean environment,
health care, and a social safety net.
As against the libertarians, who argue for rights, the
communitarians insist on rights accompanied by social
responsibilities. As against the libertarians, who seek as
minimum a state as possible, the communitarians seek to
establish and maintain institutions of civil society. As against
the libertarian advocacy of pluralism, the communitarians
insist on universalism. As against the libertarian passion for
“self,” the communitarians value the importance of
community, community life, and active citizenship. As against
the libertarian minimal state, the communitarians advocate a
state that responds to the demands of the citizens.
The critics of communitarianism hold that it is conservative
as well as authoritarian; it has conservative implications
because it attempts to defend the existing social structures
and moral codes. The feminists condemn communitarians for
supporting the traditional sex roles. The authoritarian features
in communitarianism emerge from the communitarians’
emphasis on duties and obligations of the individuals over
their rights.
lll. SOCIALISM AND ITS VARIANTS
(a) Socialism
It is difficult to define socialism because it is not one doctrine
but a sum-total of doctrines. It is close to anarchism,
syndicalism, guild socialism, democratic socialism, and
evolutionary socialism. That is one reason it has a variety of
shades with little differentiations here and there. All shades of
socialism talk about organisation—some choose authoritarian
while others prefer democratic ones; all shades of socialism
resort to planning—some favour centralised planning while
others decentralised one; all shades of socialism stand for
equality—they all have their own perception of equality.
Socialism arose as a reaction to the rise and development
of capitalism. It arose at a certain stage of development when
capitalism failed to deliver goods. It arose against the
concentration of wealth in fewer hands; against the
deteriorating conditions of the workers; and against over-
production, exploitation, and unemployment.
Socialism, both as an ideology and tendency, stands for:
i. an egalitarian society — a society of human fellowship

where genuine liberty exists with reasonable equality;
ii. the satisfaction of man’s basic needs — a system where
there is a sufficiency for all before surplus is available
for some;
iii. Social ownership of the means of production, at least, of
some major ones— say, of land, power, banks,
insurance, leading ultimately to a situation of equality of
wealth and opportunities; and
iv. a system where all the citizens have to contribute to the
common good or general/social welfare.
Socialism is neither Marxism nor communism. While

socialism is more a tendency, communism is more of an
ideology; socialism has a measure of flexibility whereas
communism has the quality of rigidity; socialism is more a
moral imperative while communism is a society of the future,
of complete material development; socialism believes in a
gradual, peaceful, and democratic transformation of society
whereas communism believes in the revolutionary abolition of
society; the socialist society would continue with the state
while the communist society would be a stateless society;
socialism means the reduction of the capitalist might whereas
communism is for its elimination.
f-
G.D.H. Cole (1889-1959)
G.D.H. Cole was an English political theorist, economist,

and historian. As a libertarian socialist, he was a long time
member of the Fabian society and was an advocate of the
cooperative movement. He worked as a Professor of Social
and Political Theory at Oxford. His works included: Se/f-
Government in Industry; Social Theory; Guild Socialism
Revisited. He was a prolific theoretician of the labour
movement.
\ J
The word “socialism” dates back at least to the early

nineteenth century. It was first used, self-referentially, in the
English language in 1827 to refer to followers of Robert
Owen. In France, again self-referentially, it was used in 1832
to refer to followers of the doctrines of Saint-Simon and
thereafter by Pierre Leroux and J.Regnaud in I’ Encyclopedie
Nouvelle. Use of the word spread widely and has been used
differently in different times and places, both by various
individuals and groups that consider themselves socialists
and by their opponents. While there is wide variation between
socialist groups, nearly all would agree that they are bound
together by a common history rooted originally in the
struggles by industrial and agricultural workers during
nineteenth and twentieth-centuries.
Socialism is a philosophy of the workers. It demands a
system where workers participate in every walk of life. It
seeks to establish socialism through democratic means and
legislation. It attempts to secure social, economic, and
political rights for the workers. Durkheim posits that socialism
is rooted in the desire to bring the state closer to the realm of
individual activity. Weber saw in socialism, the acceleration of
the rationalization; Churchill, while criticizing socialism, wrote
the following: “... a socialist policy is abhorrent to the British
ideas of freedom. Socialism is in separately interwoven with
totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will
prescribe for everyone where they are to work, what they are
to work at, where they may go, and what they may say.
Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No
socialist system can be established without a political police.
They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no
doubt very humanely directed in the first instance.” The
libertarians attack socialism, especially its economics. Hayek
says that no rational economic decisions can be taken in
socialism. Ludwig von Mises declared that a_ socialist
economy is not possible at all. Hayek also argued that the
social control over distribution of wealth and private property
as advocated by socialists cannot be achieved without
reduced prosperity for the general populace, and a loss of
political and economic freedoms. There is a tendency for
over-centralisation and bureaucratisation in socialism.
Some important variations of socialism are:
(b) Evolutionary Socialism

Eduard Bernstein (1850-1932), a German Marxist, who
differed with Marx drastically, has rejected in his book,
Evolutionary Socialism (1898), some of the following
postulates of Marxism:
e the Marxian theory of historical materialism is, at best, a

trend;
e in the two-classes model where the two closes are
mutually opposed, theory ignored the role of the middle
class;
e class cooperation that this theory done more service
than class antagonism;
e capitalism, over the years, has not weakened, rather
has strengthened itself.
Bernstein, therefore, advocated;
i. empowering of the trade unions;

ii. pressurising capitalists, to yield to workers’ demands;
iii. pressurising democratic and gradual means, to weaken
capitalism and empower working classes.
Eduard Bernstein (1850—1932)
Eduard Bernstein was a German social democratic

theoretician. He was a member of Social Democratic Party
and also a founder of evolutionary socialism. His series of
articles entitled “Problems of Socialism” led to revisionism
debate in the party.
He sought to revise Marxism by holding the that views:
i. Capitalism is not going to die soon,

ii. it has strengthened itself; movement is everything, the
final aim of socialism is nothing;
ili. the social democratic party needs to build pressure
on capitalists and that the trade unions need to be
strengthened;
iv. the state needs to bring about social legislations
through peaceful and democratic means.
\ J
He says that in socialism, the movement is everything, the

final aim of socialism is nothing. Bernstein never thought of
capitalism as a system of class oppression; rather, he saw in
it a system with a human face, and the capitalist as one who
cared for the workers. He was of the opinion that capitalism
had all the possibilities of reforming itself, regulating it through
the state as constituted democratically by the people. What,
in his opinion, was needed was the movement for building
pressure on capitalism, a process which could be achieved
peacefully. The possibilities of revolution, in the changed
conditions in which capitalism developed itself, were remote,
for there was no capitalism so weak to be overthrown; no
non-conformist working class so strong to launch a revolution.
That was Bernstein’s evolutionary socialism, a revisionist
stance.
(c) Syndicalism
Syndicalism refers to a set of ideas, tendencies, and
movements which avow to transform the capitalist society
through the organised working class. A distinguishing feature
of syndicalism is its emphasis on industrial working class
organisation. For the syndicalists, the labour unions are the
means of both overcoming capitalism and running society in
the interests of the workers where industry and government
would be run by the labour union federations.
Syndicalism is a French word meaning “trade unionism.” Its
advocates include Georges Sorel and Hubert Lagardelle, both
French, and Alceste de Ambris and Arturo Labrado, both
Italians.
Syndicalism is opposed to the state, regarding it a
bourgeois and a middle class which is an_ exploitative
institution. All states are instruments of class rule. The
syndicalists regard trade unions, organised on a functional
basis, as the foundation of future syndicalist society. A
system of producers’ societies is to take the place of the
state. The ideal of the syndicalist is “free work in a free
society”— free workshop means free society. The syndicalists
seek to promote class solidarity. The syndicalists have no
faith in peaceful methods in transforming the oppressive and
exploitative capitalist society. They favour strikes, sabotage,
destruction of machinery, boycott, and label. they prefer to
resort to slow techniques.
(d) Fabianism
Fabianism is the doctrine of the Fabian Society, a small but
influential group of British socialists. This society grew out of
the Fellowship of the New Life, founded in 1883 under the
influence of Professor Thomas Davidson, which looked to
ethical reforms and utopian community-making, rather than to
political action, for the regeneration of society. A group which
included Frank Podmore and Edward R. Pease broke away
from the Fellowship to found the Fabian Society in 1883
(officially on January 4, 1884). George Bernard Shaw joined
in 1884, Sidney Webb in 1885. The society became socialist
in 1887 with the adoption of the statement of its policy. It
became famous with the publication of the Fabian Essays in
1889, by Shaw, Webb, Annie Besant, Graham Wallas, and
others.
Fabian Socialism has remained essentially evolutionary
and gradualist (hence its name from the tactics of Fabius
Maximus Cunctator, also the delayer), expecting socialism to
come as a sequel to the full realisation of universal suffrage
and representative government. The advocates of Fabianism
include: Sidney Webb, Beatrice Webb, Bernard Shaw, H.G.
Wells, G.D.H. Cole, Edith Nesbit, Rupert Brooke, Arnold
Bennett, and Eleanor Marx.
Fabianism stands for socialism to be achieved through
reformist and gradual means. It is a middle class intellectual
movement which seeks to establish socialism by educating
people in socialism and through methods such as persuasion.
The means, according to Laidler, are that:
i. it regards the transition from capitalism to socialism as a

gradual process;
ii. it looks forward to the socialisation of industry by the
peaceful, economic, and political agencies already at
hand;
iii. it sees in the middle class a group that can be utilised in
developing the techniques of ad-ministration on behalf
of the new social order; and
iv. it sees in the middle class a group that can be utilised in
developing the techniques of ad-ministration on behalf
of the new social order; and
Fabians were committed socialists. Their significant slogan

was “the inevitability of socialism’ — They wanted socialism
to be established by gradual reforms within the law—a theory
which advocates state ownership of major industries.
(e) Guild Socialism

Guild socialism is a political movement which advocates
workers’ control over industry through trade-related guilds. It
originated in Britain and was influential in the first quarter of
the twentieth century. Rockow describes guild socialism as
“the intellectual child of English Fabianism and French
syndicalism.” Hallowell writes, “Guild socialism was and
remains a kind of anaemic version of French syndicalism. It is
a halfway between syndicalism (not wanting to abolish the
state) and collectivism (not wanting the state to control
industry).” It wants to establish guilds of producers and guilds
of consumers within the state.
The chief advocates of guild socialism are A.J. Penty
(Restoration of the Guild System), who was practically its
founder, A.R. Orage, the editor of the New Age, S.G. Hobson
(National Guilds), the veteran of the movement, and G.D.H.
Cole, its most effective and prolific thinker and populariser.
The chief characteristics of guild socialism are:
i. Wage system to be abolished

ii. Self-government to be established in industry through a
system of national guilds
iii. Functional representation to be introduced
iv. Democracy to be brought about first in the economic
field and to be extended to political field later
v. Industrial guilds and consumers’ guilds, which function
side by side, to be organised locally, regionally, and
nationally
vi. The state to play a limited role, only as a facilitator to
the guilds.
The guild socialists’ methods are, in nature, peaceful and

constitutional.
(f) Democratic Socialism

Democratic socialism is a _ broad political movement,
propagating the ideals of socialism on the one hand, and their
practice within the democratic system on the other. In many
cases, its advocates seek to promote evolutionary methods
while some others, the revolutionary ones. Numerous writers,
thinkers, and activists, varying in their views, such as Robert
Owen, Karl Marx, Eduard Bernstein, George Orwell, Bertrand
Russell, and Sidney Webb — all have contributed to what
may be described as the democratic socialist philosophy.
Democratic socialism is largely a left wing ideology. It
supports a fully socialist system, seeking to establish it either
by gradually reforming capitalism from within or by resorting
to revolutionary methods. It seeks to advocate a welfare state
while willing to consider other means of providing a social
safety net for the poorest in the society. It maintains a
commitment to the redistribution of wealth and power and
social ownership of most major industries, i.e., mixed
economy. It defends the role of the public sector, especially,
as regards the provision of key services such as health care,
education, and public utility works.
Variants of democratic socialism vary from country to
country but their major features remain more or less the same
—exploitation-free-society, equitable distribution of social
products, enabling state, mixed economy, gradualism, and
the like. To a great extent the modern socialism is a critique
of anti-capitalism. It rebuilds itself on the one hand and casts
its shadow on the variants of capitalism. In its spirit, it
condemns capitalism.
IV. MARXISM, LENINISM, MAOISM, THIRD WAY,

ANARCHISM
(a) Marxism
Marxism, as a theoretical system, has emerged as a major
alternative to /iberalism or its economic aspect, capitalism. Its
geneses lay in the deteriorating conditions of the workers
following the establishment of the factory system. The
workers, as a result of the industrial revolution during the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, who entered the factory
were subject to all sorts of exploitation: long hours of work,
life in slums, ill-health, and the like. Karl Marx (1818-83) and
Friedrich Engels (1820-95) realised clearly the adverse
effects of industrialisation and capitalism and brought out
what is called as the scientific socialism or Marxism, after the
name of Marx.
Marxism has developed since the days of Karl Marx. Even
in his own times, there used to be the talks of two Marx: one,
the younger and the other, the older, the matured one. The
young Marx of the pre-Communist Manifesto days (i.e.,
before 1848) was described as a Socialist-humanist while the
matured Marx, as a revolutionary socialist. He, alongwith
Engels, built what is now called classical Marxism. Following
it, emerged modern Marxism through the disciples of Marx
and Engels, who only built on their philosophy. Among these
disciples, mention may be made about Karl Kaurtsky (1854-
1938), Georgie Piekhanov (1856-1918), V.I. Lenin (1870-
1924), Joseph Stalin (1879-1953), Mao Zedong (1893-1976)
and the like. The contemporary Marxism, one may call it Neo-
Marxism, have its advocates such as George Lukacs (1885-
1971), Theodor Adorno (190369), Max Horkheimer (1895-
1973), Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979) and the like.
4
Meaning Marxism Specifies
e Means of Production: A combination of the means of

labour and the subject of labour.
e Means of Labour: Machines, tools, equipment,
infrastructure, and the like.
e Subject of Labour: Raw materials and materials taken
directly from nature.
e Mode of Production: A specific combination of
productive forces and relations of production.
e Base and Superstructure: Base is the foundation—
material relations; the material base. Over it is built
the superstructure — society, economy, law, polity.
As is the base, so is the superstructure.
e Revolution: A conflict between the development of
material productive forces and the relations of
production causes the social revolution.
e Surplus Value: The difference between the value of
the product made by the worker and the actual wage
that the worker receives.
e Class: The identity derived from the relationship of a
people to the means of production.
e Proletariat: Those who sell their labour power and
who do not own the means of production.
e Bourgeoisie: Those who own means of production
and buy labour power and pay only wages. o
Lumpen-proletariat: Criminals, beggars, those who
have no stake in the economic system and those who
sell themselves to the higher bidder.
e Lumpen-proletariat: Criminals, beggars, those who
have no stake in the economic system and those who
sell themselves to the higher bidder.
\ J
The three major components of classical Marxism, as Lenin

has stated, are:
i. The dialectical philosophy, (the German imprint, and in

particular Hegel’s dialectical idealism which Marx had
put on its feet) advocating in the process dialectical
materialism and historical materialism.
ii. The economic ideas (the English imprint and in
particular the writings of Adam Smith), advocating, in
the process, his theory of surplus value, and the
analysis and critique of capitalism.
iii. The state and revolution (the French imprint, in
particular, the writings of Saint Simon, Charles, Fourier,
and Proudhon) advocating, in the process, his theories
of classes, class struggle, alienation/freedom,
revolution, and the socialist and the communist society).
Dialectical materialism is the sum-total of general principles

which explain as to why and how social changes take place.
The social changes take place because of the material forces
and they occur through a dialectical method—a triple method
where the mode of production changes into the relations of
production, and relations of production give birth to the
productive forces and at a certain stage of development, the
two (relations of production and the productive forces) clash
and as a consequence, lead to the emergence of a new mode
of production.
Historical materialism is the application of dialectical
materialism to society. According to Marx, all history is the
history of the self-development of productive forces and each
stage of history is the specific stage of the development of
specific productive forces. The slave-owning society indicates
the first kind of development of productive forces, the feudal
society is the next followed by the capitalist society, further
next is the socialist society and then the communist society.
Each subsequent society, Marx says, is an improvement over
the earlier society in terms of material development and of the
development of the productive forces. The different kinds of
societies are, according to Marxism, formulations of two
types: class and classless societies. The slave-owning, the
feudal, and the capitalist societies are class societies where
at each stage there is the struggle—economic, political,
ideological—between the possessing class (the masters, the
feudal lords, the capitalists) and the non-possessing class
(the slaves, the serfs, the workers).
Class antagonism is characteristic of the class societies
and cooperation is the characteristic of the classless societies
(the socialist society and the communist society). Revolution
is no revolt but a social change, the point where the relations
of production and the productive forces clash with each other
and the point from where begins the new era, the new mode
of production.
Marx lived at the stage of capitalistic mode of production.
He had studied and analysed the functioning of capitalism. He
regarded capitalism as aé_ specific stage of material
development of society and as such had a beginning and,
therefore, as a result, would have an end to give way to the
next stage of material development (socialism). Marx had
said that capitalism thrives on surplus value and that the
individualistic capitalism would give way to monopolistic
capitalism at which stage, the conscious working class would
launch a revolution and after smashing the capitalistic society,
would establish the socialist society, the first ever classless
society where each would work according to his abilities.
Socialism would give way to communism.
Alienation is one of the central tenets of classical Marxism.
It exists where commodity production exists: more the
commodity production, more is the amount of alienation. As
commodity production is more widespread in the capitalist
society, alienation is more in such a society; more than what it
was in the earlier class societies — the feudal society and the
slave-owning society. Alienation is a characteristic of only
class system; in the classless societies (socialism and
communism, for example), there would be no alienation.
Alienation amounts to workers being alienated from the
product of their labour, from the process of labour, from fellow
workers and ultimately, from themselves as creative and
social beings.
Marx’s theory of surplus value is one which makes the
capitalist more rich and the worker, more poor: it is the
difference between the value a worker creates and the wages
he gets. Capitalism thrives on the surplus value, but ultimately
leads to a stage where revolution alone releases the society
of its contradiction.
Socialism, which replaces capitalism, is a classless society
but with a state (in the form of the dictatorship of proletariat)
whose job is to establish socialism—from each according to
his abilities, to each according to his work. As society attains
complete socialism, it will turn into what is called communism,
a Classless and a stateless society (where the state will wither
away)— from each according to his work, to each according
to his needs.
(b) Leninism
Lenin (1870-1924: What is to be Done? Imperialism: The
Highest Stage of Capitalism, The State and Revolution) was a
Marxist theoretician, the author of the October Revolution
(1917), of Russia, and the first head of the first socialist state
of the world. Leninism’s chief contribution can be summed up
as follows:
i. Before capitalism is doomed to its demise, it would pass

through the stage of imperialism. Imperialism, Lenin felt,
is nothing but capitalism at the international level.
ii. The revolutionary intent among the workers would come
from above, i.e., avant garde, revolutionaries who
operate from above. Accordingly, a new class of
revolutionaries, the new type of party, different from
what it existed in the Western European countries,
secretive, radical, underground, would be required to
guide the workers in their historical task of launching the
revolution, and thereafter, establishing socialism.
iii, The dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the state of the
working class, would seek to abolish capitalism and
establish socialism; it is a proletarian political apparatus,
a transitional one.
Stalinism
Stalin's one major thesis was socialism in one country; while
Trotsky’s thesis was permanent revolution.
(c) Maoism
Maoism is the application of Marxism-Leninism on the
peculiar Chinese conditions. Mao interpreted Marxism-
Leninism in the changing conditions of the near later part of
the twentieth century China. Unlike the earlier forms of
Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, under the Chinese conditions,
sought to have nationalist revolution followed by the
bourgeois and thereafter the proletarian revolution; it was,
thus the people’s revolution, the Communist Party of China
(CPC) guiding the people.
Unlike the earlier forms of Marxism-Leninism in which the
urban proletariat was seen as the main source of revolution,
and the countryside was largely ignored, Mao focussed on
the peasantry as the main revolutionary force which, he said,
could be led by the proletariat and its vanguard, the CPC.
Furthermore, unlike other forms of Marxism-Leninism, in
which large-scale industrial development was seen as a
positive force, Maoism asserted that in a semi-feudal and
semi-colonial society like that of China, agrarian revolution is
the priority. Mao felt that this strategy made sense during the
early stages of socialism in a country in which most of the
people were peasants. Unlike most other political ideologies,
including other socialist and Marxist ones, Maoism contains
an integral military doctrine and explicitly connects its political
ideology with military strategy. In Maoist thought, “political
power comes from the barrel of the gun” (one of
Mao’s quotes), and the peasantry can be mobilised to
undertake a “people’s war” of armed struggle involving
guerrilla warfare. The first stage involves mobilising and
organising the peasantry. The second stage involves setting
up rural base areas and increasing coordination among the
guerrilla organisations. The third stage involves a transition to
conventional warfare. Maoist military doctrine likens guerrilla
fighters to fish swimming in a sea of peasants, who provide
logistical support. Mao’s cultural revolution of 1960s and
1970s sought to explain the transitional stage of socialism
ranging from one century to several centuries in which the
mind is to be attuned as the body in socialist ethos.
(d) Marxist Schools of Thought

Western Marxism is a term used to describe a wide variety of
Marxist theoreticians based in Western and Central Europe,
and more recently North America, in contrast to the
philosophy as in the former Soviet Union.
Structural Marxism is an approach to Marxism based on
structuralism, primarily associated with the work of the French
theorist Louis Althusser and his students. It was influential in
France during the late 1960s and 1970s, and also came to
influence philosophers, political theorists, and sociologists
outside France during the 1970s.
Neo-Marxism is a school of Marxism that began in the
twentieth century and looks back to the early writings of Marx
—before the influence of Engels — which focussed on
dialectical idealism rather than on dialectical materialism. It
thus rejects economic determinism, being instead far more
libertarian. Neo-Marxism adds Max Weber's broader
understanding of social inequality, such as status and power,
to orthodox Marxist thought. It comes under the broad
heading of New left thinking. It is opposed to inequalities
experienced by lesser developed countries in a globalised
world.
The “Frankfurt School“ is an informal term used to
designate the thinkers affiliated with the /nstitute for Social
Research or influenced by them; it is not the title of any
institution, and the main thinkers of the Frankfurt School did
not use the term to describe themselves. The Frankfurt
School gathered together dissident Marxists, severe critics of
capitalism who believed that some of Marx’s alleged followers
had come to parrot a narrow selection of Marx’s ideas,
usually in defence of Orthodox Communist or Social-
Democratic parties. Influenced especially by the failure of
working-class revolutions in Western Europe after World War
| and by the rise of Nazism in an _ economically,
technologically, and culturally advanced nation (Germany),
they took up the task of choosing what parts of Marx’s
thought might serve to clarify social conditions which Marx
himself had never seen. They drew in other schools of
thought to fill in Marx’s perceived omissions. Max Weber
exerted a major influence, as did Sigmund Freud (as in
Herbert Marcuse’s Freudo-Marxist synthesis in the 1954 work
Eros and Civilisation). Their emphasis on the “critical”
component of theory was derived significantly from their
attempt to overcome the limits of positivism and crude
materialism.
Cultural Marxism is a form of Marxism that adds an
analysis of the role of media, art, theatre, film, and other
cultural institutions in a society, often with an added emphasis
on race and gender in addition to class. As a form of political
analysis, cultural Marxism gained strength in the 1920s, and
was the model used by the Frankfurt School; and later by
another group of intellectuals at the Centre for Contemporary
Cultural Studies in Birmingham, England.
Analytical Marxism refers to a style of thinking about
Marxism that was prominent amongst English-speaking
philosophers and social scientists during the 1980s. It was
mainly associated with the September Group of academics,
so called because they used to have biennial meetings to
discuss common interests in varying locations every other
September. The group also dubbed itself “Non-Bullshit
Marxism.” It was characterised, in the words of David Miller,
by “clear and rigorous thinking about questions that are
usually blanketed by ideological fog.”
Marxist Humanism is a branch of Marxism that primarily
focusses on Marx’s earlier writings, especially the Economic
and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 in which Marx exposes
his theory of alienation, as opposed to his later works, which
are considered to be concerned more with his structural
conception of capitalist society. It was opposed by Louis
Althusser’s “anti-humanism,” who qualified it as a revisionist
movement. Marxist humanists contend that “Marxism”
developed in a lopsided way because Marx’s early works
were unknown until after the orthodox ideas were in vogue -
the Manuscripts of 1844 were published only in 1932 — and it
is necessary to understand Marx’s philosophical foundations
to understand his later works properly.
Post-Marxism represents the theoretical work of
philosophers and social theorists who have built their theories
upon those of Marx and Marxists but exceeded the limits of
those theories in ways that puts them outside Marxism. It
begins with the basic tenets of Marxism but moves away from
the mode of production as the starting point for analysis and
includes factors other than class, such as gender, ethnicity,
etc., and a reflexive relationship between the base and
superstructure.
Marxist feminism is a sub-type of feminist theory which
focusses on the dismantling of capitalism as a way to liberate
women. Marxist feminism states that capitalism, which gives
rise to economic inequality, dependence, political confusion,
and ultimately unhealthy social relations between men and
women, is the root of women’s oppression. Marxist feminists
see gender inequality as determined ultimately by the
capitalist mode of production. Gender oppression is class
oppression and women’s subordination is seen as a form of
class oppression.
(e) Third Way

The Third Way provides an alternative to both capitalism and
socialism. Described in various ways as “the radical centre”,
“the active centre”, the “New Mitte” (New Middle), and
“neorevisionism,” it is referred to the “new” Democrats in USA
(Bill Clinton), “new” labour in the United Kingdom (Tony Blair)
or the types of states which have emerged in Germany, the
Netherlands, Italy, and New Zealand. The Third Way is not
what communism is because it seeks ethical socialism,
reformism, gradualism, humanised capitalism, mixed
economy, political pluralism, liberal-democratic state; it is not
non-Marxian socialism because it is pragmatic, and seeks
globalisation, information society, market economy,
community as_ such, full employability, meritocracy,
opportunity for all. Certainly, it is not what capitalism is
because it is not all for industrial society, profit, private
ownership. The key features of the Third Way are:
i. socialism in the form of state intervention has become

irrelevant;
ii, Community, drawing upon the idea of social essence, is
another name of cooperation and fraternity;
iii. society to be viewed consensually;
iv. emphasis on meritocracy and opportunity for all;
v. State has to play a definite role and has to be a
competitive state.
The Third Way is something different and distinct from

liberal capitalism with its unswerving belief in the merits of the
free market and democratic socialism with its demand
management and obsession with the state. The Third Way is
in favour of growth, entrepreneurship, enterprise, and wealth
creation but it is also in favour of greater social justice and it
sees the state playing a major role in bringing this about. So
in the words of one of its gurus, Anthony Giddens of the LSE,
the Third Way rejects top-down socialism as it rejects
traditional neo-liberalism.
And yet in this age when the great ideological divide which
characterised the post-war era has evaporated, we seem to
feel the need to understand our politics as a single story
rather than as a set of disjointed initiatives. A government, it
seems, must have at least a big idea underpinning its policies
— simply wanting to make the world a better place will not do.
Key Elements of the Third Way
e A belief in the value of community

e Acommitment to equality of opportunity
e An emphasis on responsibility
e A belief in accountability
XY J
Of course, the Third Way, to this extent, is not new—there

have been the familiar tenets of neo-liberalism, and Christian
and social democracy. A related criticism, of course, is that
the Third Way is no more than a crude attempt to construct a
bogus coalition between the haves and the have nots: bogus
because it entices the haves by assuring them that the
economy will be sound and their interests would not be
threatened, while promising the have-nots a world free from
poverty and injustice. Based on opportunism, it has no
ideological commitment at all.
One of the important theorists of the Third Way is Anthony
Giddens, Blair's guru. His works include, Beyond Left and
Right (1994), The Third Way (1998), The Runaway World
(1999), and The Third Way and Its Critics (2000).
(f) Anarchism
Anarchism is a doctrine which does not accept any authority:
all forms of government are oppressive and, therefore,
undesirable and as such need to be abolished. It rejects all
kinds of coercive control and political authority. Derived from
the Greek word, anarchy, it literally means “without state.”
Though the word has been in use since the days of the
French Revolution, its negative sense continued for a long
time. The term has been equated with chaos and disorder
and the anarchists have been seen as bomb-toting terrorists
— semi-rebel and semi-cynic.
Anarchism is not only opposed to the state, it is opposed to
capitalism. This is why it rejects political slavery and
economic exploitation. It sees a union between the rulers who
are usually capitalists, and the capitalists who have much at
stake in the political system. The anarchists are liberals in so
far as they seek liberty for the individual; they are socialists in
so far as they oppose all types of exploitation, especially
economic ones. The fact of the matter is that they are neither
liberals nor socialists. They are not liberals because they
want to abolish the state altogether; they oppose the
institution of private property; they condemn capitalism
(liberalism is usually described as the political philosophy of
the capitalist class); they admire revolution; they favour the
organisations of the workers and producers. On the other,
they are not socialists because they emphasise on the free
will of the individual; they insist that the liberty of the individual
is beyond the domain of the state.
To put it rather specifically, anarchism is a doctrine that
stands between Marxian socialism and capitalistic liberalism
—against the state and opposed to capitalism. Anarchism is a
libertarian branch of socialism or a socialist branch of
liberalism: every anarchist is or can be a socialist, but a
socialist can never be an anarchist.
The advocates of anarchism include: William Godwin
(1756-1836: Enquiry Concerning Political Justice: “Everything
understood by the term cooperation is, in some sense, an
evil’), Max Stirner (1806—56: The Ego and His Own: “I and
the state; we are enemies to each other’, “the whole world is
a jail.”) Proudhon (1809-65: What is Property?: “All property is
a theft”; The Philosophy of Poverty usually described as the
founder of modern anarchist theory); Mikhail Bakunin (1814-
76: Statehood and Anarchy: “Liberty lies in the destruction of
the state”); Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921; Modern Sciences
and Anarchism, The Conquest of Bread, and Fields, Factories
and Workshop, Mutual Aid; “We do not want to rob anyone of
his coat but we wish to give to the workers all those things the
lack of which makes them fall an easy prey to the exploiter.”)
Anarchism, Kropotkin says, is “the no-government system
of socialism,” “the abolition of capitalism and government,” as
Malatesta (Towards Anarchism) asserts. It is a political theory
that aims to create a society without hierarchies — political,
economic, or social. It is the maximisation of individual liberty
and social equality. “Freedom without socialism,” Bakunin
says, “is injustice and that socialism without freedom is
slavery and brutality.” Kropotkin’s definition of anarchism is
that it is a political theory which advocates the creation of
anarchy, a society based on the maxim of “no rulers.” To
achieve this, the anarchists hold that “the private ownership of
land, capital, and machinery had had its time; that it is
condemned to disappear: and that all requisites for production
must, and will, become the common property of society, and
be managed in common by the producers of wealth. And they
maintain that the ideal of the political organisation of society is
a condition of things where the functions of government are
reduced to minimum. (and) that the ultimate aim of society is
the reduction of the functions of government to nil — that is,
to a society without government, to an archy.”
Anarchism is a theory of liberty. For the anarchists,
freedom is basically individual s’ freedom where individual,
pursue their own good in their own way. Liberty is, thus, a
precondition of one’s own potential, only in and through
community. Liberties are socially produced; they do not exist
because they have been legally set, but because they have
become the ingrown habit of people.
Anarchism is a theory of no-government. It is an admission
that the state or the government is an institution which is
oppressive, repressive, exploitative, and authoritarian, and
which has never done anything useful. Proudhan writes: “To
be governed is to be watched over, inspected, spied on,
directed, legislated, regimented, closed in, indoctrinated,
preached at, controlled, assessed, evaluated, censored,
commanded, all by creatures that have neither the right, nor
the wisdom, nor the virtue.”
Anarchism rejects capitalism, which according to most of
the anarchists is as coercive and authoritarian as the state. It
is a theory that condemns economic exploitation. Benjamin
Tucker opposes the socialisation of the ownership of capital.
All the capitalists have a stake in politics and all politicians
tend to amass wealth. It is a theory of anarchy, but it is a
theory of society, a decentralised society. The anarchist
society is a society based on free association—individuals are
free to join together as they see fit, come out of it as they feel
necessary. The anarchist society, the anarchists hold the
view, is a society organised —organisation is everything and
everything is organisation; “life itself is organisation’; the
capitalist society is a society, but ‘a badly organised one’.
Anarchism is a theory of social equality. It does not favour
“equality of endowment,” nor “equality of income.” Equality,
for the anarchists, means social equality, i.e., the equality of
condition i.e., equal opportunity. By this, what the anarchist
means is that an anarchist society recognises the differences
in ability and need of the individuals but does not allow their
differences to be turned into power.
Anarchism is not a theory of terrorism. It is not against
individuals; it is against institutions and social relationships
that cause abuse of power. The anarchists argue that the
anarchist revolution is about destroying structures, not
people. As Bakunin pointed out, “we wish not to kill persons,
but to abolish status and its perquisites” and anarchism “does
not mean the death of the individuals who make up the
bourgeoisie, but the death of the bourgeoisie as a political
and social entity economically distinct from the working
class.”
Anarchist School of Thought

The anarchist school of thought includes the following:
Mutualism
While mutualism as a body of economic ideas began in
English and French labour movements of the eighteenth
century, it later took on an anarchist form, mostly associated
with Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. In his landmark book, What is
Property?, published in 1840, he criticised existing theories of
private property and expounded an economic theory based
on a labour theory of value, stating that, “The price of every
product in demand should be its cost in time and outlay—
neither more nor less...”. However, “every product not in
demand is a loss to the producer—a commercial non-value.”
Collectivist Anarchism
Collectivist anarchism is most commonly associated with
Mikhail Bakunin and the anti-authoritarian section of the First
International (1864-76). Unlike mututalists, collectivist
anarchists oppose all private ownership of the means of
production, instead advocate that the ownership be
collectivised. Workers would be compensated for their work
on the basis of the amount of time they contributed to
production, rather than goods being distributed “according to
need” as in anarcho-communism. By the early 1880s, most of
the European anarchist movement had adopted an anarcho-
communist position, advocating the abolition of wage labour,
and distribution according to need rather than labour.
Anarchist communist
Anarchist communist proposes that a society composed of a
number of self-governing communes with collective usage of
the means of production, with direct democracy as the
political organisational form, and related to other communes
through federation would be the most free form of social
organisation. However, some anarchist-communists oppose
the majoritarian nature of democracy, feeling that it can
impede individual liberty in favour of consensus. In anarchist
communism, individuals would not receive _ direct
compensation for labour but would instead have free,
unregulated, or unrestricted access to the resources and
surplus of the commune. Kropotkin was one of its advocates.
The early twentieth century saw the rise of anarcho-
syndicalism as a distinct school of thought within the
anarchist tradition. More heavily focussed on the labour
movement than previous forms of anarchism, syndicalism
posits radical trade unions as a _ potential force for
revolutionary social change, placing capitalism and state by a
new society, democratically self-managed.
Egoism
Rudolff Rocker was one of the most popular voices in the
anarcho-syndicalist movement. He outlined a view of the
origins of the movement—what is sought, and why it was
important to the future of labour—in his 1938 pamphlet
Anarcho-syndicalism. Max Stirner was the author of a form of
individual-anarchism called Egoism. Stirner’s name appears
with familiar regularity in historically orientated surveys of
anarchist thought as one of the earliest and best-known
exponents of individualist anarchism. In 1844, Max Stirner’s
The Ego and His Own was published, which is considered to
be “a founded text in the tradition of individualist-anarchism.”
Stirner held that society had no responsibility for its members.
V. FASCISM AND CONSERVATISM
(a) Fascism
Fascism is no ideology; it is a policy, a programme. |In fact, it
is less of a theory, and more of a practice. It is less of a
reasoning and more of a belief. It is less a matter of rights,
and more, of duties; as much a matter of duties as of
discipline. Fascism, along with its German synonym
“Nazism,” is dictatorship within and expansionism outside. It
makes no distinction between nation and society, society and
state, state and government, government and party, and party
and leader.
The dictionary meaning of fascism is that it is a system of
government marked by centralisation of authority under a
dictator like Mussolini (1883-1945), (The Political and Social
Doctrine of Fascism), who is described as the Duce, or Hitler
(1889-1945), (Mein Kamph) who is described as the Fuhrer).
Fascism advocates harsh and _ stringent socioeconomic
controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and
censorship, and typically, a policy of belligerent nationalism
and racism. The Britannica Concise Encyclopedia refers to
fascism as a philosophy of government that stresses the
primacy and glory of the state, unquestioning obedience of
people to its leader, subordination of the individual will to the
state’s authority, and strict suppression of dissent. Martial
virtues are celebrated, while liberal and democratic values are
disparaged.
The term fascismo was first coined by the Italian fascist
dictator, Benito Mussolini. It is derived from the Italian word
fascio, which means “union” or “league,” and from the Latin
word fasces. The fasces, which consisted of a bundle of rods
tied around an axe, were an ancient Roman symbol of the
authority of the civic magistrates, and the symbolism of the
fasces suggested strength through unity; a single rod is easily
broken, while the bundle is very difficult to break. Mussolini
himself defines fascism as a right-wing collectivistic ideology
in opposition to socialism, liberalism, and democracy. He
wrote: “Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life
stresses the importance of the state and accepts the
individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of
the state, which stands for the conscience and the universal
will of man as a historic entity... The Fascist conception of the
state is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual
values can exist, much less any value . Fascism is, therefore,
opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to
the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number .We
are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a
century tending to the “right,” a Fascist century. If the
nineteenth century was the century of the individual
(liberalism implies individualism), we are free to believe that
this is the “collective” century, and, therefore, the cen-tury of
the state.”
( }
What is Fascism?
The word “Fascism” is almost entirely meaningless. In

conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in
print. | have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers,
social credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting,
the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi,
Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley’s broadcasts,
Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and | do not know
what else ... almost any English person would accept
“bully” as a synonym for “Fascist”.
George Orwell. What is Fascism? 1944.
\ J
Fascism has no theoreticians but has all leaders, practical

politicians at that. It arose, after World War I, in Italy under
Mussolini in 1922 and, in Germany, under Hitler in 1933.
Mussolini and Hitler were alike in their hatred against the
Allies and for this reason Italy was denied its principal
territorial claims at the Paris Conference (1919) and Germany
was declared as guilty of war, and therefore, was made victim
of severe imposition, loss of overseas colonies, cession of her
bordering territories to France, Poland, Denmark, and
Belgium, huge war bill to be paid to the Allies, national
humiliation, and reduction of her forces to the level of
domestic security. Fascism arose in Italy with a promise to
capture what was not given to her and in Germany with a
promise to take back what was taken away vide Versailles
Treaty (1919). The Falangists in Spain in 1930s, Salazar’s
right-wing authoritarian government in Portugal in the 1930s,
the Austrian Nazis around 1930-34, and the Vichy regime in
France during World War II are other examples of fascism.
Fascism rose in 1920s, came of age in 1930s and was
doomed in early 1940s.
4 Y
The Anatomy of Fascism
A form of political behaviour marked by obsessive

preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or
vicitimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and
purity, in which a mass-based party of committed
nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective
collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic
liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without
ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and
external expansion.
Robert O. Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism
Fascism’s assumptions are:
i. Individual is irrational;
ii. State is reason personified;
iii. Party under its leader is flawless;
iv. Society, nation, state, government and party are all
interchangeable terms.
Fascism’s belief in irrationalism of the individual is

unalterable; its faith in statism and authoritarianism is
unchallengeable; its echo of racialism is unassailable. It is
elitism, dictatorial and expansionist.
f— Y
Fascism Quotes
e “Fascism is a religion. The twentieth century will be

known in history as the century of fascism.” Mussolini
e “Guns will make us powerful, butter will only make us
fat.” Goering
e “Why nationalise industry when you can nationalise
people.” Hitler
e “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing
against the state.” Mussolini
e “War is to man what maternity is to a woman.”
Mussolini
\ SJ
Fascism is more authoritarian than totalitarian. Its state has

more powers than responsibilities. As an authoritarian, the
fascist state is centralized, seeking to usurp as much power
as is possible. Its object is to seek more functions, with no
obligations. It sounds a form of government as in Japan under
Tojo, in Austria under Dollfuss, and in Greece under Metaxas.
Though the fascist state seeks to impose control over all
aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic, it does
not want to do everything under the sun. Hannah Arendt
classified Italian fascism as an authoritarian ideology but
described Stalinism and Nazism as totalitarian.
Fascism seeks a corporate type of state. It is a state under
whose direction economy works: it is not capitalistic in so far
as it does not allow the closing of factories, nor it is socialist in
so far as it does not grant the workers any right of organizing
themselves. The fascist policies promoted a middle way
(neither capitalist nor socialist), seeking a radical extension of
government control over the economy without wholesale
expropriation of the means of production. Fascist
governments nationalised some key industries, managed
their currencies and made some massive state investments.
They also introduced price controls, wage controls and other
types of economic planning measures. Fascist governments
instituted state-regulated allocation of resources, especially in
the financial and raw material sectors.
Fascists are expansionists in so far as they seek to extend
their boundaries and, therefore, are militarists and
imperialists. They are anti-conservatists in so far as they want
to create a new type of state and a new type of society. And
yet they are anti-communists for their state does not work for
the welfare of the workers, nor for revolution, and nor for
equitable distribution of national income. Though anti-
conservatives, the fascists hold on to the revival of a mythical
ethnic, national glorifying past. They are, therefore, revivalists
of a rigid religious order.
Numerous present-day writings have projected fascism as
a radical rightist ideology, as a protagonist of radical
authoritarian state, and also a revolt against modernism. As
an ideology, fascism has been anti-humanitarian for being
inhuman to those belonging to other races; as a movement,
fascism abruptly appeared and abruptly disappeared; as a
political system, fascism was _ despotic, imperialistic,
oppressive, and imposing.
Though totalitarianism is different to what fascism is, yet
oppression and despotism are elements which are common
in both. Both believe in “one leader, one people, ‘signifying’
one master and millions as slaves.” Totalitarianism is a region
in which the state regulates nearly every aspect of public and
private behaviour. It is an all-embracing “and” a total type of
state. It is a state where the entire population is mobilised in
support of the official state ideology. Such regimes maintain
themselves in political power by means of secret police,
propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass
media, regulation and restriction of free discussion and
criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of
terroristic tactics.
(b) Conservatism
Conservatism is more than an attitude of mind; it is, in fact, an
approach of what Hugh Ceril said “a natural disposition of the
human mind”. Conservatives, in fact, prefer to base their
arguments on experience and reality rather than on abstract
principles. Conservatism is neither simple pragmatism, nor
mere opportunism. It is based upon a particular set of political
beliefs about human beings, the societies they live in, and the
importance of a distinctive set of political values. As such, like
liberalism and socialism, it can rightfully be described as
ideology.
The essence of conservatism, Russell Kirk (The
Conservative Mind) says, “is the preservation of the ancient
moral traditions of humanity and that for the conservative
customs, conventions, traditions, and prescriptions are the
roots of a tolerable civil order.” He adds that “forces of great
power in nation are prescriptions in favour of local rights and
private property, of habits of life, prejudices in favour of old
decencies, the family, and religious dogmas.”
Kirk lists six canons of conservative thought. These are:
i. A “belief in a body of natural laws which rules society

and conscience.”
ii. A “love of variety and the mystery of human existence,
as opposed to narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and
utilitarianism.”
iii. A “conviction that civilised society requires orders and
classes as opposed to a ‘classless’ society, equality in
the judgement of God and before courts of law. Equality
of condition means equality in servitude and boredom.”
iv. "Freedom and prosperity are inseparable, or else
government becomes the master of all.”
v. A “faith in prescriptions, for customs, conventions and
old prescriptions are checks upon anarchy and man’s
lust for power.”
vi. "Change may not be good reform, a statesman’s chief
virtue is prudence.”
The assumptions on which conservatism rests, as Clinton

Rossiter sums up, include:
i. that man, by nature, is imperfect;

ii. that people differ in character, body, and mind;
iii.that laws are needed so as to order their lives;
iv. that property helps individual strengthen liberty;
v. that progress is elusive;
vi. that there has to be a universal order as ordained and
supportive;
vii. that an aristocracy needs to rule and serve people;
viii. that traditions, institutions, symbols, rituals have their
own virtues, and as such, need to be defended.
Conservatism relates to a general preference for the

existing order of society, and also an opposition to efforts to
bring about sharp changes. Samuel Francis defined
conservatism as “the survival and enhancement of a
particular people and_ its _ institutionalised cultural
expressions.” Roger Scruton calls it “maintenance of the
social ecology,” and “the politics of delay, the purpose of
which is to maintain in being, for as long as possible, the life
and health of a social organism.”
Conservatism is described as temperamental when it
denotes a disposition to resist changes; it is situational when
it opposes disruptive changes in the social, economic, legal,
religious, political, or cultural order; it is political in so far as it
defends society, i.e., when it is restorationist.
f \
Conservatism Quotes
e “A conservative is a man who believes that nothing

should be done for the first time”. Wiggam
e “Conservatism discards prescription, shrinks from
principle, disavows progress; offers no redress to the
present, and makes no preparation for the future.”
Disraeli
e “A conservative is a man who is too cowardly to fight
and too fat to run.” Hubbard
e “The business of progressives is to go on making
mistakes. The business of the conservatives is to
prevent mistakes from being corrected.” Chesterton
e “A conservative is a man who sits, and thinks, mostly
sits.” Woodrow Wilson
\ A
Conservatism looks towards the past, history in so far as it

represents traditions; it defends tradition and by defending it,
it defends history; it is a desire to maintain established
customs and institutions. Conservatism is a philosophy of
human imperfection—the roots of man’s basis lay more in
prejudice than in reason. The conservative belief in an
organic society indicates that men cannot live apart from
society and that they are rooted in it and belong to it; and that
men are parts of the society as are “parts” organs of the
social organism. Conservatism regards power necessary in
so far as it helps to establish order in the society; and
authority as one through which power is used. Conservatives
adore power in so far as it helps them establish order; they
admire authority in so far as it helps them exercise power.
Conservatism seeks property as much as life. Conservatives
believe that property is an essential part of the life of the
individual, related to his personality — a person sees in
property his own self, his life. Conservatives would not allow
property to be taken from the individual for any purpose, good
as it may be. “Every form of social justice’, a conservative
thinks, “tends towards confiscation’. Burke and Oakeshott
represent two prominent examples of conservatism of our
times. Two significant divisions in the conservative thought
are usually stated: (i) authoritarian for being autocratic and
reactionary, and seeking government “from below” to help
establish order in the society; (ii) paternalistic, one that seeks
“reform from above” preferable to “revolution from within’,
urging that the more wealthy have an obligation to look after
the less well-off.
VI. GANDHISM
Though Gandhi (1869-1948) himself denied Gandhism, yet it
is difficult to overlook what he gave to the world. His political
career apart, he was a great thinker in so far as he
challenged most of the assumptions and beliefs of his times
(for example, a centralist state, disintegrating social fabric,
capitalism, violence, and the like), and provided plausible
alternatives (for example, the concept of Ramrajya, well-knit
society, spiritualism, trusteeship, satya and satyagraha, non-
violence, and the like). He integrated the ideas of Swadeshi
with the idea of non-violent satyagraha.
Indeed, it is difficult to project Gandhi in any particular
frame. He was more than a Plato — one can call him a
Socrates; he was more than an Aristotle—one can call him a
Buddha; he was more than a Mill or a Marx—one can call him
a humanist like Guru Nanak. lebs Gandhi was a liberal among
the Marxists, and a Marxist among the liberals; he was a
democrat among the _ individualists, and an_ individualist
among the socialists; he was an idealist among the realists
and a realist among the utopians; he was a nationalist among
the internationalists and pacifist among the internationalists.
In fact, he combined in himself the core ideas of all the known
ideologies, past and present—he was a great human being,
the greatest among the greats.
Gandhi’s major writings include: An Autobiography: The
Story of My Experiments with Truth, Hind Swaraj, Satyagraha
in South Africa, Collected Works of Gandhi, Harijan.
Gandhi was influenced by his family, especially his mother.
Gokhale was his political Guru ; B.G. Tilak also influenced
him. Tolstoy (Glimpses in Belief, What to Do? The Kingdom
of God is Within You), Ruskin (Unto This Last), Thoreau
(Essay: “Civil Disobedience”) too influenced Gandhi.
Gandhi once wrote about himself: “I lay claim to nothing
exclusively divine in me, | do not claim prophetship. | am but
a humble seeker after truth and bent upon finding it. | count
no sacrifice too great for the sake of seeing God face to face.
The whole of my activity whether it be social, political,
humanitarian, or ethical is directed to that end. And as | know
that God is found more often in the lowliest of His creatures
than in the high and mighty, | am struggling to reach the
status of these. | cannot do so without their service. Hence,
my passion for the service of the suppressed classes. And as
| cannot render this service without entering politics, | find
myself in them. Thus, | am no master, | am but a struggling,
erring, humble servant of India and therefore of humanity.”
This, in short, was the crux of his philosophy, in his own
words. That is how he looked upon life and politics, i.e.,
through the eyes of religion.
As Gandhi was a religious man, he regarded religion as
purely a personal matter. He said, “Religion is a personal
matter; and if we succeed in confining it to the personal plane,
all would be well in our political life.”
Religion with him was another name of truth and
righteousness. Gandhiji once said: “Let me explain what |
mean by religion. It is not the Hindu religion which | certainly
prize above all other religions, but the religion which
transcends Hinduism, which changes one’s very nature,
which binds one indissolubly to the truth within and whichever
purifies. It is the permanent element in human nature which
counts no cost too great in order to find full expression and
which leaves the soul utterly restless until it has found itself,
known its maker and appreciated the true correspondence
between the Maker and itself’. His attitude towards religion is
characterised by the following beliefs:
(a) All religions are true.
(b) All religions have some errors in them.
(c) All religions aim at fellowship.
To quote Gandhiji, “Religion does not mean sectarianism. It
means a belief in ordered moral government of the universe.
It is not less real because it is unseen. This religion
transcends Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, etc. It does not
supersede them. It harmonises them and gives them reality.”
There was hardly any difference between religion and
morality, so far as Gandhi was concerned. There is, for
Gandhi, no such thing as religion overriding morality, or
morality overriding religion. He was convinced that man
cannot be untruthful, and cruel, and yet claim to have God on
his side. Firm again on his belief, he averred, “I reject any
religious doctrine that does not appeal to reason and is in
conflict with morality. | tolerate unreasonable religious
sentiment when it is not immoral.”
Politics, for Gandhiji, was but a part of man’s life, one that
encircles men like the coil of a snake from which one cannot
get out, no matter how much one tries. Though he thought
that an increase in the power of the state can inflict the
greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality which
lays at the root of the progress, yet he viewed political power
as a means that enabled people to make their conditions
better in every department of life. He wrote, “my work of
social reform was no way less or subordinate to political work.
The fact is, that when | saw that to a certain extent my social
work would be impossible without the help of political work, |
took to the latter and only to the extent that it helped the
former.” Political life is not stranger to other aspects of life. He
used to say, “My life is one indivisible whole, and all my
activities run into one another, and they all have their rise in
my insatiable love of mankind.” Political activity of man is
closely associated with other activities of man and all these
activities, according to Gandhiji, influence each other. That is
why he never separated politics from other walks of man’s
life. What he hated in politics was the concentration of power
and the use of violence associated with political power. In his
own words, “The state represents violence in a concentrated
and organised form. The individual has a soul, but the state is
a soulless machine, it cannot never be weaned from violence
to which it owes its very existence. What | would personally
prefer, would be not a centralisation of power in the hands of
the State but an extension of the sense of trusteeship:.”
Politics, and for that matter the state, according to him was
not an end, but a means that enabled men to make their lives
better. An ideal state or ideal political life is one in which men
rule themselves. For Gandhiji, there is no political power in
the ideal state because in it there is no state. But as the ideal
was not fully realised in life, Gandhiji contented himself with
Throeau’s classical statement—that government was best
which governed the least.
e “Most religious men | have met are politicians in

disguise; |, however, who, wear the guise of a politician,
am at heart a religious man.”
e “My bent is not political but religious.”
e “.at the back of every word that | have uttered since |
have known what public life is, and of every act that |
have done, there has been a religious consciousness
and a downright religious motive.”
e “For me, politics bereft of religion is absolute dirt, ever to
be shunned.”
e “Politics concerns nations and that which concerns the
welfare of nations must be one of the concerns of a man
who is religiously inclined, in other words, a seeker after
God and Truth.”
e “For me there is no politics without religion—not the
religion of the superstitious and the blind, religion that
hates and fights, but the universal religion of toleration.”
e “... those who say that religion has nothing to do with
politics do not know what religion means.”
All these above statements provide a key to what Gandhiji

thought about the relationship between religion and politics.
His whole political philosophy was only a corollary of his
religious and moral philosophy. In his political philosophy,
Gandhiji attempted to apply moral and ethical truths to the
facts of social life. Participation in politics, for him, was an
unavoidable evil, and yet, he tried his very best to introduce
religion into politics.
Gandhiji never drew any distinction between religion and
politics. “To talk of leaving religion for politics,” writes Glyn
Richards (The Philosophy of Gandhi, 1982) “or politics for
religion was incomprehensible to him, for Gandhi conceived
of every activity as determined or governed by one’s religious
outlook.” So much importance did Gandhi attach to politics
that he insisted on taking part in politics as if it is something
religious in nature. Religion, for him, meant participation in
politics. In fact, it meant, for him, participation in all human
activities. It gives, according to him, a moral and ethical
foundation to all his activities. Religion, in a way, provides a
moral base. It becomes, Gandhi asserts, a motivation for
political activity—religion-oriented politics serves humanity;
such a politics helps men lead a better life; more purified a
political activity, more it would serve the people.
Swaraj
Gandhi's political ideas revolved around Swaraj, democracy,
and freedom. Swaraj, for him, was not merely the transfer of
power to the Indians. At the national level, Swaraj did mean
national independence. But at the individual level, it meant a
power to improve one’s lot through one’s own efforts, and,
thereby, shape one’s destiny the way one would like it to be.
Swaraj, for Gandhi, meant more than independence. So
understood, it was not only an end, but was also a means —
a capacity to rule oneself, a capacity to resist unlawful
authority or authority when abused, and a capacity to regulate
and control authority. Democracy , indeed, was a government
based on the consent of the people; it is not a gift that comes
to the people from above, it is a gift that comes from within.
Democracy is not the exercise of one’s voting power, holding
any political office, or exercising the power of the government;
it is, Gandhi insists, when the people are able to develop their
inner freedom — capacity to regulate and control one’s
desires/impulses in the light of reason; freedom that arises
from the individual and rests with the individual. This does not
mean, as Gandhi argues, that freedom is something isolated,
and confined to the individual self. Gandhi submits individual
freedom to social restraints. Gandhi’s state is not the state of
the western type—force personified, one that has no soul,
and one that is a centralised one. His state is one that is
described as Ramrajya, not one as the kingdom of God, but
the one of truth and righteous-ness, the one in which the
meanest citizen was sure of swift justice, and the one which
ensures equal rights alike to the prince and the pauper.
According to him, the society with true Swaraj would have a
relatively weak central government but a strong base of
nearly self-sufficient and self-governing villages containing
independent, well-educated individuals. All adults would elect
a small body (Panchayat) to deal with disputes and crimes,
and also relevant political and economic matters. Villages
would be grouped into districts, districts into provinces,
provinces into states, each administered by representatives
elected from its constituent units and not directly by the whole
electorate.
The essence of Gandhi’s thought was what can be
summed up in one word—‘Truth.” Truth, Gandhi would insist,
was the essence of all types of morality—it is what inner self
experiences at any point of time; it is an answer to one’s
conscience to what responds to one’s moral self. Gandhi's
concept of Satyagraha was related to his notion of truth. What
it meant was urge for truth. In “non-violent Resistance,”
Gandhi defines Satyagraha as such: “Its root meaning is
holding on to truth, hence truth-force. | have also called it
Love-force or Soul-force.” Gandhi advocated “selfsuffering” as
a means of protest against wrong. If your opponents’ actions
were wrong, Gandhi felt that they could be made to amend
their wrong practices through acts of love and non-violence.
This was Gandhi's principle of Satyagraha. Gandhi talked of a
Satyagraha tree, a branch of which was Civil Disobedience or
Civil Resistance. The Satyagrahi generally obeyed laws of the
alien British government. If laws are unfair, he writes, the
Satyagrahi “breaks them and quietly suffers the penalty for
their breach.” Gandhi was careful to distinguish non-violence,
an active form of protest, from passive resistance. He knew
that passive resistance “is regarded as a weapon of the
weak.” Gandhi’s Satyagrahi was a volunteer bound by the
following principles:
e Harbour no anger but suffer the anger of the opponent.

Refuse to return the assault of the opponent.
e Do not submit to any order given in anger, even though
severe punishment is threatened for disobeying.
e Refrain from insults and swearing.
e Protect opponents from insult or attack, even at the risk
of life.
e Do not resist arrest nor the attachment of property,
unless holding property as a trustee.
e Refuse to surrender any property held in trust at the risk
of life.
e If taken prisoner, behave in an exemplary manner.
e As amember of a Satyagraha unit, obey the orders of
Satyagraha leaders, and resign from the unit in the
event of serious disagreement.
e Do not expect guarantees for maintenance of
dependents.
And Satyagraha’s campaign would follow the following

steps:
Negotiation and arbitration
Preparation of the group for direct action
Agitation
Issuing of an ultimatum
Economic boycott and forms of strike
Non-cooperation
Civil disobedience
Usurping of the function of government
Parallel government
Gandhi's Satya and Satyagraha were related to his concept

of non-violence. Non-violence, in the negative sense meant
“no injury either in words or deeds” and in positive sense, it
meant love for others; maximum convenience to others at the
cost of maximum inconvenience to oneself. To quote Gandhi:
“Literally speaking, Ahinsa means non-violence. But to me it
has much higher, infinitely higher meaning. It means that you
may not offend anybody; you may not harbour uncharitable
thought, even in connection with those who consider your
enemies. To one who follows this doctrine, there are no
enemies. If you express your love—Ahimsa — in such a
manner that it impresses itself indelibly upon your so called
enemy, he must return that love. This doctrine tells us that we
may guard the honour of those under our charge by delivering
our own lives into the hands of the man who would commit
the sacrilege. And that requires far greater courage than
delivering of blows.”
For Gandhi, the non-violence of the brave was the highest
kind of non-violence, for he/she would have force, but would
not use it; there is the non-violence of the common man who
would use it to extract his/her objectives; the non-violence of
the coward is the lowest type of non-violence; the non-
violence of the impotent person. Gandhi prefers violence to
impotency.
One of the important principles of Gandhism is his theory of
ends and means. Gandhi, unlike Machiavelli, believed in the
essential unity between ends and means. To quote him:
e “Means and ends are convertible terms in my

philosophy of life,” and the people say “means are after
all means.” | would say “means are after all everything.
As the means so the end. There is no wall of separation
between means and ends. Indeed, the Creator has
given us control (and that too very limited) over means,
none over the end. Realisation of the goal is in exact
proportion to that of the means. This is a proposition
that admits of no exception.”
e “The means may be likened to a seed, the end to a tree;
and there is just the same in violable connection
between the means and the ends as there is between
the seed and the tree.”
e “If one takes care of the means, end will take care of
itself”.
e “Impure means result in impure ends.” One cannot
reach truth by untruthfulness. Truthful conduct alone
can reach Truth. Are not Non-violence and Truth twins?
Between ends and means, Gandhi always chose means —

it is the means which make ends as real ends; it is through
means that one reaches ends, for as are the means, so are
the ends; we have control over means, and not over ends; it
is through the means of non-violence that we are able to
attain the truth, the ends.
Gandhi’s economics revolves around the fact that:
i. economy must work towards equality and non-

exploitation;
ii. it must be consistent with full employment;
iii. it must provide low-priced consumer goods;
iv. all those industries with sophisticated technology be in
non-private sectors;
v. there should not be mass production without mass
distribution.
In fact, equality and social justice dominated in Gandhi's

economic thought in the form of following beliefs:
i. Economic policies are to be pursued on need base and

not on want base.
ii. Irrational desires are to be controlled.
iii. Labour-intensive technologies are to be preferred to
capital-intensive ones.
Gandhi was for Swadesh—a spirit in us which restricts us

to the use and service of our immediate surrounding to the
exclusion of more remote ; in economics, it meant the use of
goods and services available around us. Gandhi’s theory of
trusteeship was an answer to the evils of capitalistic order.
Under trusteeship, everyone, including the present owner of
the factory, for example, would get salary or wages as any
worker gets while the entire social profit goes to the factory as
such, which Gandhi used to say was God’s property. His
concept of trusteeship answered the problems raised by
capitalism.
Gandhism is not without its limitations. Gandhi did not rise
above his ruralised views; he never accepted capitalism, nor
what is called modernized economy. He provided gospels
without providing either the infrastructure or the strategy; his
decentralised plan was infeasible; his Ramrajya was nothing
less than a utopia. And yet no one denies Gandhi's
greatness.
Vil. FEMINISM
One may do well by describing feminism;
i. as areaction, and a revolt against patriarchy, against

male domination, and against the idea that the women
serve as a means for men’s joy;
ii. as an ideology which seeks the end of female
exploitation; and
iii, as a movement seeking a new definition of everything
and the culmination of public-private syndrome.
Although the term feminism as a theory belongs to the

twentieth century, feminist views have been described in
many different cultures and have been found in ancient
civilisations of Greece, China, and India. Christine de Pisan’s
Book of the City of Ladies (Italy, 1405) had recorded the
deeds of famous women of the past and had advocated
women’s right to education and political influence. The first
text of modern feminism is usually taken to be Mary
Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792).
Three waves of feminism are usually stated—First Wave
beginning with (around 1830s or so) women’s movement for
suffrage and winning it in 1920 or so; some forty years later,
women began mobilising again. This Second Wave of
feminism rose out of the demand of equal pay for equal work.
The feminists demanded the right to a non-discriminatory
work place in which sexual harassment would be legally
punishable; right to abort unwanted fetuses, right to
determine whether or not to have children and the like. The
Third Wave arising out of the second wave, beginning with
1980s and 1990s, sought what may be described as the
feminist identity.
Feminism is influenced, and sometimes even dominated by
its enemies. In some parts of Africa, feminism means a fight
against female genital mutilation; in the middle ages it would
have meant a fight for witches’ right to live; in the Western
world a hundred years ago, it meant a fight for women’s right
to hold property, to divorce, to vote, to be recognised as adult
legal subjects. And in the Western world today, it means a
fight against tacit beliefs derived from gender roles and sex-
based prejudices. The common thread running through these
different periods and places is neither, as John Gray said,
that men are from Mars and women are from Venus, nor
women are inferior and men are superior, but that there are
no virtues or psychological characteristics belonging
exclusively to males or to females. Feminism means the
closing of the gender gap, and not widening it.
4 a
Famous Feminists
e Adams, Abigail (1744-1818). Adams was a prolific

writer, patriot, abolitionist, and early feminist. In her
famous correspondence to her husband, she spoke
elo quently against slavery many years before the
abolitionist movement and on be-half of women.
e Anthony, Susan B. (1820-1906). American suffragist,
Anthony worked tire-lessly for the woman suffrage
movement. She lectured on women’s rights and
organ ised a series of state and national conventions
on the issue. She collected signa tures for a petition
to grant women the right to vote and to own property.
Black, Clementina (1850-1923). Social reformer and
writer. Born in England. Worked to improve social and
industrial conditions for women and girls.
Bloomer, Amelia Jenks (1818-1994). Social reformer,
Born in Homer, N.Y. Active as speaker and writer for
women’s rights, Editor of the Li/y, which was believed
to be the first newspaper edited entirely by a woman.
Casgrain, Marie Terese Forget (1896-1981). A
Canadian feminist who led the fight to obtain full
suffrage for women, she was also the president of
Quebec League for Women’s Rights from 1929-48.
Catt, Carrie Chapman (1859-1947). American woman
suffrage leader, born in Ripon, Wisconsin, and
educated at the State College of lowa. She was an
organ iser and lecturer for the women suffrage
movement. She was President of the National
American Women Suffrage Association from 1900 to
1904 and of the International Woman Suffrage
Alliance, which she helped to organise, from 1904 to
1923.
Chopin, Kate (1851-1904). Writer. Born in St. Louis,
Mo. Regular contributor of feminist short stories to
literary journals, her Novel, 7he Awakening (1899),
shocked many people with its portrayal of a young
woman's sexual and artistic longings.
Feminism has its advocates mostly among women
scholars, though there are certain male supporters. Mention
may be made about Shulamaith Firestone, The Dialectic of
Sex, Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch, Betty Friedan,
The Feminine Mystique, Kate Millet, Sexua/ Politics, Robert
Stoler, Sex and Gender, Eva Figer, Patriarchal Attitude,
Robin Morgan, Sisterhood is Powerful, Simon De Beauvoir,
The Second Sex, Christina Hoff Sommers, Who Stole
Feminism? Carole Gilligan, /n a Different Voice, Jagger
Alison, Feminist Politics and Human Nature, Carole Pateman,
The Sexual Context and The Disorder of Women, Okin S.M.,
Justice, Gender and the Family, and Jean B. Elshtain, Public
Man and Private Woman.
Gender division is one of the chief characteristics of
feminism. The feminists regard gender division as political
rather than natural. Elshtain’s Public Man and Private Woman
highlights this —men’s domain as public and women’s
private. Feminism seeks to break down this divide— women’s
liberation would mean that they enjoy equal access with men
to enter public life; it would also mean that the responsibilities
of private life would be transferred to the state or other public
bodies (child rearing, for example, would become the
responsibility of the community).
( \
Famous Feminists
e Clollins, Martha Layne (born 1963): Kentucky’s first

female governor and first woman to chair the National
Conference of Lieutenant Governors.
e Friedan, Betty (born 1921): Born in the U.S. a famous
author and a known femi nist. She wrote the best-
seller, The Feminine Mystique, and challenged
traditional roles of women. Co-founder and President
of the National Organistion for Women (from 1966—
77). She co-founded the First Women’s Bank and
convened International Feminist Congress in 1973.
Gilman, Charlotte (1860-1935): US writer famous for
her writings on feminism and labour. (His Religion
and Hers, The Crux).
Ginsburg, Ruth (born 1933): Director of Women’s
Rights project of the American Civil Liberties Union
and argued many cases before the Supreme Court.
Was appointed at the Supreme Court by President
Bill Clinton in 1993.
Murphy, Emily (1886-1933). A Canadian lawyer and
writer. In 1916, helped es tablish the Women’s Court
to hear women’s evidence in such cases as divorce of
sexual assault. Became first women magistrate in the
British Empire.
Truth, Sojourner (1797-1883). Born a slave in New
York, Sojourner was origi nally called Isabella Van
Wagner. She gained her freedom in 1827, after most
of her thirteen children had been sold. She took the
name “Sojourner Truth” in 1843 after having a vision.
In 1836, Truth became the first Black to win a slander
action against whites. At the 1851 Women’s
Convention in Akton, Ohio, her powerful “Ain’t a
Woman” speech awed even detractors.
Wollsonecraft, Mary (1759-1797). Writer. Born in
England. Work includes Thoughts on the Education of
Daughters (1787). The Female Reader (1789), and A
His torical and Moral View of the Origins and
Progress of the French Revolution (1794). A
Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792) which
challenged Rousseau’s ideas of female inferiority; she
is a classic of liberal feminism.
\ J
The opposition of patriarchy is another characteristic

feature of feminism. All feminists wish to overthrow patriarchy.
For them, abolition of patriarchy would mean end of sexist
oppression, male domination, or what Millett described,
“patriarchal government” as an institution whereby “that half
of the populace which is female is controlled by that half
which is male.” For many feminists, end of patriarchy means
making “women” “like men’, a desire to develop and achieve
fulfillment as women; in other words, to be “women identified.”
Different feminists look to different answers for abolishing the
institution of patriarchy—liberal feminists seek equal rights for
men and women; the socialist feminists argue for social
equality between men and women; and the radical feminists
regard patriarchy as undesirable and, therefore, seek its
complete abolition.
The feminists make a clear distinction between sex and
gender, regarding sex inequality between men and women as
biological and gender inequality as cultural and the root cause
of all evils in the society. What the feminists seek is not the
abolition of distinction on grounds of sex, but elimination of
gender distinction. The biological fact, the feminists argue,
should neither necessarily be disadvantageous to women nor
should determine their social destiny. Women may be
mothers, but they need not accept the responsibilities of
motherhood—nurturing, educating, and raising children and
other domestic obligation can be shared by men or can be
transferred to community. Most feminists believe that sex
differences between men and women are relatively minor,
and that they neither explain nor justify gender distinctions. All
human beings, regardless of sex, it is argued, possess the
genetic inheritance of a mother and a father, and, therefore,
embody a blend of both male and female attributes or traits.
The goal of feminism is the achievement of “personhood”;
gender differences are entirely artificial.
f Y
Kate Millet (Bom, 1934)
Kate Millett is an American feminist writer, and an activist.

She is known for her Sexual Politics (1970), her Ph.D.
dissertation from Columbia University. In this work, she
offered a detailed critique of patriarchy. Her other works
include— The Prostitution Papers, Flying, Sita, The
Basement. She worked for women’s welfare—had a
women’s art colony, a shelter for female artists and writers.
She attacked the modern novelists D.H. Lawrence, Henry,
Miller and Norman Miller for writing on sexism and
heterosexism.
Feminism encompasses three principal traditions: /iberal,
socialist, and radical. Conservatives do not question the
patriarchal structure, and regard the sexual division between
“public man” and “private women” as natural and inevitable.
Liberal feminism, as represented in the first wave, had
sought, and still seeks equal rights for women together with
men. Freidan’s The Feminine Mystique witnessed the
resurgence of the feminist thought in the 1960s while in
1980s and 1990s, liberal feminism sought women’s identity.
The philosophical basis of liberal feminism lies in the principle
that all individuals, men and women alike, are equal, seeking
the opening up of public life for women. The socialist
feminism, as against the reformist liberal feminism regards
women’s exploitation as a result of capitalism (Engels used to
say that man is a bourgeoisie and woman, a proletariat), and
hopes that with the abolition of capitalism, woman’s
exploitation would also come to an end. Radical feminism, as
is evident from the writings of Millett and Firestone, demands
that the sexual differences between men and women be
diminished, eventually abolished, and the traditional roles of
men and women be defined afresh, possible reversed.
While feminism is generally accepted, dissenting voices do
exist. Some feminists do nothing except that they preach
hatred against males, while others are no better than being
inherently gynocentric; some scholars argue that because of
feminism, males are beginning to be oppressed, claiming that
males die from suicides four times more frequently than
females, as in USA.
Feminists do not object to any distinction on grounds of
sex; they say that sexual distinction is natural: a woman is,
indeed, “born”, but she need not be “made”, for to make a
woman is to create not only a second but a secondary
species. Women need not be more than men but they need to
be like them. One would do well to accept that women’s
attitudes and values are different from men’s; one would do
well to accept that in certain respects women are superior to
men, possessing the qualities of creativity, sensitivity, and
responsibility which men can hardly fully develop.
Practice
Questions
1. “Liberalism is a_ philosophy — of
autonomous individual and limited state’.
(700-800 words)
2. Libertarianism is an ideology of empty
liberty and abstract individual”.
Comment. (700-800 words)
3. Do you agree with the view that neo-
liberalism is market liberalism,? (200
words)
4. Formulate a case for non-Marxian
socialism. (200 words)
5. Trace the major elements of Marxism
with special reference to the writings of
Marx, Lenin, and Mao. (700-800 words)
6. Write a brief note on the following:
(a) Third Way
(b) Republicanism
(c) Communitarianism
7. Compare and contrast Anarchism with
Marxism.
8. “There is no such thing as Gandhism.”
Comment.
9. Critically examine the doctrine of
Fascism or Conservatism. (700-800
words)
10. What is Feminism? Do you think that it
is merely a revolt against] patriarchy?
Give reasons. (200 words)
11. Examine the Gandhian idea of village
community as an ideal unit of self-
governance. (2012) (700-800 words)
12. Discuss the communitarian critiques of
liberalism. (2013) (700-800 words)
13. Comment on the view that socialism in
the 21St century may be reborn as anti-
capitalism. (2014) (700-800 words)
14. Examine the conception of the state in
the ideologies of Fascism and irxism.
(2014) (700-800 words)
15. Write a detailed essay on “Feminism”.
Indian Political Thought |:
Dharmashastra, Arthashastra,
Buddhist Tradition, and Sir
syed Ahmed Khan
I. SOURCES OF ANCIENT INDIAN POLITY

n the literature of ancient Indian political thought, there are
: many texts, both Vedic and non-Vedic. Vedic literature
includes, among numerous others, Shruti (what is heard),
and Smriti (what is remembered). Shruti has no author; it is
believed to be a divine recording of the “cosmic sounds of
truths, “ heard by the sages. Shruti includes the four Vedas:
Rig Veda, Atharva Veda, Sama Veda, and Yajur Veda. Smriti,
second, in authority to Shruti, was compiled by sages, notably
Manu (Manu Smriti), Yajnavalkya (Yajnavalkya Smriti), and
Parasara (Parasara Smriti). Shruti is composed in Vedic
Sanskrit and Smriti in laukika Sanskrit (Sanskrit spoken by
the people). The works of Smriti are the law books, the
Dharmashastras.
The non-Vedic literature includes the epics: the Ramayana
and the Mahabharata. The 18 Purans, too, discuss topics
such as polity, society, law, kingship, and the like.
The Arthashastra, written by Kautilya, is a treatise on
politics, while the Buddhist literature, both canonical and non-
canonical, projects the sort of polity related closely to the
republican one. The Buddhist literature, available in Pali and
Prakrit, includes the Vinaya Pitaka, the Jataka, and the Digh
Nikaya.
In addition to the above—brahmanical and _ non-
brahmanical sources depicting the ancient Indian polity—one
may include the accounts and reports of the foreign travellers
(for example Megasthanese: 327-325 BC and Fa Hsien: 399 -
414 AD) as also the literary evidence from coins, inscriptions,
etc.
Before an attempt is made to give an account of the nature
of polity as it comes through the Dharmashastra, the
Arthashastra, and the Buddhist traditional sources, it is
important to note controversies that relate to:
i. the identification and fixation of the dates of the

composition of the above sources;
ii. the style of the works referred to above—secularistic or
moralistic;
iii. the authenticity of the use of the languages—Sanskrit,
Pali, and Prakrit.
These difficulties apart, the discussion of the nature of

polity in ancient India, mostly during the period a little before
or after Christ, is worthwhile.
Professor R.S. Sharma (Aspects of Political Ideas and
Institutions in Ancient India) describes the six main stages in
the history of ancient Indian polity. These stages, as
Professor Sharma says, are:
The earliest stage was that of the tribal military
democracy in which tribal assemblies, with some having
a place for women, were mainly preoccupied with war.
The age of the Rig Veda was primarily a period of
assemblies.
. The second stage saw the breaking up of the tribal
polity under the stress of kin conflicts between the
rajanya khsatriya and his ordinary kinsmen called the
vis. The chiefs were helped by the priests called the
brahamanas. This stage saw the beginnings of taxes
and classes on varnas, which came to be firmly
established in the third stage.
The third stage was marked by the formation of the full-
fledged state with large territorial monarchies of, for
example, Kosala and Magadha, and also tribal
oligarchies in northwestern India. There appeared the
large standing armies, and organised machinery to
collect land revenue.
The fourth stage (the Mauryan period) saw the
bureaucratic centralisation based on the expanding
economic activities of the state. In this period, religion
was particularly exploited for political ends: Kautilya was
more brahmanical than secular.
The fifth stage was marked by the process of
decentralised administration in which towns,
feudatories, and military elements came to the forefront
in both the Deccan region and in north India. In some
regions, the divinity of the king came to be
institutionalized — the Kusana princes assumed the title
of devaputra, the dead kings came to be worshipped,
while the Satavahana principles came to be described
as heroes.
Vi. The sixth stage, identical with the Gupta period, was the
period of proto-feudal polity — the land grants, as fixed
and administrative privileges, were conferred on priesty
beneficiaries.
Professor Sharma notes that during the ancient Indian

period:
i. the polity was not isolated from the socioeconomic

process;
ii. economic activities began gaining a place in the polity
and administration;
iii. the influence of religion was clearly seen in every stage,
as mentioned above.
It may, however, be mentioned that the Vedic tradition was

out and out brahmanical, while the period of Kautilya’s
Arthashastra was more practical and had less influence of
religious considerations, Republicanism was, more or less,
the characteristic of the polity in the Buddhist tradition.
ll. NATURE OF POLITY—DHARMASHASTRA,

ARTHASHASTRA, AND THE BUDDHIST
TRADITION
Dharmashastra
Dharmashastra, like the Dharmsutras cover all legal texts,
leading texts, and commentaries. Dharamasutras, developed
into Smritis, were written in verse while the Dharmashastras
were written in prose. Among the oldest well-known Smritis,
mention may be made, particularly to
Manusmriti, Yajnavalkya Smriti, and Parasara_ Smriti.
Smrities give us a good idea of the functions of the king, the
position of the ministers, and of interstate relations. They also
tell us about the judicial machinery, the type of law, and the
way it was administered. Manu Smriti and Yajnavalkya Smriti
lay emphasis on ethical codes, while the Narada, Brhaspati
and Katyayana Smritis are legal texts. The Dharmashastra
sounds theoretical.
Dharmashastra is rightly regarded as the foundation of law.
According to Dharmashastra, everything was to work within
the framework of law. Dharma directs the evolution of life, nay
the world. In upholding it, humanity gets evolved; it means
destruction of everything. Manu refers to four sources of law.
The first is the eternal law of the universe—the Vedas.

Smriti is the making of law on the basis of Shruti.
The third law is the approved conduct, moral in nature.
The fourth law is the law of Manu, i.e., “what is
agreeable to one’s soul or good conscience.” Manu
regards Dharma as the foundation of all law; it is this
which protects the weaker sections of society. Dharma
makes no distinction: it is, in fact, the king, the satya,
the ahimsa.
Arthashastra
Arthashastra, aS compared to Dharmashastra, is relatively
more practical. Evidence suggests that \Kautilya’s
Arthashastra was elaborated in the first century AD. Divided
into 15 adhikaranas and 180 prakarcanas, the Arthashastra
text embraces, sociology, economics, and politics, though a
major portion is devoted to the problems of administration.
The Arthashastra deals with the seven (explained ahead)
elements of the kingdom—training duties, and the vices of the
king, recruitment and duties of amatyas and mantrins, civil
and criminal administration, guilds and _ corporations,
interstate relations — suggesting methods to win wars and
acquire popularity. To that extent, the Arthashastra was close
to Aristotle’s Politics than to Plato’s Republic, though like
Plato, Kautilya also devotes a full section in his work to the
education of the prince. The Arthashastra is more of a
practical treatise.
The Buddhist Tradition

The early canonical Buddhist texts in Pali, as these took a
final shape in Sri Lanka in the first century BC, did refer to
monarchies and republics, though the stance is too sketchy.
The Mahavagga and Cullavagga portions of the Vinaya
Pitaka (or Book of Discipline) provide considerable
information on the organisation of the Buddhist monasteries.
The Greek account of the period, the work of Panini, the
commentary of Patanjali, and the Jataka folk tales give the
early information on the basis of which later superstructure of
the Buddhist nature of polity was raised. The early account
(especially relating to the Licchavi, the constitution of the
second century (BC), speaks of the duties of the king,
administration of justice varnas, and of economic activities.
The Digha Nikaya also gives us information about the origin
of kingship, or the state, and of the social order. The later
texts, especially of Panini’s grammar, refer to the republics of
those days. Steve Muhlberger (Democracy in Ancient India)
says: “Yet research into the Buddhist Pali cannon during the
19th century confirmed the picture of widespread
republicanism.” Rhyds Davids (Buddhist India) depicts the
land of Buddha as one in which there were many clans,
dominating extensive and populous territories, who made
public decisions in assemblies, moots, or parliaments.”
lll. POLITY INDHARMASHASTRA,
ARTHASHASTRA, AND THE BUDDHIST
TRADITION
(i) Polity in Dharmashastra (Manusmrriti in particular)

Manusmriti, also known as Manav Dharmashastra, is one of
the 19 Dharmashastras that belong to the Smriti literature. It
is one of the oldest texts and is believed to have been written
at a time when the brahman tradition (between 200 BC and
200 AD) was under serious threat by the non-Vedic
movements. The work has been attacked by numerous
colonial scholars, modern liberals, the Hindu reformists, the
Dalit advocates, the feminists, and the Marxists. The
Manusmriti runs into 12 chapters with 2694 couplets. Though
the other well-known Smritis, such as Yajnavalkya Smriti and
Parasara Smriti, are important in their own right, Manu, as
Brashpati says, “takes the foremost place because his work is
based on the teachings of the Vedas, and any Smriti text
opposed to Manu is not to be valued.” While agreeing to the
date as to when the Manusmriti was written, Professor V.R.
Mehta says: “Although the date of Manusmriti is disputed,
mythologically, Manu is supposed to have been the first
teacher of mankind who revealed the knowledge of man in
society to Bhrigu. Maharishi Bhrigu was one of the seven
sages entrusted at the beginning of the cosmic cycle with the
task of preservation of right in the world. Siva and Parvati
were asked to set the process of motion. They, therefore,
became the symbols of the world as well as transcendence.
The seven rishis were then entrusted to safeguard dharma. It
may be remembered that such beliefs were legion in the
ancient world.”
& ~
Manu
e “Excessive eating is prejudicial to health, to fame and

to heaven. It prevents spiritual merit.”
e “Prajapati (the lord) milked out from the three Vedas
the sound AUM and the Vyahritis Bhah, Bhuvah, and
Svah.”
e “Desire is never extinguished ...., it only grows
stronger like a fire ....”
e “It is in the nature of women to seduce men in this
world; for that reason, the wise are never unguarded
in the company of females.”
e “The teacher, the father, the mother, and an elder
brother must not be treated with disrespect, especially
by a Brahmana.”
e “Land belongs to him who clears of the timber, and
gives a forest animal to him who owns the arrow.”
e “By honouring the mother, he gains higher world, by
honouring the father, he gains middle sphere, but
obedience to his teacher, he gains both the worlds.”
\ JS
Like any system of thought, Manusmriti also starts with a

certain view of the man-cosmic relationship. It gives a
profound account of the creation of the world as also the
details of ordinary daily life. According to Manusmriti, the
cosmos came into existence when God a wakened from
primeval sleep; that the cosmic process works according to
certain rules, which are also binding on God himself; that the
cosmic reality can be known and communicated with the help
of reason and experience—yoga, tantra, and tapa provide
integrative knowledge towards that reality; that man’s
existence has significance only when he participates in the
process of knowing the reality and that he can do so through
karma, the most important yoga of all the yogas; that parvarti
(regulation of desires) and nivriffi (the eradication of desires)
constitute part of the yoga; that man must not abandon fapa,
dhyana, and japa when he does karma; that myths, legends,
rituals, and symbols are different facets that help man move
towards reality; that the world keeps moving for sustenance,
expansion, and development; that virtues keep the world
moving, continuing that only the human beings can acquire
knowledge and wisdom while the other beings only respond
to the world stimulus; and that human beings have the will to
attain desires and accomplish ambitions.
The family is the basis of a social fabric, one where, Manu
says, man finds happiness—wife in the family is the soul of
her husband and being physically weak and vulnerable, has
to be protected by father, husband, and children at different
stages of life, though a woman’s place and position in the
family have not been clearly defined in the Manusmriti. And
yet family is so important an organisation that Manu gives it a
place that is usually given to the heart in the body. It is an
institution that helps enable people belonging to other
institutions to perform their functions. The good household is
that in which there is mutual accord and which serves
students, old people, the forefathers, and the Gods. But the
chief aim of the family is not domination of others.
Manusmriti
Manusmriti is one of the 19 Dharmasastras, which

constitutes part of the Smrit/ literature. It is one of the oldest
and the most important texts. Some of its codes pertain to
the caste system, and also talks about ashramas. It also
talks about the kings’ powers, and duties, the systems of
taxation, theories of justice, art of war, diplomacy and
diplomatic wars and war policies. In all, it has 12 chapters
and 2694 verses.
\ J
There is realisation that both power and wealth are necessary

for the efficient management of the household. But both these
should not become instruments of domination over others.
They should not lead to pride and unrighteousness. Manu
declares that a household commits sin by accumulating more
property than is required by the end of fulfillment of needs
and performance of one’s duties towards one’s parents,
teachers, and society. A craze for property merely becomes
the cause of unhappiness. One should not merely follow
one’s own interest, or what satisfies oneself. Manu declares
that one must strive to attain the happiness of others. This is
Dharma. Dharma, for Manu, is the welfare and happiness of
others (Upkar) and it must get preference over all other good
—the basic governing principle is that the larger group must
obtain preference over the smaller one. In so doing, one is
able to follow the path of virtue, and establish links with the
divine order, and ultimately attain Moksha.
Manu’s philosophy is one that seeks to embrace totality in
social and public life. In fact, the most striking feature of
Manusmriti, Professor Mehta writes, is that it conceives of
politics as inte-gral to society, as a basic factor, he continues,
“without which society cannot function.” He (Manu), Mehta
says, “was convinced that without a king there would be
anarchy in which order would perish, the strong would devour
the weak, no one would be able to perform his obligations
and live a happy existence.”
Manu linked politics to ecology also, and said that in the
absence of the king even the trees would be felled. “A good
state may be judged not only by the services rendered by it
but also by the quality of people inhabiting it,"for Manu says
that a good kingdom is that in which many saintly people live,
there is no disease, fruits and vegetables are grown in plenty,
people are polite and fearless, and there are good crops, and
easy commerce. The main duty of the king is to protect good
people and punish the bad ones. He must remove the thorns
in the path of good life. There is no place in his state for
smugglers, profiteers, or blackmarketeers. The whole
emphasis is on the idea that the community cannot be
divorced from the cosmic relationship. The powers of the king
are limited by the purpose for which the kingdom has been
created. A kingdom in which there is theft or dacoity or which
is full of smugglers cannot survive. To protect the weak,
specially orphans, widows, and the old, is the supreme duty
and the highest religion of the king.”
Manu’s ideas on social organisation are aimed at
establishing order and justice. Justice, being very significant,
has to be performed by judges who are appointed on the
basis of their character and experience by the king. The
decisions of the judges should be based not only on equity
(Dharmam Sasvatam Asritya) but also take into account
diverse customs and practices of different castes, regions,
and even families. His theory of punishment was reformatory
rather than retaliatory.
According to Manu, a king’s powers originate from God,
Vishnu, but for day-to-day adminis-tration, a king’s authority is
dependent on the approval of the Brahmanas. Manu says that
if order is to be established in society, the Brahmanas and
Kshtriyas must act in concert with each other: — the king
himself should work under the advice of the Brahmanas.
Manu wants the king to maintain varna system, as does Plato
(the establishment of justice by the rulers). Manu could not
think of the king without the authority of the Brahmanas.
According to Manu, a good king alone is not enough. He
must be assisted and advised by good and truthful ministers
and civil servants. Manu says that in the discharge of his
duty, the king must be guided by the advice of his ministers
and wise men. He must ensure that his ministers are firm in
truth and firm in action. He lays down elaborate rules for the
selection of ministers. Exercise of whimsical authority
destroys the king and his relatives. It is for this reason that
Manu elaborates a system of education for the king. The
objective of this education is not merely to provide knowledge
but also to teach the king how to control his senses.
With regard to other administrative issues, Manu refers to
the organisation of a state into villages, districts, and
provinces. The basic governing principle is that the larger unit
must deal with a problem only when the smaller unit fails to
solve it. That is Manu’s dictum of decentralisation —a larger
and more diverse country cannot be governed except by
organising it in terms of smaller units.
The systems of taxation should be such as to enhance
national wealth. Manu was convinced that a kingdom in which
people starve perishes sooner or later. According to him, the
king is entitled to 1/50 of the gold, 1/6 of the crop, and 1/12 of
the commerce.
The Dharmashastra gives a clear picture of the developed
administrative machinery with the king charged with the
highest executives, and judicial and military functions. His
staff includes the purohito, the mantri, the amatya, the
pradvivaka (the judge), the sabhya and sabhasad (the
assessors), the dandika, and the bandhauika, as well as the
other lord officials (there is, in the older Dharmashastra, no
trace of the seven elements, though in the later texts, there
is). The older Dharmashastras are also silent with regard to
the state policy and relations between states, of which
references are found in the later texts. Ghoshal (History of
Indian Political Ideas) writes in this regard: “The king, we are
here told, shall honour the good people and slay the wicked:
he shall apply as is required by the time and the occasion, the
four-fold policy of conciliation and dissension, bribery and
force towards his enemy, his ally, his most powerful
neighbour (udasina) and the neutral king (madhyama): he
shall also apply according to the exigencies of the time the
six-fold policy, namely, peace, war, attack, neutrality, seeking
protection, and the dual policy: he shall select the proper time
and occasion for his march. The above extracts repeat some
well-known categories and concepts of the technical science
of polity (Arthashastra). The former (Dharmashastra) relates
to the list of the four political expedients, the six forms of
foreign policy, and the constituents of the state system. The
latter (Arthashastra) are concerned with the application of the
political expedients and policies just mentioned to interstate
relations in according with the principle of expediency.”
The mandala concept is thought of an aggregate of kings:
friendly, hostile, and neutral where the efforts are made to
increase the number of friendly states, with the help of six
types of foreign policy (gunas). These are: sandhi (peace),
war (vigraha), attacking the enemy (yana), neutrality, (asana)
seeking protection from the powerful king (samsraya), and the
dual polity (dvaidhbhava). The Dharmashastra advocates the
Dharamyudha, the war fought to accomplish the values of
dharma.
(ii) Polity in Arthashastra

Kautilya lived during the period 350-275 B.C. Most of the
details about Kautilya’s life are uncertain and, in fact, hazy.
He is also known as Vishnugupta and Chanakya, and is
traditionally known as the author of the Arthashastra. The
ancient Indian tradition describes Kautilya to be a native of
Taxila (near Peshawar in modern Pakistan) as_ the
Mahavasma Tika (the Buddhist literature) mentions it, though
the Jain scriptures (the Adbidhana Chintamani) mention the
place of his birth as South India, around the place presently
known as Kerala. However, Kautilya’s birthplace will continue
to remain a controversy. What is certain about Kautilya is the
fact that he was a man of strong will and unparalleled
determination. That is why he made up his mind to avenge
the insult inflicted on him by Nanda, the king of Patliputra.
After leaving the city humiliated, he met young chandragupta
on his way. He found chandragupta a promising young man
with all the traits of a king. He worked hard for chandragupta’s
installation on the throne of Magadha. After having met with
failure in the first attempt, Chandragupta regrouped his forces
and kept launching his onslaughts on the Nanda kings,
ultimately killing Dhanananda in 322 B.C. and establishing a
new dynasty—the Maurya. Chandragupta Maurya was
enthroned as the king of Magadha in 321 B.C. dynasty and
ruled upto 298 B.C. All through, it was Kautilya who
masterminded the attacks first, and continued as the king’s
advisor in statecraft.
The scholars differ with regard to the date when the
Arthashastra was written, some _ contesting even the
authorship. There is a school of thought that describes the
time of the Arthashastra somewhere around the fourth
century BC, while the other, to the third or fourth century AD.
What is usually agreed to is that it was the Mauryan Kautilya
who had written the Arthashastra and that someone else
rewrote his work or compiled a text from his teachings.
Kautilya’s Arthashastra, containing the essence of the ancient
Indian political thought, was discovered as late as 1904, when
an anonymous priest of Tanjore district handed over the
manuscript of the monumental work written by Bhattasvamin
to Dr. Sharma Shastri, who got it published later in 1915 in
English. R.P. Kangle refers to seven different manuscripts of
the Arthashastra published in different languages. Kautilya’s
Arthashastra is described to be a compendium of all the
Arthashastras penned down by the ancient teachers. Hence,
it has been portrayed as the culmination of the earlier
Arthashastra literature embracing its essence. In fact, the
Arthashastra is the only treatise that has preserved the old
political ideas. U.N. Ghoshal writes, “Kautilya makes a closer
analysis and expresses a sounder judgement on the points at
issue and reconstructs the science of politics.”
It is believed that the Arthashastra had two major
objectives:
i. to discover the ways through which a ruler is able to

protect his domain;
ii. to discover the ways through which he is able to add
new territories to his domain.
For the first objective, Kautilya discusses, in his work, the

basis of state administration, and for the second objective, he
explains in detail the foreign policy of the state in relation to
other states. Thus, the two objectives constitute the whole
range of the state’s activities. That is why Kautilya views his
Arthashastra as “the science of statecraft, of politics, and of
administration.”
(7
Kautilya
“A good wife is one who serves her husband in the

morning like a mother does, loves him in the day like
a sister does, and pleases him like a prostitute in the
night.”
“A man is great by deeds, not by birth.”
e “A person should not be too honest. Straight trees are
cut first.”
“As soon as the fear approaches near, attack and
destroy it.”
“Do not reveal what you have thought upon doing,
keep it secret so as to carry it out into execution.”
“Even if a snake is not poisonous, it should pretend to
be venomous.”
“The biggest guru-mantra is: never share your secrets
with any body. It will destroy you.”
e “The world’s biggest power is the power of youth, and
the beauty of a woman.”
\ J
The state, for Kautilya, is people organised with the king

exercising full authority over his subjects; above him, being
only the divine power. It is a kingdom in which all lead a
disciplined life. There is the king, who is wise and virtuous.
There are the officials who advise the king in his
administration, every official performing his duties honestly.
There are the people, as subjects, who demonstrate their
loyalty to the king—for them, the king and the kingdom are
the same; the king personifying the domain of the kingdom.
The security of the kingdom and its protection constitute what
may be called the king’s dharma. The king is himself under
the law, which he is supposed to obey himself. He is a public
servant, for, as Kautilya says, “In the happiness of his
subjects lies the King’s happiness, in their welfare, his
welfare. He shall not consider as good only that which
pleases him but treat as beneficial to him whatever pleases
his subjects.” The state is kingdom; it is monarchical in form.”
There is a contractual reference to the origin of the
kingship, though not of the state. The authority of the king
finds justification on the ground that it is the consequence of a
contract. R.S. Sharma writes, “.overtaken by a state of
anarchy, the people elected Manu Vaivasvata as their king
and undertook to pay 1/6th of their grain, and 1/10¢ of their
articles of merchandise, in addition to a portion of their gold.”
In return for these taxes, Sharma continues, “the king
guaranteed social welfare to the people by undertaking to
suppress acts of mischief, afflicting the guilty with taxes and
coercion.” For Kautilya, the kingship originated as a result of
the contract; the king came to overtake anarchy; he came to
give people protection; he came to provide people their
welfare. On their part, the people agreed to pay taxes; they
agreed to burden themselves with the expenses of their ruler
so as to enable him to maintain his officers and army as well
as the police. They agreed to pay full regard to their king. The
contractual nature of the authority, as propounded by
Kautilya, was two-fold—the king and the people agreeing to
certain conditions; the king was powerful, but powerful within
limits; the people admitted the king’s authority, but the
admission was to their welfare; the king had possessed
powers, powers because he was to perform certain duties;
the people had duties, but duties because they had a regard
for his authority. The Kautilyan king possessed power like that
of the Hobbesian Leviathan, but he was one whose powers
were limited like that of the Lockean state.
The contractual references in Kautilya did contain the
anarchical situation, a situation of the state of nature before
the contract was concluded. But such a state appeared to be
Lockean rather than Hobbesian. It was a situation where
there was society, though there was no authority to ensure its
application; there were moral values, though there was none
to enact it. The contract was concluded so as to create a
situation of security, protection, welfare, and dharma. That
was what John Locke was to argue for in the late 17th century
England.
The Kautilyan state had, thus, certain features:
(a) the kingdom is presided over by the king around
whom revolve all powers;
(b) the king’s powers are absolute but are exercised
within the limits of the Dharma;
(c) the king rules to enable him to safeguard and
protect his subjects;
(d) the king rules to promote the happiness and
welfare of his subjects.
Seven Elements of State

The Kautilyan state has seven elements. Kautilya is known
for his Saptang theory of the state. These elements are:
(a) Svami—Literally svami means the master, the lord.
But as an element of the state, it refers to the
headship in both monarchies and republics, the raja
for monarchical systems, and the vairajya for the
non-monarchical systems. As head, he enjoys an
exalted position with all state powers vested in him.
As head, he has to have certain qualities, such as,
native of the territory, noble by birth, easily
accessible, truthful and pious, person of sharp
intellect, brave, and of strong mind, one who has
the virtues of inspiring confidence in others, and
one who takes prompt and quick decisions.
(b) Amatya—Amatya is usually translated as a
minister. In the Arthashastra, the amatyas
constitute “a regular cadre of service,”as R.S.
Sharma says, “from which all high officials such as
the chief priest, ministers, collectors, treasurers,
and officers engaged in civil and_ criminal
administration, officers in charge of harem, envoys,
and the superintendent of various departments are
to be recruited.” Thus, for Kautilya, amatyas
constitute the whole body of executives that
operate the laws of the State. The actual ministers’
number is very small, called as mantrins. The
amatyas are also “men of noble birth, trained in the
arts, possessing eyes, intelligence, dexterous, bold,
eloquent, persons with a ready wit, endowed with
energy and power, able to bear troubles, upright,
friendly, firmly dwelled, endowed with character,
strength, health and spirit, devoid of stiffness and
fickleness, amiable and not given to creating
animosities,"as the Arthashastra describes them.
The king’s mantrins or let us say mantris are his
advisors; the former may or may not go by their
advice. The number of the mantris is limited only to
three or four, or depending upon the needs of the
domain.
(c) Janapada—The Janapada, as another element,
refers to both the territory as well as the population.
The nature of the Janapada defined in the
Arthashastra, as R.S. Sharma explains, “indicates
territory which should have a good climate, should
provide grazable land for cattle, and should yield
grain with little labour,” and should have population
“inhabited by industrious peasants who are capable
of bearing the burden of taxes and punishments...
Finally, it should contain, Sharma_ continues,
intelligent masters and be predominantly populated
by members of the lower classes and its people
should be loyal and devoted.”
(d) Durga—The expression Durga is understood in the
sense of a fortress, and in the sense of a fortified
capital, if we include in it the sense of pura as well.
Durgavidhava and Durganivasa, the two terms
used, refer to “fortress” and the fortified capital
respectively.
(e) Kosa—Kosa, as the fifth element of the Kautilyan
state, refers to the treasure. According to Kautilya,
the treasure accumulated by righteous and
legitimate means should be under the control of the
svami, the king; filled with gold, silver, precious
jewels, and gems, the treasury should be able to
meet the strains of expenditure caused during the
times of adversity: famines, wars, floods or any
other calamity.
(f) Danda—Danda or force, in the form of army, is

another element of the state. It is sometimes
bracketed with kosa. This element, according to
Kautilya, consists of hereditary and hired, forest
and corporation soldiers comprising _ infantry,
chariots, elephants, and cavalry. He says that the
army should consist of the Kshatriyas, though
vaisas and sudras can be enlisted’ on
considerations of their numerical strength. The
army has to be equipped with weapons, and has
also to be skilled, patient, and always ready at the
call of the king.
(g) Mitra—Mitra means ally. According to Kautilya, the
ally should be hereditary, not artificial, one with
whom there is no possibility of rupture, and one
who is ready to come to help when occasion so
demands. His mandala theory clearly states the
kind of role an ally has to play. He wants to
increase the number of allies in relation to other
states.
The Kautilyan state is for the welfare of the subjects of the
king. He says, “The state exists to provide order; the order is
not merely for the sake of order, it is for the sake of
protection; protection for the sake of development; the state
exists to conserve and develop so as to distribute the social
benefits among the people.”
Role of the State

In Kautilyan terms, the role of the state relates to two main
domains:
i. Acquisition of Dominion;
ii. Preservation of Dominion.
Hence, he has to offer two distinct policies:
(a) Policy of Acquisition of Dominion

Kautilya refers to a five-fold method of achieving the policy of
acquisition of dominion. These are—by creating disaffection
among the enemy’s partisans (uprajapa); by getting rid of the
enemy through regret tactics (vogavamana); by setting spies
in the enemy’s kingdom (apasarpa); by seizing (parypasana);
and by assault (avanarda).
The policy of acquisition of dominion is supplemented by
Kautilya’s statement of the policy of pacification of the
acquired kingdom. An acquired territory, according to
Kautilya, is of three kinds:
i. Newly acquired by a king from his enemy,
ii. that which had belonged to him formerly and now has
been recovered,
iii, that which was inherited from his father.
The measures of pacification with regard to the first should

include the king’s efforts to display the enemy’s faults; to
double his merits as against those of his enemy; to do good
to the new subjects by performing his dharma and karmas; to
bestow gifts and honours; to keep his promises; to show
favour to the poor, the helpless, and the diseased; to identify
himself with his subjects.
(b) Policy of Preservation of Dominion

This can be studied under the following headings:
1. Policy of Security of the king and the Community

The king needs to be protected from princes; while the ill-
controlled should be banished or impris-oned, the self-
controlled should be appointed to the official posts. The king
needs to be protected from his own officials as well as of his
enemies through an elaborate system of spies. The king
needs to be protected against the enemy’s wiles corrupting
his loyal subjects through his policy of conciliation. He needs
to protect the dharma and the territory of the state through a
loyal and disciplined army. He needs to protect his people,
rich and poor, and those belonging to numerous varnas, living
in both rural and urban areas, from “thorns” (humans such as
violators of laws; animals, such as rats and wild animals; and
natural calamities such as floods, earthquakes, and famines).
2. Policy of Regulation
The regulative functions of the state, through the king, include
regulation of contractual relations between the employees
and the employers relating to, weights and measures, trade
and commerce, market force, social system and societal
relations, health services, and the like.
3. Financial Function
The state has certain financial functions as well. For guarding
the treasury, the king is justified in applying the use of force
and farce. The king possesses the power to tax people, ask
for peoples’ benevolences to strengthen his territory. He has
to be very careful in spending the state’s money. He has to
protect the natural resources and has to see that the state-
owned industries are carefully run.
4. Welfare Function
The state’s welfare functions include:
i. building of dams, tanks, irrigational works, opening

trade routes, developing pastures, cultivation of virgin
lands, and protection of citizens;
ii. helping the poor, the orphans, the aged, the infirm, the
helpless, the pregnant women, and the newly born
babies;
iii, health care;
iv. recreation and entertainment;
v. social insurance through strengthening the family
structure for the widows, minor kids, the aged, and the
unmarried daughters.
5. Policy of Inter-state Relation

Kautilya shows how his six-fold policy produces efforts for a
chieving a work and for securing the desired results. The six-
fold policy is: sandhi (treaty), asna (armed neutrality), vigraha
(state of hostility), yana (a position of preparedness so as to
march against the enemy), samsraya (an alliance with a
superior power), and dvadhibhava (a policy of alliance with
me and war with another).
Other Aspects of the King’s Role

Kautilya says that the successes (the siddhis) can be
achieved if the king has three powers—the power of the
king’s counsel, the power of the king’s material resources,
and the power of the king’s energy—mantrasakti (the strength
of knowledge), prabhusakti (the strength of revenue), and
utsahasakti (the prowess).
Kautilya is particular too with regard to the foreign relations
the king is supposed to undertake. He says that if the king
ignores foreign relations, he would soon become a prey to the
conspiracy hatched by other princes; he should make offence
as his best defence; he should keep increasing the number of
the other princes as his friends; he should normally adopt the
right means, but if they fail he should make use of means
such as intrigues and treachery—Sam, Dam, Dand, Bhed; he
should always dream of attaining for himself the position of a
chakravartin, the ruler of the land belonging to the south of
the Himalayas.
Kautilya seeks to make politics autonomous and practical.
He is not interested in philosophical theorising. Pragmatic as
Kautilya is, he is concerned with practical bureaucratic, and
military administration. He knows for certain that a stable
economic base, obtained through systematic taxation, and
corruption-free officials, is essential for any social order
founded on the varna system. Though he allows mobilisation
of the people belonging to different varnas, he wants the
system to stay. Though he wants dharma to reign
everywhere, he believes strongly in dandniti— penalties to be
fair and just, and proportionate to the offence committed.
Kautilya’s secularisation of political life was beyond any
doubt. He regarded religion as a useful instrument in the
service of the state, and for that matter, wanted it to be
respected. But he would not allow religion to play with the life
of the state; he would rather permit the temple money to be
used for the preservation of the state. This is where Kautilya
differs from Manu, for whom religion was an article of faith,
and would thus stand above the temporal power. This is
where Kautilya and Machiavelli come closer. Although Nehru
describes Kautilya as the Indian Machiavelli yet Machiavelli
could not reach to those details and complexities of the
administration which Kautilya expounded. Although there is a
vision of statecraft (politicking) in both, yet, Kautilya’s limited
and selfish art of administration could not touch the burning
and moving urge for patriotism of Machiavelli. Nor could
Machiavelli, on the other hand, reach the heights of urge for
Dharma, as it is evident in Kautilya.
4 '
Arthasastra
Arthasastra is an ancient treatise on economics and politics

written by Kautilya (also Chanakya) in the fourth century
BC. during the rule of the Mauryan dynasty. Although the
sanskrit word Arthasasira literally means economics, the
book devotes itself to the demands of the statecraft in an
unsettled society, describing thus the powers, duties, and
ethics of the emperors. Kautilya argues for a welfare state.
The central theme of the Arthasasira is that no kingdom
can survive without a stable economy.
(iii) Polity in Buddhist Thought

The non-Vedic Buddhist literature is available in Pali and
Sanskrit. The Vinaya Pitaka is a book of discipline and
organisation of the Buddhist monasteries. Its chapters on
Mahavagga and Cullavagga are particularly interesting. The
organisation is democratic; the decisions are taken by the
majority and after deliberations; the rules of procedure for
conducting the proceedings of the Assembly are usually
taken from the republican states of the time. The Jatakas are
stories of Buddha’s previous births. They reflect the influence
of the Lichhavi constitution (around second century BC). The
“Ambatta Sutta” of Digh Nikaya, containing the teachings of
Buddha, discusses the origin of the kingship (around third
century BC). We may refer, here, to Panini’s grammar (fifth
century BC.) and Patanjali’s commentary about the second
century BC—the first referring to contemporary republics, and
the second, to the mode of administration. The foreign
accounts given by the visiting travellers do give a picture of
polity and society during and after the days of Buddha.
A brief account of the nature of polity as is evident from the
canonical and the non-canonical works of the Buddhists can
be summed up, randomly, as under:
The Buddhist ideas of the authority and obligation of the
ruler are not as consistent as those of the brahmanical
theories. In Pali canonical and non-canonical works,
kings are presented as gods by human convention to
whom the obedience of the subject constitutes a matter
of necessity and where the kings have the duty to
provide protection. Aryasura of Jatakamala refers to the
king’s moral obligation of protection in return for the
willing obedience of his subjects, while Aryadeva in his
Chatuhsataka asserts the sovereignty of the people,
with the king serving them for wages.
. Righteousness constitutes the basic value of the
Buddhist literature. It is described as the essence of
kingship as well as the king’s policy. “This means,”
Ghoshal writes, “that the king is not only to adopt a
virtuous line of conduct after the high standard of the
Buddhist ethics, but is also to direct his principles and
policies of government towards the end of complete
happiness of his subjects.” The above conception of the
principle of righteousness in relation to kingship as
repeated in the pictures of the world-order in the
Buddhist canonical works.
There is a reference of contractual theory of kingship in
the works of the Buddhist tradition. The state is
described to have been created through a bilateral
agreement made by the people with their original ruler
for escaping from the evils of the state of nature. This is
clear from a work of the Buddhist, Aryadeva, and in the
technical work on polity called the Sukranitisara—the
former declaring the king to be a servant of the people
with his one-sixth share of revenue received as his
means of subsistence, and the latter stating the king to
have been ordained for the service of the people with
the taxes as his wages.
iv. The Buddhist literature, as is true of what Gautama
Buddha followed, conceives of politics as a dismal
science, and the antithesis of ethics. That is one reason
that the Buddhist canonical and non-canonical works
had advocated the unqualified application of the
principle of righteousness. Asvaghosha justifies the
separation of politics from ethics, and Aryasura, urging
the separation, argues that politics is dominated by the
ends of wealth.
v. Republicanism constitutes a significant feature of the
Buddhist era of ancient India. Research on the Buddhist
Pali canonical works during the 19th century confirms
the picture of widespread republicanism in ancient India
of the sixth century. T.W. Rhys Davids (Buddhist India)
points out that the Jatakas depicted a country in which
there were many clans, dominating extensive and
populous territories, who made their public decisions in
assemblies.
Though evidence for non-monarchical government goes

back to the Vedas, 12 republican politics were most common
and vigorous in the Buddhist period, 600 BC.-AD 200. At this
time, India was in the throes of urbanisation. The Pali canon
gives a picturesque description of the city of Vesali in the fifth
century BC. as possessing 7,707 storied buildings, 7,707
pinnacled buildings, 7,707 parks and lotus ponds, and a
multitude of people, including the famous courtesan,
Ambapali, whose beauty and _ artistic achievements
contributed greatly to the city’s prosperity and reputation. The
cities of Kapilavatthu and Kusavati were, likewise, full of traffic
and noise. Moving between these cities were great trading
caravans of 500 or 1000 carts — figures that convey no
precise measurement, but give a true feeling of scale.
caravans stopped for more than four months in a single place,
as they often did because of the rainy season, were
described as villages. Religion, too, was taking to the road.
The hereditary brahman who was also a householder, as in
later Vedic tradition, saw his teachings, authority, and
perquisites threatened by wandering holy men and self-
appointed teachers.
There were warlord-kings who sought to control this fluid
society, some with a measure of success. But the literature,
Pali and Sanskrit, Buddhist and brahmanical, shows that non-
monarchical forms of government were omnipresent. There
was a complex vocabulary to describe the different types of
groups that ran their own affairs. Some of these were
obviously warrior bands; others more peaceful groups with
economic goals; some religious brotherhoods. Such an
organisation, of whatever type, could be designated, almost
indifferently, as a gana or a sangha; and similar though less
important bodies were labelled with the terms sreni, puga, or
vrata. Gana and sangha, the most important of these terms,
originally meant “multitude.” By the sixth century, BC., these
words meant both a self-governing multitude, in which
decisions were made by the members working in common,
and the style of government characteristics of such groups. In
the case of the strongest of such groups, which acted as
sovereign governments, the words are best translated as
“republic.”
The Pali canonical work, and Panini’s grammar identify
numerous ganas and sanghas, some minor, and some large
and powerful. Panini says that the janapadas of those days
were based on the conquest of a given area by a warrior
people, while in some others, such peoples were subject to a
king who was of their own blood and was perhaps dependent
on their special support. Elsewhere, the janapadins ran their
affairs in a republican manner. Thus, in both kinds of state,
the government was dominated by people classified as
kshatriyas, or, as later ages would put in, members of the
warrior caste.
But in many states, perhaps most, political participation
was restricted to a subset of all the kshatriyas. One needed to
be not just a warrior but a member of a specific royal clan—
the rajanya. Evidence from a number of sources shows that
the enfranchised members of many republics, including the
Buddha’s own Sakyas and the Licchavis with whom he was
very familiar, considered themselves to be of royal descent,
even brother-kings. The term raja — which in a mon-archy
certainly meant king in a state with gana or sangha
constitution—could designate someone who held a share of
sovereignty. In such places, it seems likely that political power
was restricted to the heads of a restricted number of “royal
families” (rajakulas) among the ruling clans. The heads of
these families were consecrated as kings, and thereafter took
part in deliberations of the state. Power was held by a few
patriarchs. All this was, by our standards, undemocratic.
Depicting the democratic institutions — of the days of
Buddhist India, Panini refers to the working of the assemblies
through the process of corporate decision-making—decisions,
as the term Panini used, reached by voting, and the
completion of a quorum, working in concord; “government by
discussion” within ganas and sanghas. The Pali canonical
works also give us a detailed look at the ancient Indian
republican, its working and its political philosophy. The
Jatakas, too, tell us about it, though, in brief. By any history,
the tale of Indian republicanism, evident in the Buddhist
tradition, is necessarily a rather schematic one.
IV. SIR SYED AHMED KHAN

Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, commonly known as Sir Syed, was
born in October 1817 and died in 1898. He is rightly
described as the Indian educator, for having laid emphasis on
the education (especially Western) of the poor Muslims, a
politician of the nineteenth century, seeking a place for the
Muslim community in the British hierarchy, whom the British
had blamed for having engineered the 1857 revolt; an Islamic
reformer who, like Raja Ram Mohan Roy (1772-1833) and
Swami Dayanand Sarswati (1829-1883) wanted the socially
backward Muslim society to reform itself. Born as Syed
Ahmed Khan Bahadur, in a noble family that migrated from
Herat in Afghanistan during the reign of the Mughal emperor,
(though some other account describes the family as having
come from Arabia). The family’s closeness with the Mughal
administration was a fact beyond any doubt. He was born ata
time when the rebellious governors of numerous Mughal
regions and the ever-growing power of the British colonialism
were threatening Mughal sovereignty. However, he along with
his brother, was raised in accordance with the Mughal noble
traditions, as also exposed to politics. His mother disciplined
him with a strong emphasis on education, especially Islamic.
He studied Persian, Arabic, Urdu, and other subjects
including mathematics, astronomy, and Islamic jurisprudence
and was active in Mughal court culture activities. He also
knew swimming. He lived the life of a customary effluent
Muslim noble. Though he could join the Mughal court, Sir
Syed joined the British East India company as a serestadar,
and was promoted to the position of munshi in 1840,
continuing his work “as a jurist” in the company’s service. Sir
Syed began writing Athar Assanadid (Great Monuments) in
1842 and some works on religious and cultural subjects in
1844. Sometime around 1854, he wrote a commentary on the
Bible and argued that Christianity was close to Islam.
Acquainted with high-ranking British officials, Sir Syed
obtained close knowledge about British colonial politics during
his service at the courts. At the outbreak of the Indian
rebellion on 10 May, 1857, Sir Syed was serving as the chief
assessment officer at the court in Bijnor. Northern India
became the scene of the most intense fighting. The conflict
left large numbers of civilians dead. In 1858, he was
appointed to a high-ranking post at the court in Moradabad,
where he began working on his most famous literary work.
Publishing the booklet Asbab-e-Bhaghawath-e-Hind in 1859,
Sir Syed studied the causes of the revolt. In this, his most
famous work, he rejected the common notion that the
conspiracy was planned by Muslim elites, who were insecure
at the diminishing influence of Muslim monarchs. Sir Syed
blamed the British East India Company for its aggressive
expansion as well as the ignorance of British politicians
regarding Indian culture. However, he gained respect for
British power, which he felt would dominate India for a long
period of time. Seeking to rehabilitate Muslim political
influence, Sir Syed advised the British to appoint Muslims to
assist in administration. His other writings were Loyal
Muhammadans of India, Tabyin-ul-Kalam, and A Series of
Essays on the Life of Muhammad. These works helped
cultivate cordial relations between the British authorities and
the Muslim community.
During and after 1850, Sir Syed developed a strong
passion for education, especially western education. Despite
being a devout Muslim, he criticised the traditional dogmas
and religious orthodoxy that had kept the Muslim community
largely backward, and the British ruler suspicious of the
Muslims. He intensified his work to promote cooperation with
the British authorities, promoting royalty to the Empire. In
1859, he founded a modern school in Moradabad. He began
working on social causes, such as relief for flood-struck
people. In 1863, he established another modern school.
Upon his transfer to Aligarh in 1864, Sir Syed began
working wholeheartedly as an educator. He founded the
Scientific Society of Aligarh, the first scientific association of
its kind in India. Modelling it after the Royal Society and the
Royal Asiatic Society, Sir Syed assembled Muslim scholars
from different parts of the country. The society had annual
conferences, disbursed funds for educational causes, and
regularly published a journal on scientific subjects in English
and Urdu. Sir Syed felt that the socioeconomic future of
Muslims was threatened by their orthodox aversions to
modern science and technology. He published many writings
promoting liberal and rational interpretations of Islamic
scriptures. However, his view of Islam was rejected by the
Muslim clergy as contrary to traditional views on issues like
jihad, polygamy, and animal slaughtering.
Sir Syed Anmed Khan was a great advocate of Urdu. The
onset of the Hindi-Urdu controversy of 1857 saw the
emergence of Sir Syed as a political leader of the Muslim
community. He became a leading Muslim voice opposing the
adoption of Hindi as a second official language of the United
Provinces (now Uttar Pradesh). Sir Syed perceived Urdu as
the lingua-franca of Muslims. Having been developed by the
Muslim rulers of India, Urdu was used as a secondary
language to Persian, the official language of the Mughal
court. With the decline of the Mughal dynasty, Sir Syed
promoted the use of Urdu through his own writings. Under Sir
Syed, the Scientific Society translated Western works into
Urdu. The schools established by Sir Syed imparted
education in the Urdu medium. The demand for Hindi, led
largely by the Hindus, was to Sir Syed an erosion of the
centuries-old Muslim cultural domination of India. Testifying
before the British-appointed education commission, Sir Syed
controversially exclaimed that “Urdu was the language of
gentry and Hindi that of the vulgar.” His remarks provoked a
hostile response from Hindu leaders, who unified across the
nation to demand the recognition of Hindi. The success of the
Hindi movement led Sir Syed to further advocate Urdu as the
symbol of Muslim heritage, and as the language of all Indian
Muslims. His educational and political work grew increasingly
centered around and exclusively for Muslim interests. He also
sought to persuade the British to give Urdu extensive official
use and patronage.
On 1 April, 1869, Sir Syed travelled to England, where he
was awarded the Order of the Star of India from the British
government on 6 August. Travelling across England, he
visited its colleges and was inspired by the culture of learning
established after the Renaissance. Sir Syed returned to India
in the following year, determined to build a “Muslim
Cambridge.” Upon his return, he organised the “Committee
for the Better Diffusion and Advancement of Learning among
Muhammadans’” (Muslims) on December 26, 1870. The
Committee proposed the establishment of a college at
Aligarh. He published Talizib-al-akhlaq (Social Reformer) to
spread awareness and knowledge on modern subjects and
promote reforms in the Muslim society. In his several works,
Sir Syed sought;
i. to promote Muslim ideology so as to reconcile it with the

Western education;
ii. to argue that the holy Koran rested on the appreciation
of reason and natural law;
iii. to state clearly that scientific inquiry is important to
being a good Muslim.
Accordingly, Sir Syed laid the foundation of the

Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental School on
March 24, 1867, and raised it to college level in 1877. In
1920, the college became a university.
In 1878, Sir Syed was nominated to the Viceroy’s
Legislative Council. He testified before the education
commission to promote the establishment of more colleges
and schools across India. In the same year, Sir Syed founded
the Muhammadan_ Association to promote _ political
cooperation amongst the Indian Muslims from different parts
of the country. In 1886, he organised the All-India
Muhammadan Educational Conference in Aligarh, which
promoted his vision of modern education and political unity for
Muslims. His works made him the most prominent Muslim
politician in nineteenth century India, often influencing the
attitude of Muslims on various national issues. He supported
the efforts of Indian political leaders, Surendranath Banerjee
and Dadabhai Naoroji, to obtain representation for the Indians
in the government and civil services. In 1883, he founded the
Muhammadan Civil Service Fund Association to encourage
and support the entry of Muslim graduates into the Indian
Civil Service (ICS).
However, Sir Syed’s political views were shaped by a
strong aversion to the emerging nationalist movement, which
was, according to him, composed largely of the Hindus. Sir
Syed opposed the Indian National Congress (founded in
1885) on the grounds that it was a _Hindu-majority
organisation, calling on Muslims to stay away from it. While
fearful of the loss of Muslim political power owing to the
community’s backwardness, Sir Syed was also averse to the
prospects of democratic self-government, which would give
control of the government to the Hindu-majority population:
“At this time our nation is in a bad state with regard to
education and wealth, but God has given us the light of
religion and the Koran is present for our guidance, which has
ordained them and us to be friends. Now God has made them
rulers (the Britishers) over us. Therefore, we should cultivate
friendship with them, and should adopt that method by which
their rule may remain permanent and firm in India, and may
not pass into the hands of the Bengalis. If we join the political
movement of the Bengalis, our nation will reap a loss, for we
do not want to become subjects of the Hindus instead of the
subjects of the ‘people of the Book.”
His fierce criticism of the Congress and Indian nationalists
created a rift between the Muslims and the Hindus. At the
same time, Sir Syed sought to politically ally Muslims to the
British government. An avowed loyalist of the British Empire,
Sir Syed was nominated as a member of the Civil Service
Commission in 1887 by Lord Dufferin. In 1888, he established
the United Patriotic Association at Aligarh to promote political
cooperation with the British and Muslim participation in the
government. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan was knighted by the
British government in 1888 and in the following year, he
received an LL.D. honoris causa from the Edinburgh
University.
Sir Syed—A Great Muslim Scholar

Professor V.P. Varma describes Sir Syed as “a great
Musalman leader and the foremost man produced by the
Indian Muslim community in the nineteenth century.” By
temperament a great scholar, known to the legendary Urdu
poet Mirza Ghalib, whom he fondly called “Chacha Ghalib,”
who was about 20 years older to him. He got national fame
for his Athar Assanadid (Great Monuments), for which he was
considered a cultural scholar. His other literary works include
Jila-ul-qulub_ bi-Zikr-il Mahbub, Tuhfa-i-Hasan, Tahsil-fi-jar-e-
Sagil, Namiga dar bayan masala tasawwur-i-Shaikh, Silsilat
ul-Mulk, Asbab-e-Bhaghawath-e-Hind (The Causes of the
Indian Mutiny), Loyal Muhammadans of India, Tabyin-ul-
Kalam, A Series of Essays on the Life of Muhammad, and
Subjects Subsidiary. Apart from these, he also wrote a
commentary on the Bible and the Koran. The Athar
Assanadid (Great Monuments) documented antiquities of
Delhi dating from the medieval era. This work earned him a
high reputation. In his Jila-ul-Qulub-bi-Zikr-il-Mahbub and
Tuhfa-i-Hasan, along with the Tahsil-fi-jar-i-Saqil in 1844, he
focussed on religious and cultural subjects. In his two works,
Namiga dar bayan masala tasawwur-i-Shaikh and Silsilat ul-
Mulk, he proved his literary scholarship. In his commentary on
the Bible, the first by a Muslim, he argued that Islam was the
closest religion to Christianity, with a common lineage from
Abrahamic religions. In his Asbab-e-Bhaghawath-e-Hind in
1859, Sir Syed studied the causes of the revolt. In this, he
rejected the common notion that the conspiracy was planned
by Muslim elites, who were insecure at the diminishing
influence of Muslim monarchs. Sir Syed blamed the British
East India Company for its aggressive expansion as well as
the ignorance of British politicians regarding Indian culture.
His other writings such as Loyal Muhammadans of India,
Tabyin-ul-Kalam, A Series of Essays on the Life of
Muhammad, and Subjects Subsidiary, helped to create
cordial relations between the British authorities and the
Muslims.
Sir Syed —A Great Educationist

Sir Syed Ahmed Khan was a great educationist. He believed
that without learning English, the Indians, especially the
Muslims, could not compete in the world. He was convinced
that education, especially Western education, was a key to
progress: success is that old ABC: Ability, Breaks, and
Courage. At the foundation-laying ceremony of MAO College,
Sir Syed had said: “... from the seed which we sow today,
there may spring up a mighty tree, whose branches, like
those of the banyan of the soil, shall, in their turn strike firm
roots into the earth, and themselves send forth new and
vigorous saplings. .” In fact, since 1850, Sir Syed began
developing a strong passion for education. He thrived hard to
inject the Western style of education among the Indian
masses and worked throughout his life to achieve this goal.
He was against the traditional dogma and religious orthodoxy
that were the influential themes among the Muslims at that
time. He was criticised by many religious zealots at that time
and had even been termed as a kafir for his efforts. He
worked for the welfare of the Muslim community through
education. The importance of the knowledge of English, Sir
Syed thought, was of paramount importance. To a question,
he says, “The importance of a knowledge of English in this
country cannot be questioned. The Government has justly
rendered the possession of that knowledge indispensable to
Natives who are placed in charge of high and responsible
offices in executive and judicial administration; and the
blessings of the British rule will no doubt be increased when
Native subordinate officials who are to assist the English
officers in the work of administration are acquainted with the
English language. In the same manner, a knowledge of the
English language is essential to those who engage in trade,
or who adopt the legal or medical profession.” He was of the
opinion that religious beliefs, social customs, and poverty had
kept the Muslims away from Western learning. He was
convinced that education alone could help the Muslims shed
their backwardness. He favoured modern education; he
founded a modern madarssa in Moradabad in 1859, and
another at Ghazipur in 1863. He started a scientific society at
Aligarh, got numerous books translated into Urdu, and also
started a journal on scientific subjects in English and Urdu.
Sir Syed as a Moslem Reformer

Sir Syed Ahmed Khan was a liberal Muslim reformer. Unlike
the conservative Muslim leaders who thought of India under
the British rule as Dar-ul-Arab (the land of war), he thought
the other way, saying that India could be a Dar-ul-/slam, the
land of Islam, the land of peace, if it adopted the Western way
of education and life. In his periodical, Tahzibul Akhlaq (The
Social Reformer), he sought to engender enthusiasm for
social reforms, modern education, and general economic and
intellectual progress. He was pained to see the abject and
desolate conditions of Muslims. He wrote,”They (the Muslims)
are the influence of false and meaningless prejudices
(orthodox Muslim leaders), and do not understand their own
welfare. In addition, they are more jealous of each other and
more vindictive than the Hindus and suffer more from a sense
of false pride. They are also poorer, and for these reasons, |
fear that they may not be able to do much for themselves.” He
thus laid emphasis on the education of the Muslims. He had a
rational approach towards religion, especially the holy Koran
for which he was even criticised by his co-religionist heretics.
He urged for social reforms, as the other socio-religious
movements were seeking reforms during those days. His
educational curriculum sought to synthesise the old and the
new—the Aligarh movement was an example of his desired
schemes. He wanted to give pride of place both to secular
modern education and the Islamic theory. While asking his
co-religionists to adopt the Western ways of life, style, and
education; he wanted a separate identity of Muslim
personality in
India. For him, the Muslim personality was a cultural and
historical reality. The founding of the schools at Moradabad,
Ghazipur, and Aligarh were clearly a contribution to maintain,
retain, and strengthen Muslim personality in India. The
establishment of the Scientific Society started translation of
Western texts into Urdu, and of Urdu works into the English
language, and its objectives were to impart scientific
education among the Muslims, aimed at reforming not only
the backward Muslim community, but were also attempts to
keep up the Muslim culture, identity, and personality alive in
India. He was convinced that the socioeconomicmodern
future of the Muslims was threatened by orthodox aversions
to modern science and technology. In the face of pressures
from the orthodox Muslims, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan stopped
discussing religious subjects in public, and began focusing on
the spread of education among the Muslims so as to improve
their lot through his efforts and through the Scientific Society
he founded in 1864.
Sir Syed and his Political Ideas

Sir Syed was not, to say the least, a communalist. In his
origins and nurture, he was a conservative, to the point of
being a feudal; he was a Muslim, of upper caste with Mughal
nobility. Indeed, he was not ahead of his time, hence he
never preached a separate land for the Muslims, though he
was, to some extent behind his time, for he wanted a British-
Muslim rule in the country. And yet, Sir Syed was a liberal of
the type that any liberal Indian at that time, was. What the
other socio-religious leaders of any particular community
were asking, he was demanding the same for his community.
If Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Swami Dayanand Saraswati
were not communalists, how was Sir Syed, a communist?
The political ideas of Sir Syed can be summed up as the
following:
(a) To create an atmosphere of mutual understanding
between the British government and the Muslims.
(b) To motivate the Muslims to learn Western
education.
(c) To persuade the Muslims to abstain from agitational
politics.
The political ideas of Sir Syed were important, seen from
the times they were expressed. They may, briefly, be stated
as under:
1. Like his so-called “Chacha Ghalib” who had regarded the
1857 event “rustakheez-e-beje” (a rebellion without a
cause), Sir Syed wrote his booklet, Asbab-e-
Bhaghawath-e-Mutiny, which was translated by Colvin
and Graham in 1873, and one copy of which was sent to
the then Viceroy, and several copies of the same were
sent to England. Sir Syed was of the opinion that had
there been the association of the Indians in the English
Administration in India, the mutiny could have been
averted, an idea echoed by the early Congress leaders,
especially A. O. Hume. Sir Syed, then, wrote, “Most men
agree, | believe, that it is conducive to the welfare and
prosperity of government — indeed, it is essential to the
stability — that the people should have a voice in its
councils. It is from the voice of the people that
government can learn whether its projects are likely to be
well received. The security can never be acquired unless
the people are allowed a share in the consultation of
government. The men who have ruled India can never
forget that they were here in the position of foreigners ...
The security of government is based on the knowledge of
the governed as well as its careful observance of their
rights and privileges.”. Though among some _ other
causes; Sir Syed did include:
i. passing of certain objectionable laws by the Britishers;

ii. the Britishers’ ignorance of the desires and aspirations
of the people;
iii, the rulers’ neglect of the basic elements essential for
good governance;
iv. the army’s bad management.
2. Sir Syed did learn a lot from the 1857 event by way of his
political ideas. More than anyone else, he alone felt the
necessity of inculcating the friendship between the rulers
and the ruled, especially between the British and the
Muslims. During his visit to London in 1869, he realised
as to how education was essential for the Indians. He,
then, wrote, without flattering the English, | think that the
Indians, high and low, educated and illiterate when
contrasted with the English in education, manners, and
uprightness, were . animals. . The English have, reason
for believing us in India to be imbecile brutes.” In his
opinion, the close relationship between the English rulers
and the Muslims was important for both the communities.
In his Loyal Mohammedans of India, Sir Syed, described
by Muhammad Ali as a “loyalist of the loyalists,” sought
to argue that the Muslims were not disloyal and that there
“was no atrocity committed of which the blame was
imputed.” He endeavoured to bring closeness between
the Britishers and the Muslims. In fact, he was able to
attract a number of sincere friends, who shared his
views. Among them were men like Nawab Mohsin ul
Mulk, Nawab Vigur ul Mulk, Hali, Shibli, Nazir Ahmad,
Chirag Ali, Mohammad Hayat, and Zakaullah. Some
English professors like Bech, Morison, Raleigh, and
Arnold contributed a lot to his views. He was convinced
that the Muslims would not develop without acquiring the
knowledge of modern sciences and technology and
without their association with the English people in
general and the English rulers in India, in particular. Lest
the Muslim community got marginalised, Sir Syed
intensified his work to promote cooperation with the
British authorities. He thought that if the British were
convinced of the Muslims’ loyalty and support, the
resulting official patronage would help them overcome
their relative backwardness. His association with the
British won him the title of the Companion of the Star of
India by the English Queen herself, and he was elevated
to be called as “Sir” in 1870. In 1878, he was nominated
to the Viceroy’s Legislative Council, was knighted in
1888, and obtained an honorary degree from the
University of Edinburgh in 1889. His motivation for the
Muslims to attain Western education was, indeed,
significant.
3. Sir Syed was a nationalist, for he never thought on
communal lines. In a speech at Patna in 1883, he said, ,
Just as the high-caste Hindus came and settled down in
this land once, forgot where their earlier home was and
considered India to be their own country, the Muslims
also did exactly the same thing—they also left their
homes hundreds of years ago and they also regard this
land of India as their very own. But my Hindu brethren
and my Muslim co-religionists breathe the same air, drink
the water of the sacred Ganga and the Jamuna, eat the
products of the earth which God has given to this
country, live and die together . | say with conviction that if
we were to disregard for a moment our conception of
Godhead, then in all matters of everyday life the Hindus
and Muslims really belong to one nation . and the
progress of the country is possible only if we have a
union of hearts, mutual sympathy and love . | have
always said that our land of India is like a newly wedded
bride whose two beautiful and luminous eyes are the
Hindus and the Musalmans; if the two exist in mutual
concord the bride will remain forever resplendent and
becoming, while if they make up their mind to see in
different directions, the bride is bound to become
squinted and even partially blind.”
That Sir Syed was a nationalist of the liberal sort is evident
from the fact:
that he wanted the British rule to stay as was urged by

the moderate congressmen of 1885-1905;
. that he wanted the British to associate the Indians in the
activities of administration;
. that he wanted the British to modernise India;
that he wanted the people to attain modern Western
scientific education.
The Indians of those days sought reforms in social,
educational, and economic life, and that was what Sir Syed
had also urged for. He made the point clear in the following
words, “At this time our nation is in a bad state in regard to
education and wealth, but God has given us the light of
religion and the Koran is present for our guidance, which has
ordained them (the English) and us to be friends. Now, God
has made them rulers over us. Therefore, we should cultivate
friendship with them, and should adopt that method by which
their rule may remain permanent and firm in India, and may
not pass into the hands of the Bengalis (the early
congressmen mostly). If we join the political movement of the
Bengalis, our nation will reap a loss, for we do not want to
become subjects of the Hindus instead of the subjects of the
‘people of the Book’.
4. Sir Syed was opposed to any effort that was against
Urdu. This was so because he thought of Urdu as the
secondary language to Persian, the official language of
the Mughal court for centuries—“Urdu was the language
of the gentry’—and thought of Hindi, as the language of
the “vulgar.” That is how Sir Syed held his views.
5. Sir Syed was opposed to the Indian National Congress
founded in 1885. He regarded the congress as the
organisation of the Hindus and the Bengalis, who, he
thought, were incapable of exercising power. He
opposed the Congress because it was, according to him,
heading towards politics that moved towards agitation.
He opposed any kind of politics in India that would
disrupt harmony. Mentioning John Stuart Mill, Sir Syed
had said, “The aims and objects of the Indian National
Congress are based upon ignorance of history and
present-day realities.” “Il consider,” he wrote, “The
experiment which the Indian National Congress wants to
make is fraught with dangers and sufferings for all the
nationalities of India, especially for the Muslims.” He was
against the Indian National Congress more because of
his suspicion of the organisation than those of his ideas.
The projection of a distinct Muslim personality, like that of
any social and cultural minority, was perfect and in order.
Sir Syed’s fear of the Hindu majority domination haunted
him, though not without reasons.
In conclusion, we may say that Sir Syed was a great
educationist, a great reformer of his community, and a great
advocate of Muslim interests. In his religious ideas, he was a
liberal—one who wanted a synthesis between Islam and
Christianity. In his social ideas, he was a reformer par
excellence. In his political ideas he could hardly see beyond
the present.
Practice
Questions
1. Describe the nature of polity as is

evident from the Dharamshastras. (700-
800 words)
2. Discuss Kautliya’s Saptang theory of
the State. (700-800 words)
3. Write a detailed note on Manusmriti.
(700-800 words)
4. Highlight the characteristic features of
polity as expressed in the Buddhist
writings. (700-800 words)
5. Describe Sir Syed Ahmed Khan as an
educationist. (200 words)
6. Bring out, briefly, the political ideas of
Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. (200 words)
7. Comment on the Arthshastra tradition
and compare it with Machiavell’s realist
tradition. (2012) (700-800 words)
8. Write a note on the Buddhist tradition in
Indian political thought. (2012) (700-800
words)
9. Examine the significance of Dharma in
ancient Indian political thought. (2013)
(700-800 words)
10. Analyse as per Kautilya, the Saptang
theory of state. (2013)
11. Examine the contributions of Buddhist
tradition to Indian political thought.
(2014) (700-800 words)
12. Comment on Syed Ahmed Khan as a
modernizer. (2014) (200 words)
Indian Political Thought II:
Sri Aurobindo, M.K. Gandhi,
B.R. Ambedkar, M.N. Roy
INTRODUCTION
7 he Indian political thinkers of our times (such as M.K.
Gandhi, M.N. Roy, B.R. Ambedkar, and Sri Aurobindo)
belong to that period of nationalist struggle when our
efforts for liberation struggle had reached its climax. The
struggle had passed through its moderate period and had
entered the decisive stage of “do” or “die.” The English
colonial masters had experienced, at the global level, two
great wars and had now reached a stage when they could
hardly manage their colonies (India including) from so far a
distance. At home in India, the freedom movement, with
varying degrees of pressures, was wanting to throw off its
chains and trying to lay the foundations of the self-
government in the country.
Among the host of political leaders fighting the independence
struggle, it is important to mention a few, though the sacrifices
of numerous others can neither be denied nor ignored. These
few are Sri Aurobindo, Mahatma Gandhi, B.R. Ambedkar, and
M.N. Roy.
I. SRI AUROBINDO
(a) His life and Works

Sri Aurobindo Ghose was born in Calcutta, then the capital of
the British India, on August 15, 1872, as the third son of the
six children of Dr. Krishnadhan and Swaranlata Devi. The
word “Sri” was used as a mark of respect and formed an
integral part of his name — Sri Aurobindo.
His Life
Sri Aurobindo got his early education in a convent school and
went to England in 1879, for further schooling at Manchester
and later at St. Paul’s School at London. A scholarship helped
Sri
Aurobindo to study at King’s College, Cambridge in 1889.
He was a brilliant student who won all prizes in Greek and
Latin and also passed the first part of the classical Tripos in
the first class in 1892. As he did not report for the riding test,
Sri Aurobindo was disqualified for the civil services. He
returned to India in 1893. While in England, Sri Aurobindo
was associated with a secret society of the Indian
revolutionaries, called the “Lotus and Daggers.”
Sri Aurobindo’s career is usually divided into two periods:
e the first dating from his arrival in India and extending

until 1910, and,
e the second, when he established his ashram in
Pondicherry, then a French settlement in India; till his
death in 1950, he stayed in his Ashram.
During the first period (between 1893 and 1910), Sri
Aurobindo served the princely state of Baroda for about
thirteen years, first as a teacher of English and then as the
Vice Principal of Baroda College. During this period, he
undertook intensive self-directed research; learnt Sanskrit
and Bengali; immersed himself in the Upanishads, the
Bhagavad Gita, and the other Hindu ancient philosophical
works; and also learnt various systems of Yoga. This period is
also notable for his active involvement in the struggle for
Indian independence. The proposal set forth for the partition
of Bengal (1905), as with other leaders of the time, aggrieved
Sri Aurobindo. He studied Indian nationalism when he was at
Cambridge and his later association with the ancient Hindu
works made him understand the divinity of his country and he
began calling India as, “The Mother India”. His closeness with
the revolutionaries (while editing the newspaper Bande
Mataram), following the partition of Bengal (1905) and the
later bombing incidents got Sri Aurobindo arrested in 1908 on
the charges of sedition and terrorism. Acquitted later,
Aurobindo spent a year in jail awaiting trial. He engaged the
time fruitfully in political and spiritual affairs, which helped him
to broaden his ideas of independence and attribute the
divinity to humanity in general. After his release, he founded
two weeklies, the Dharma in Bengali, and the Karamyogin, in
English). The Ideal of Karamyogin, A System of Education
and The Art of Karamyogin, appearing as a result of his
numerous articles in The Karmayogin. In 1910, Aurobindo
retired from active politics and spent the rest of his long life,
about forty years in the Ashram until 1950, developing his
spiritual ideas through meditation. At Pondicherry, he wrote
prolifically and discussed numerous philosophical and
religious topics with his enormous number of devoted
followers. From 1914 until 1921 he published a monthly
journal, the Arya, to disseminate his ideas. With the exception
of Savitri, which he began writing in the 1890s, and
continually revising until his death, all of Sri Aurobindo’s most
important works—The Ideal of Human Unity, The Life Divine,
The Human Cycle, Essays on the Gita, The Foundations of
Indian Culture, The Future Poetry, On Yoga |, and On the
Veda—originally appeared serially in the Arya. Many of his
other writings were published after his death. In 1926, Sri
Aurobindo had another profound mystical experience—he
claimed to have had a vision of the Lord Krishna—and he
went into isolation for over a decade. However, he maintained
close contacts with his disciples through letters, many of
which were later collected and published as guides to his
system of Yoga.
His Works
Sri Aurobindo began writing at any early age, even during his
days at Manchester (1879-84). His first book, a collection of
poems, entitled Songs to Myrtill, was published in 1895.
Between 1895 and 1950, Aurobindo wrote extensively on
Yoga, culture, sociology, poetry, and plays. He has given a
new cosmology and a new metaphysics, in his Life Divine,
considered to be the philosophical masterpiece of the
twentieth century, which has_ revolutionised our very
conception of psychology, and gave it a new basis in Life
Divine and in his letters. He formulated a profoundly new
approach to sociology in his “The human cycle” and showed
through a searching analysis of past and current systems of
social and political thought. He extended the application of
this very approach to the sphere of international politics in his
book, The Idea of Human Unity. In his writings on education,
he formulated a theory that could, with some variations, be
adapted to all the nations of the world. This theory advocates
for:
e the growth of the integral consciousness in every pupil,

e bringing back the legitimate authority of spirit over
matter and he showed in his The Synthesis of Yoga
how all the systems of Yoga combine and converge on
the path to, “Supermind”. In his books, The Secret of the
Vedas, The Essays on the Gita, and writings on
Upanishads, he opened up new and epoch-making
ways of studying the ancient Indian texts, hrowing new
light on philosophy, and reducing both anthropology and
anthropomorphology to their proper place in a balanced
scheme of knowledge. He gave an illuminating
interpretation of Indian culture down the centuries in his
book, The Foundations of Indian Culture. Sri
Aurobindo’s elaborated epic, Savitri, reveals the
consummation of the many poetic styles that he
attempted in all his works. Written in nearly 24,000 lines
in blank verse, Sri Aurobindo’s Savitri has been
estimated to be the largest poem in the English
language. In The Future Poetry, Sri Aurobindo worked
out a literary theory, considered as an original
contribution to aesthetics in its concept of poetry. All
this, and his translations, letters and minor works were
compiled and published in a systematic manner after his
passing away on the December 5, 1950. A new edition
of these, in thirty volumes, was brought out on the
occasion of his birth centenary in 1972. The Swedish
Academy considered him for the nomination of the
Nobel Prize of 1950, the last year of Sri Aurobindo’s life.
(b) Sri Aurobindo’s Times

Sri Aurobindo, throughout the period between 1893 and 1910,
was a great critic of the British rule in India. His sympathies
were always with the revolutionaries; he never supported the
Indian National Congress. He himself was a_ militant
nationalist. He gave nationalism a spiritual outlook. For Sri
Aurobindo, the foreign rule was both unnatural and fatal, for in
such a case, the subject nation is always dependent and
loses its power. Conversely, self-government signifies not
only the strength of the individual but also that of the nation.
The alien government, Sri Aurobindo held the view, develops
only a few privileged, and in the process, neglects the
masses. To fight the alien rule, one has to fight the alien
institutions, the alien way of life, the alien language: nothing is
more dear than the love of the motherland.
( a
Sri Aurobindo Quotes
e “Hidden nature is secret God.”

e “India of the ages is not dead nor has she spoken her
last creative word; she lives and has still something to
do for herself and the human people.”
e “India is the meeting place of the religions and among
these Hindustan alone is by itself a vast and complex
thing ... a great diversified and yet subtly unified mass
of spiritual thought, realization and aspiration.”
e “The Gita is the greatest gospel of spiritual works ever
yet given to the race.”
e “The whole universe exists in the spirit, by the spirit,
for the spirit, all we do, think and feel is for the spirit.”
e “Everyone has in him, something divine.. The task is
to find it, develop it and use it.”
e “Even in rags, | am a god; fallen, | am divine; high |
triumph when downtrodden;long | live when slain.”
e “Then which we call the Hindu religion is really the
eternal religion because it embraces all the religions.”
X J
Sri Aurobindo, by temperament, in the early years of the

twentieth century, was a militant nationalist: “Our enemy,” he
said, “was our own crying weakness, our cowardice, our
selfishness, our hypocrisy, our purblind sentimentalism.” He
was against those who were servilly English and wanted a
new generation of those who believed in manliness and
revolution. He thought of the Congress’s aims, as mistaken
and its methods as fruitless: “We are being led if not by the
blind, but by those who are one-eyed.” For him, the Congress
was a middle-class organisation, playing with bubbles, talking
always about the blessings of the English rule. His
sympathies were with the revolutionaries. This was clearly
reflected in his follownig activities:
e In 1896, he was the president of a secret society

founded by one Thakur Saheb, a nobleman of the
Udaipur state. In 1902, he helped Jyotindranath Banerji
to organise a secret society in Calcutta. In 1903, his
radical view appeared in a book, No Compromise,
circulated secretly.
e In 1904 and 1905, he attended the annual sessions of
the Congress and found its proceedings too timid and
too uninspiring.
e In 1905, he spoke of his three types of madness in
himself:
(a) all his education, learning and wealth belongs to

God;
(b) his resolve not to repeat the name of God, but to
realise Him, face to face;
(c) India is not only a country, but is the mother: the
Mother India whose children would run to rescue
her.
The 1905 partition of Bengal gave Sri Aurobindo an
opportunity to get himself associated with the revolutionaries
more intimately—Bipin Pal in particular, with whom he worked
for his Bande Mataram—writing articles condemning the
British rule in India together with the whole process of
Westernisation. The Surat-split of Congress in 1907—was
made possible with Sri Aurobindo working for it. In 1908, he
was arrested on charges of sedition. Though acquitted, he
remained in the jail for about a year, where he found that
India’s nationalism had a spiritual purpose. The militant
nationalist as Sri Aurobindo was, he thought of the English
rule in India, standing on weak and insecure foundations, and
that the alien rule would end as soon as the Indians refuse to
cooperate with it. Sri Aurobindo, unlike the moderates before
him and Gandhiji after him, believed in harsher measures. He
wrote in The Doctrine of Passive Resistance, “Politics is the
realm of the Kshatriya and the morality of the Kshatriya ought
to govern our political action. To impose in politics the
Brahmanical duty of saintly sacrifice is to preach
Varanasankara.” For him, killing the national enemies; Sri
Aurobindo wrote in his Essay on the Gita, was “a dharma
yuddha.” However, he never preached violence. For him, the
task of national emancipation was a holy yajna. He wrote in
the Bhawani Mandir. “India cannot perish, our race cannot
become extinct, because among all the divisions of mankind,
it is to India, that is reserved the highest and the most
splendid testing...”. Though where Sri Aurobindo remained
politically active during the anti-parti tion days, he had always
a strong religious instinct which eventually overwhelmed his
political activities and set his path curved in an Ashram at
Pondicherry, which he established in 1910 and where he lived
for the rest of his life, till 1950.
Sri Aurobindo’s close spiritual collaborator was Mirra
Richard, known as “the Mother’. Born in 1878 in Paris to
Turkish and Egyptian parents, the mother was_ Sri
Aurobindo’s spiritual equal, managing the Sri Aurobindo
Ashram in 1926, when he retired into seclusion, and directed
the Ashram and the Aurovilla, till her death in November
1973. She had served as Sri Aurobindo’s successor very well
and made Pondicherry a sort of cultural exchange between
India and France, a place known for peace and progressive
harmony, above all creeds, and politics.
(c) Sri Aurobindo s Philosophy

Sri Aurobindo’s life is usually classified into two phases: the
first phase relates to his political activitism, and the second, to
spiritual activism. The first phase ran until 1910, and the
second, between 1910 and 1950. During the first phase, he
took part in active politics. When in England, Sri Aurobindo
was influenced by the Sinn Fein movement, in Ireland
spearheaded by Charles Parnell and Eamen de’Velora, and
then the resurgomento in Italy, the great movement of
unification of Italy by Mazzini and Garibaldi. He was also
influenced by the movement of the secret society called “the
Lotus and the Daggers” in Cambridge. At home, Swami
Vivekananda, Bipin Pal, Sister Nivedita (Kali The Mother)
made him a complete nationalist and a militant extremist at
that. After the partition of Bengal, Sri Aurobindo left his
Baroda job and began writing radical and revolutionary
articles in Bande Mataram and Karamyogin. He was arrested
in the Alipore Bomb Conspiracy case in 1908, and after
spending about a year in jail (when through yoga and
meditation he saw glimpses of God), he was acquitted. The
second phase of his life was in store for Sri Aurobindo in his
spiritual retreat in Pondicherry in 1910.
The first phase, particularly years between 1905 and 1910,
was a phase of Sri Aurobindo’s spiritual nationalism, while the
second, his Pondicherry Ashram phase was a phase of
spiritual evolution.
(i) Spiritual Nationalism

Sri Aurobindo’s spiritual nationalism was based on his key
concepts: Nation, for Sri Aurobindo, was not merely a political
entity, but was, in fact, and in effect, a divinity: A Bhawani
Bharati, the Mother India. Sri Aurobindo saw no greater
sacrifice than the one of total offerings to the motherland. He
saw the nation as a living goddess, a symbol of collective
inspiration and power of the Indian people. Nationalism was
another concept, characteristic of Sri Aurobindo’s thoughts.
For him nationalism was not a mere political programme, but
“a way of life, like a religion’. He wrote in an article in the
Bande Mataram (1907): “Nationalism is simply the passionate
aspiration for the realisation of the Divine Unity in the nation
in which all the components ... are yet really equally and
fundamentally equal. In the ideal of nationalism which India
will set before the world, there will be an essential equality
between man and man, between caste and caste, between
class and class.” Sri Aurobindo’s concept of nationalism, as
Professor V.P. Varma (Modern Indian Political Thought) says,
“was not narrow and fanatical but had a cosmopolitan
character. .a necessary stage in the social and political
evolution of man.” Nationalism—a holy yajana. For Sri
Aurobindo, nationalism was more than merely a political
activity; it was a holy yajana: everything that was done as an
offering to the motherland, the divinity. He thought of every
Indian to offer himself at the altar of the Mother India, always
working on the ideological concept of Poorna Swarajya, Plan
of Action: As a political theorist, Sri Aurobindo advocated a
two-pronged strategy of political action for achieving the goal.
f- Y
Sri Aurobindo on Liberty
Just as individual liberty is necessary for the richness and

variety of national development, so self-government is
necessary for its completeness and the full deployment of
national strength. If certain classes are dominant and
others depressed, the result is that the potential strength of
the depressed classes is so much valuable force lost to the
sum of national strength. The dominant classes may
undoubtedly show a splendid development and may make
the nation great and famous in history; but when all is said
the strength of the nation is then only the sum of the
strength of a few privileged classes. The great weakness of
India in the past has been the political depression and the
nullifying of the mass of the population. It was not from the
people of India that India was won by Mughul or Briton, but
from a small privileged class. On the other hand, the
strength and success of the Marathas and Sikhs in the
eighteenth century was due to the policy of Shivaji and
Guru Govind Singh which called the whole nation into the
fighting line. They failed only because the Marathas could
not preserve the cohesion which Shivaji gave to their
national strength or the Sikhs the discipline which Guru
Govind Singh gave to the Khalsa. The moment the nation
becomes politically self-conscious, the doom of the alien
predominance is sealed. The bureaucracy which rules us,
is not only foreign in origin but external to us, — it holds
and draws nourishing sustenance for itself from the subject
organism by means of tentacles and feelers thrust out from
its body thousands of miles away. Its type in natural history
is not the parasite, but the octopus. Self-government would
mean the removal of the tentacles and the cessation both
of the grip and the sustenance. Foreign rule is naturally
opposed to the development of the subject nation as a
separate organism, to the growth of its capacity for and
practice in self-government, to the development of capacity
and ambition of its individuals. To think that a foreign rule
would deliberately train us for independence or allow us to
train ourselves is to suppose a miracle in nature.
\ JS
(i) revolutionary means constituted Sri Aurobindo’s first

strategy. Sri Aurobindo was not an advocate of the
use of violence: Non-violence was not his absolute or
imperative factor. But violence was a factor, which
could not be dismissed in all cases. Sri Aurobindo
once wrote that if one’s mother is being strangled and
cannot breathe, then one is fully justified in using
force in order to break that stranglehold upon her. He
did not outrightly condemn violence, but he, at the
same time, did not dismiss it as a measure of action,
to be used if necessary.
(ii) Sri Aurobindo’s another strategy of political action was
his theory of boycott. He ad vocated economic
boycott and the correlative swadeshi, educational
boycott and the correlative national educational
system; judicial boycott and the correlate arbitration
courts; executive boycott and the correlate national
organisation of self-government; social boycott and
the correlate of emphasising unity of all sections of
society (the means which Gandhi was to use during
his own times). Sri Aurobindo’s theory of political
action may be summed as passive resistance, which
meant both boycott and swadeshi, including, in
particular, the following:
(a) Refusal to assist the government;
(b) Refusal to pay taxes to the government;
(c) Boycotting the products manufactured in the foreign
countries;
(d) Boycotting the governmental schools, colleges and
law courts;
(e) Setting up our own schools, colleges and arbitration
courts.
Sri Aurobindo s Five Dreams
(Karan Singh)
i. “a revolutionary movement which would create a free

and united India’.
ii. “the resurgence and liberation of the peoples of Asia
and her return to her great role in the progress of
human civilization”.
iii. “a world union forming the outer basis of a fairer,
brighter and nobler life for all mankind”,
iv. “the spiritual gift of India to the world”, and finally,
v. “a step in evolution which would raise man to a higher
and larger consciousness and begin the solution of
the problems which have perplexed him since he first
started to think and to dream of individual perfection
and a perfect society”.
Freedom
Sri Aurobindo always placed India’s freedom in the larger
context of the destiny of the human race. He used to say that
India has to be free so as to play its role in the emancipation
of the human race. With regard to individual’s freedom, Sri
Aurobindo advocated spiritual freedom. Freedom, for Sri
Aurobindo, the obedience to the laws of God, the laws of
dharma, the laws of disinterestedness: to perform one’s
duties, without caring for the results they have in store—that
is what Bhagwad Gita taught. Freedom is a function, but it is
a virtue as well—a virtue that takes individual to his self-
fulfilment. Freedom is constituted in the individual, a part of
his self. A nation, composed of such individuals, according to
Sri Aurobindo, is a free nation: Sri Aurobindo’s concept of
nation was the extension of individual’s consciousness; and
nation’s consciousness is one that ultimately leads to human
unity through a world union. Sri Aurobindo (The /deal of
Human Unity) writes: “The ultimate result must be the
formation of a world state and the most desirable form of it
would be a federation of free nationalities, in which all
subjection or forced inequality, and subordination of one to
another would have disappeared, and, though some might
preserve great natural influence, all would have an equal
status. A confederacy would give the greatest freedom to the
nations constituting the world-state ... A world-union of this
kind would have the greatest chances of long survival or
permanent existence.”
(ii) Spiritual Evolution

The second phase of Sri Aurobindo’s life is the period when
he stayed at Pondicherry Ashram and devoted his full time in
meditation, seeking spiritualism. During this period, he talked
about his theory of cosmo genesis — a theory of pure
consciousness. Sri Aurobindo has to say as follows:
Sri Aurobindo tells us about three billion years of pre-
biological evolution, primitive life-forms and a billion years of
biological evolution through various forms and then up
through the ascending chain when the mind begins to appear
and then, the human race begins to develop on the planet;
consciousness begins to grow gradually, towards dawn. Thus
from mineral to vegetable, from vegetable to animal, from
animal to human forms — these all develop on the planet.
With the man or the human being on the planet, there is a
being, i.e., a self-conscious being: conscious of being
conscious. With this begins a new evolutionary possibility. Sri
Aurobindo says that man is not the end product of evolutions;
he is an intermediate creature, between the animal and the
divine. Man, a conscious being, would move from human
consciousness to divine consciousness, a movement from the
mental to the super mental and from man to superman. Such
a movement has its characteristic implications which are:
4 YY
Four Seasons of Self-development: Sri Aurobindo
For all great movements, for all ideas that have a destiny
before them, there are four seasons of life-development.
This is a first season of secret or quasi-secret growth when
the world knows nothing of this momentous birth which time
has engendered, when the peoples of the earth persist in
the old order of things with the settled conviction that that
order has yet many centuries of life before it, when Krishna
is growing from infancy to youth in Gokul among the
obscure and despised and the weak ones of the earth and
Kansa knows not his enemy and, however he may be
troubled by vague apprehensions and old prophecies and
new presentiments, yet on the whole comforts himself with
the thought of his great and invincible power and his mighty
allies, and by long impunity has almost come to think
himself immortal. Then, there comes the leaping of the
great name of light, the sudden coming from Gokul to
Mathura, the amazement, alarm and fury of the doomed
powers and greatnesses, the delight of the oppressed who
waited for a deliverer, the guile and violence of the tyrant
and his frantic attempts to reverse the decrees of fate and
slay the young deity,—as if that godhead could pass from
the world with its work undone. This is the second period of
emergence, of the struggle of the idea to live, of furious
persecution, of miraculous persistence and survival, when
the old world looks with alarm and horror on this new and
portentous force, and in the midst of wild worship and
enthusiasm, of fierce hatred and frantic persecution, of
bitter denunciation and angry disparagement, assisted by
its friends, still better assisted by its foes, the new idea, fed
with the blood of its children, thriving on torture, magnified
by martyrdom, aggrandised by defeat, increases and lifts its
head higher and higher into the heavens and spreads its
arms wider and wider to embrace the earth until the world
is full of its indomitable presence and loud with the clamour
of its million voices... dominations are crushed between its
fingers, or hasten to make peace and compromise with it
that they may be allowed to live. That is its third period, the
season of triumph when the tyrant meets face to face the
man of his own blood and sprung from the seed of his own
fostering who is to destroy him, and in the moment when he
thinks to slay his enemy feels the grasp of the avenger on
his hair and the sword of doom in his heart. Last is the
season of rule and fulfillment, ... when the victorious idea
lives out its potent and unhindered existence, works its will
with a world which has become in its hands as clay in the
hands of the potter, creates what it has to create, teaches
what it has to teach, until its own time comes and with the
arrow of Age, the hunter, in its heel, it gives up its body and
returns to the great source of all power and energy from
which it came.
Previously the evolution (mineral to vegetable, then to
animal) was a sort of natural instinctive evolution, a
blind one; now the evolution is consciousness;
. Previously the plants or the animals had no role to play
in the evolution; now, human beings, conscious as they
are, play a definite role: they cooperate with the
evolutionary process;
Previously the evolutionary process took billions of
years which period now is reduced to a shorter time
span; and
Previously, there was hardly any method to help the
consciousness-free entities to move forward. Now, the
human beings, with the strength of the “integral yoga”
as possessed by them, can move forward, to the
divinity.
Sri Aurobindo developed and perfected what he called the

integral yoga which helps enable men to move from the
present fractured, fragmented and disoriented state of
people’s consciousness into higher consciousness. Dr Karan
Singh explains Sri Aurobindo’s concept of integral yoga in the
following words:
“The psychic being, in some way, would be what in
traditional Hindu thought would be the atman, the divinity
within us. Sri Aurobindo has analysed the physical dimension,
the psychological dimension which he calls a vital, emotional
dimension, and then the other deeper dimen-sions of the
human body. His integral yoga brings together the four
traditional yogas of Hindu philosophy and religious striving:
the Jnana yoga (the way of wisdom), the Bhakti yoga (the
way of devotion), the Karma yoga (the way of words) and the
Raj yoga (the way of spiritual practices), and inner
development. Sri Aurobindo brings these together in an
extraordinary way and is able, therefore, to put before us the
integral yoga with all its difficulties. He has never
underestimated the difficulties involved. He talks about the
negative, hostile and dark forces that are constantly trying to
obstruct the descent of the light. And yet he has ultimately
overcome it.
“Three movements in his yoga can be identified. The first
would be an entire surrender of all the elements of life, to a
total and integral surrender to the divine; not only a
psychological surrender, but a physical, emotional and a
psychic surrender. Second, an ascent of consciousness to
the supramental realm; the absorption of the light and the
power of the supramental. Third, the return to earth with the
light of the supramental. This is really where Sri Aurobindo’s
teachings are different from most other traditional teachings.
The concept of rising into higher levels of consciousness and
going out in ecstasy is well established in Vedanta; it is not
new. In fact, that is the goal of Vedanta, of spiritual striving, to
join the atman and the Brahman just as the dew drop slips
into the shining sea to become one with the ocean of light.
But it is important to remember and this is a key concept of
Sri Aurobindo that his goal was not individual salvation. His
goal was not even a collective salvation; it was nothing short
of a divination of matter, a transmutation of terrestrial
consciousness.”
(d) Conclusion
Sri Aurobindo can be rightly called one of the greatest political
thinkers of our times. Indeed, he had no love for westernised
thought, or in its way of life. His nationalism was spiritual,
religious at that. Though, he was not opposed to acquiring
new tools for the advancement of knowledge, he was not in
favour of sacrificing tradition for science. In India, Sri
Aurobindo declared (The Holy Divine), “even science had to
breathe the religious spirit.”
ll. M.K. GANDHI
(a) Mahatma Gandhi: His Times and His Works

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948) was one of the
greatest sons of India, respectfully called Bapu, the Father of
the Nation. His greatest strength in politics was his power to
convince others, especially his opponents. No other person
was as friendly with the adversaries as he was; no other
person could win his enemies so easily as he could. With his
weapons of non-violence and within his objectives of truth, he
fought the mighty British Empire.
Gandhi was born on October 2, 1869 in an average family,
and in an obscure town (Porbandar) in Kathiawad. He was
the sixth child and the youngest of all in the family. His father
was 48 and mother in her early twenties when Gandhi was
born. His father had studied till about three classes, but rose
to become a Diwan in a small state of Gujarat province. His
mother was illiterate.
Gandhi was very shy and timid in his childhood. He was an
average student. At the age of 13, he was married to
Kasturba. The early marriage did affect his studies, but he
was soon able to catch up. He was the first in his family to
have passed the tenth class. Though he failed poorly in the
college, he sought to go to England for his law degree. The
money for his England education was made available after
selling a part of the family land and the permission to go
abroad was given by his mother after he promised not to
touch meat, women and wine. He left India in September
1888 when he was 18. After three years, in 1891, he came
back to India with the Barrister’s title. In 1893, at the age of
23, he went to South Africa to help contest a case. He was to
stay in South Africa for a year or so, but spent about 22 years
there. Gandhi returned to India as a great champion of social
equality and equipped with his techniques of satyagraha and
non-violence.
Between 1915 and 1948, Gandhi worked in India for the
country’s freedom. He was much more than the liberator of
his country. As a nationalist, Gandhi was no less a patriot like
Washington, Mazzini, and Sun Yat-Sen, but his achievements
went far beyond independence. He stood for truth, humanity,
and world peace. In many respects, he was a citizen of the
world. Though born a Hindu, Gandhi was, in more than one
ways, a member of humanity. Though he was a politician, he
was, in fact, a saintly person.
Gandhi was a leader—he made the Congress movement
as the nationalist movement; he turned the national
movement of India into a mass movement. Millions of his
countrymen stood behind him while his political opponents
confronted him. With each movement that he launched, from
the Champaran satyagraha (1917) to the Civil Disobedience
movement (1930-34) and the initiation of the Quit India
movement (1942), Gandhi rose as a taller leader, the tallest
of all.
Gandhi, though claimed to have no “ism”, was one who had
“Gandhism”, for he had said himself, “Gandhi can die, but
Gandhism can never.” Gandhi was more than Plato and
Aristotle, he was a Socrates; he was more than Mill and Marx,
he was a great humanist like Buddha. He had, in him, the
mixture of so many ideologies: he was an individualist among
the socialists, a socialist among the individualists; a Marxist
among the socialists, and a socialist among the
Marxists. He was a great champion of the poor, the lowly,
the outcasts, the weak; he was a great advocate of unity—
social or political. He was a great man, the greatest among
the great, the parallel of him is born after ages. It is a matter
of pride for those Indians who lived during the age of Gandhi.
A fanatic Hindu assassinated Gandhi on January 30, 1948.
Nehru had said, then, “The light has gone out of our lives and
there is darkness everywhere”; “a pillar of strength and a
source of inspiration to the nation,” as Sardar Patel had
described Gandhi.
It is said that during his lifetime, Gandhi wrote about 10
million words. That means that he wrote about 500 words
everyday over a period of about 50 years. More than half of
that writing went into the editorials of his newspapers. A
person, who writes so much on moral, political, economic,
social, and religious matters, is bound to develop an
extraordinary character.
Gandhi’s works included An Autobiography or The Story of
My Experiments with Truth, Nonviolence in Peace and War,
Non-violent Satyagraha, Satyagraha, Young India. The
papers he edited were the Harijan, and the Young India. His
writings and speeches, in Gandhiana, run into about 125
volumes.
Gandhi was influenced by his family, especially by his
mother. Gokhale was his political Guru;
B. G. Tilak also influenced him. Tolstoy (Glimpses in Belief,
What to Do? The Kingdom of God is Within You), Ruskin
(Unto This Last), and Thoreau (Essay: “Civil Disobedience”)
too influenced Gandhi.
Gandhi was a saint and a revolutionary, saint in so far as
he stood for spiritualisation of all aspects of individual life; a
revolutionary in so far as he worked through satya and non-
violence. In his political ideas, Gandhi advocated a morally-
based and ethically-oriented politics, a decentralised polity
starting from individual onward, a duty-based scheme of
rights, a state with minimum functions; in his economic ideas,
he was for trusteeship, swadeshi, socialism where the basic
needs of human beings are taken care of, and an economy
which is self-reliant, with its direction toward growth. In his
social ideas, he was for a well-knit society with unity made up
of diversities. In his technique, he was for techniques such as
satyagraha and non-violence.
(b) Gandhi: Political Ideas
(1) Gandhi on Religion and Politics

As himself, Gandhi was a religious man, he regarded religion
as a purely personal matter. He says, “Religion is a personal
matter, and if we succeed in confining it to the personal plane,
all would be well in our political life.” Religion with him was
another name of truth and righteousness. Gandhi once said:
“Let me explain what | mean by religion. It is not the Hindu
religion which | certainly prize above all other religions, but
the religion which transcends Hinduism, which changes one’s
very nature, which binds one indissolubly to the truth within,
and which ever purifies. It is the permanent element in human
nature which counts no cost too great in order to find full
expression and which leaves the soul utterly restless until it
has found itself, known its maker and appreciated the true
correspondence between the Maker and itself’. His attitude
towards religion is characterised by:
(a) that all religions are true;
(b) that all religions have some error in them;
(c) that all religions aim at fellowship.
To quote Gandhiji, “Religion does not mean sectarianism. It
means a belief in ordered moral government of the universe.
It is not less real because it is unseen. This religion
transcends
Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, etc. It does not supersede
them. It harmonises them and gives them reality.” There was
hardly any difference between religion and morality for
Gandhi. There is, for Gandhi, no such thing as religion
overriding morality, or morality overriding religion. He was
convinced that man cannot be untruthful, and cruel, and yet
claim to have God on his side. He said, “I reject any religious
doctrine that does not appeal to reason and is in conflict with
morality. | tolerate unreasonable religious sentiment when it is
not immoral.”
Politics, for Gandhiji, was but a part of man’s life — one
that encircles men like the coil of a snake from which one
cannot get out, no matter how much one tries. Though he
thought that an increase in the power of the state did the
greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality which lay
at the root of all progress yet he viewed political power as a
means that enabled people to better their conditions in every
department of life. He wrote, “my work of social reform was in
no way less or subordinate to political work. The fact is, that
when | saw that to a certain extent my social work would be
impossible without the help of political work, | took to the latter
and only to the extent that it helped the former.” Political life is
not stranger to other aspects of life. He used to say, “My life is
one indivisible whole, and all my activities run into one
another, and they all have their rise in my insatiable love of
mankind.” Political activity of man is closely associated with
other activities of man and all these activities, according to
Gandhiji, influence each other. That is why he never
separated politics from other walks of life. What he hated in
politics was the concentration of power and the use of
violence associated with political power. He said, “The
individual has a soul, but the State is a soulless machine, it
can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very
existence.—What | would personally prefer, would be, not a
centralisation of power in the hands of the State but an
extension of the sense of trusteeship;...”
“According to Gandhi, politics, and for that matter, the state
is a means and not an end which helps individual lead a
better life. An ideal state or an ideal political life is, he used to
say, one when men rule themselves. He would go to the
extent of saying that in an ideal state, there is no place for the
state, or the state, there, has the most minimum place: that
government is the best which governs the least or, say, does
not govern at all; borrowing these words taken from Thoreau
(1817-62, an American, Weldon or Life in the Woods) also an
essay on “Civil Disobedience”). In fact, Gandhi was deeply a
religious man” my bent of mind is not political, but religious’;
“Most religious men | have met are politicians in disguise; |,
however, who wear the guise of a politician, and at heart, a
religious man;“—at the back of every word that | have uttered
since | have known what public life, is, and of every act that |
have done, there has been a religious consciousness and a
downright religious motive”; “For me, politics bereft of religion
is absolute dirt, ever to be shunned”, ... Those who say that
religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what
religion really means.”
It is a fast that Gandhi’s whole political philosophy was but
a corollary to his religious and moral philosophy. Gandhi
attempted to apply moral and ethical truths to the facts of
social and political life. Participation in politics was, to him, an
unavoidable evil, and yet he tried to introduce religion into
politics. “To talk of leaving religion for politics,” Glyn Richards
(The Philosophy of Gandhi) “or politics for religion was
incomprehensible to him (Gandhi), for he conceived of every
activity as determined or governed by one’s religious outlook.”
Gandhi thought that religion-oriented politics serves humanity
and such a politics helps men lead a better life: the more
purified a political activity, the more would it serve the people.
(—
Gandhi Quotes
e “A coward is incapable of exhibiting love; it is the

prerogative of the brave.”
e “A man is but the product of his thoughts: what he
thinks, he becomes.”
e “A nation’s culture resides in the hearts and in the
soul of its people.”
e “All the religions of the world, while they may differ in
other respects, unitedly proclaim that nothing lives in
this world but Truth.”
e “An eye for an eye ends up making the whole world
blind.”
“Capital as such is not evil; it is its wrong use that is
evil.”
“First they (who practise and preach violence) ignore
you, then they laught at you, then they fight you, then
you win.”
“For me, every ruler is alien that defies public
Opinion.”
“Freedom is never costly at any price. It is the breath
of life. What would a man not pay for living.”
“lam prepared to die, but there is no cause for which
| am prepared to kill.”
“| object to violence because when it appears to do
good, the good is only temporary, the evil it does is
permanent.”
“If | had no sense of honour, | would long ago have
committed suicide.”
“Morality is the basis of all things, and truth is the
substance of all morality.”
“Non-violence requires a double faith, faith in God
and also faith in man.”
e “Poverty is the worst form of violence.”
e “The essence of religion is one. Only their
approaches are different.”
(2) Swaraj, Democracy, Freedom
The concept of Swaraj got developed during the struggle for
India’s liberation. In his book, Hind Swaraj (1909), Gandhi
used the word “swaraj” to mean much more than “simply
wanting the English rule without the Englishmen, the tiger’s
nature but not the tiger.” He was of the opinion that the
English rule, in its institutions relating to politics, economy,
bureaucracy, legal system, military arrangement, and
educational scheme, were inherently unjust, exploitative, and
alienating. Swaraj, for Gandhi, included much more than the
country’s independence. Gandhi thought of Swaraj as two-
dimensional:
i. it implied self-rule for India as an independent nation;

ii. it implied self-rule for the individual.
The first, he used to say, was to be the natural outcome of

the second.
With regard to the first, Gandhi wrote: “..... The
independence (for India) should be political, economic, and
moral. ‘Political’ meant the removal of the control of the British
army in every shape and in every form. ‘Economic’ meant
entire freedom from the British capitalists and the British
capital, as also their Indian counterparts. In other words, the
humblest must feel equal to the tallest.. ‘Moral’ meant
freedom from armed defence forces.”.
Thus, political swaraj means self-government, and not good
government. For Gandhi, good government is no substitute
for self-government. What swaraj, in the sense of self-rule,
means is that people participate in the formation, and
functioning of the government; it means continuous efforts to
be independent of governmental control, whether foreign
government or national government; it means a power with
the individual to improve their lot, a power through which
people make their destiny, a power to combat a corrupt polity,
a power that controls absolute authority.
Independence involved more than just the expulsion of
British political and economic institutions from India. Gandhi
expressed this when he said that “swaraj means not mere
political awakening, but an all-round awakening—social,
educational, moral, economic, and political.” Gandhi declared
that the English would leave India “only when we reform
ourselves.” Independence from the British rule would come
only when individual Indians uprooted British culture from
themselves and their communities. Essentially, swaraj was “a
movement of self-purification,” for the Indian people. Gandhi
stated, “If we become free, India is free. It is swaraj when we
learn to rule ourselves.”
There is, therefore, swaraj at the individual level. On this
level, the call for swaraj represents a genuine attempt to
regain control of the “self—our self-respect, self-
responsibility, and capacities for self-realisation—from
institutions of dehumanisation. As Gandhi states, “It is swaraj
when we learn to rule ourselves.” The real goal of the
freedom struggle was not only to secure political
independence from Britain, but rather to give true swaraj
(liberation and self-rule). Gandhi writes, “At the individual
level, swaraj is vitally connected with the capacity for
dispassionate self-assessment, ceaseless _self-purification,
and growing swadeshi or self-reliance.” Swaraj is the
sovereignty of the people based on pure moral authority. For
Gandhi, swaraj of the people means the sum total of the
swaraj of individuals and so he clarified that for him, swaraj
means freedom for the meanest of his countrymen. And in its
fullest sense, swaraj is much more than freedom from all
restraints; it is self-rule, self-restraint, and could be equated
with moksha or salvation. Swaraj, for Gandhi, was economic
independence.
To sum up, we may say that Gandhi’s concept of swaraj, in
his use of the word with regard to national movement, means
independence of India from the British rule. But in his use of
the word as a political concept, it is more than mere
independence of the country; it is the power to rule one self,
to form one’s government, to support the government if it
works for the people and oppose if it abuses the trust posed
in it by the people, to resist the authority if it violates its
mandate. And in yet another sense, swaraj is related to the
individual, in that it raises individual’s capacity to rise above
all temptations, each performing his duty to the service of all
mankind, cultivating, as Gandhi had said, “the spirit of
service, renunciation, truth, non-violence, — self-restraint,
patience.”
For Gandhi, not only was the concept of Swaraj important
but also the fact that it was to be realised through mass
education where there is complete elimination of all forms of
domination, oppression, segregation, and _ discrimination.
Swaraj exists where there is no centralisation of power, or the
centralised state. Relationwise, concept means relatedness;
structurally, it means the existence of Ramrajya while in terms
of economy, it means self-reliance whereas in terms of
society, a system sans all discrimination and all distinctions.
Swaraj is sarvodaya: welfare of each with all, of all with each.
In fact, swaraj is the culmination of Swadeshi, (in the sense
that it seeks self-reliance in economy) and Sarvodaya (in the
sense that it seeks welfare of all with the welfare of each, and
of each with the welfare of all). Indeed, swaraj, in Gandhian
scheme, means, Swadeshi, i. e. indigenous. Swadeshi may
be described as something rooted in one’s immediate
surroundings. As the whole universe, each nation in the
universe and each region in the nation are linked, the correct
mode of relating is to remain related to one’s immediate
surroundings. As Gandhi has said about Swadeshi — “..that
spirit in us which restricts us to the use and service of our
immediate surroundings, to the exclusion of the more remote.
| restrict myself to my ancestral religion; if defective, | purge it
from within. In politics, | use the indigenous institutions, if
defective, | improve upon them; in economics, | use the
immediate surroundings.”
Swaraj, as total freedom, is a true homecoming. Swaraj
also means sarvodaya: the welfare of all. Gandhi's social
theory envisages well-being for all, well-being that is oriented
to self-realisation of one and all. In this new society, economic
relations are not controlled by market-forces, but by social
affections. Political economy gives way to “affective
economy”; a mother, though hungry, may go starving in order
to feed her son. Accordingly, Gandhi argued that affective
resources could enter into all economic equations, and
produce the maximum. If the spirit of the worker is brought to
its greatest strength by the motivating forces of affection, it
can produce more labour, with stable wages and constancy of
numbers in employment, functions in terms of service, not in
terms of profit, the wages being a necessary adjunct, not the
object of life.
In the construction of a civil society, Gandhi introduces the
quest for liberation or self-realisation as the basic component.
Search for liberation gives all the members a transcendent
reference point and enables them to revitalise everything
else, and, at the same time, to be related to one another on a
basis that is above themselves. By introducing a transcendent
referentiality in the construction of civil society, Gandhi
visualises a civil society that is eco-friendly and theandric, not
narrowly anthropocentric. It gives civil society a primordial
character. At the individual level, swaraj is selfless and self-
disciplined individual: selfless, fearless, and self-suffering. It
has its meaning stretched to the domains of individual,
economy, politics, and to those aspects which relate to life.
Swaraj was, for him, both a means as well as an end; as an
end, it was Truth; as a means, it was the principle of non-
violence. It was freedom, inner freedom; it was what came
from one’s inner voice.
Democracy, indeed, is a government based on the consent
of the people; it is not a gift that comes to the people from
above, it is a gift that comes from within. Democracy is not
the exercise of one’s voting power, holding any political office
or exercising the power of the government; it is, Gandhi
insists, when the people are able to develop their inner
freedom which is the capacity to regulate and control one’s
desires/impulses in the light of reason—freedom rises from
the individual and rests with the individual. This does not
mean, as Gandhi argues, that freedom is something isolated,
and confined to the individual self. Gandhi submits individual
freedom to social restraints. Individual’s state is not the state
of the western type—one that is force personified, one that
has no soul, and one that is powerfully centralized. His state
is one that is described as Ramrajya, not one as the kingdom
of God, but the one of truth and righteousness, the one where
the meanest citizen is sure of swift justice, and the one which
ensures equal rights alike of prince and pauper. According to
him, society with true swaraj would have a relatively weak
central government but a strong base of nearly self-sufficient
and self-governing villages containing independent and well-
educated individuals. All adults in such a society would elect
a small body (panchayat) to deal with disputes and crime, and
also relevant political and economic matters. Villages would
be grouped into districts, districts into provinces, provinces
into states and each of these would be administered by
representatives elected from its constituent units and not
directly by the whole electorate. To a great extent, Gandhi
was not only in favour of democracy, but also one who urged
for the democratisation of all institutions through the dispersal
of power. The chief features of democracy which Gandhi
envisaged included:
(a) decentralisation and devolution of power;
(b) equal rights, justice, freedom and opportunities for
all by the same token;
(c) non-violence and non-coercion;
(d) secular system;
(e) self-governing cooperative federalism;
(f) grassroots self-governance; and
(g) balancing political authority and moral power.
What he thought as undemocratic was the concentration of
powers, both political and economic. He wanted the political
and economic power to be shared at all levels, from
panchayats to the national ones. Gandhi wrote: “Democracy
must in essence ... mean the art and science of mobilising the
entire physical, economic, and spiritual resources of all the
various sections of the people in the service of the common
good of all.” Gandhi's concept of Ramrajya was a kingdom of
perfect happiness or a state of bliss for everyone with all
types of freedom, rights, and self-governance based on the
principles of justice, equality, and truth—to some extent, a
system of enlightened anarchy and one that Gandhi would
like to have it. Gandhi was an anarchist, but minus violence.
(3) State and Power

The State as it existed in the West, represented for Gandhi,
power and force concentrated in an organised form,
something that has only a body and has no soul at all. It is, for
Gandhi, violence personified. Capitalistic as it is, the state, in
the West, has emerged as an organisation to protect
capitalism and its institutions, and as such protects the
property and possession of the people— maintenance of
what may be called as the social order. Gandhi writes: “The
democracies (i.e. the states) . that we see at work in England,
America, and France are not only so-called (democracies),
because they are no less based on violence than Nazi
Germany, Fascist Italy, or even Soviet Russia. The only
difference is that the violence of the last three (Germany, Italy
and Russia) is much better organised than that of three
democratic powers (England, America and France).” In a
system that existed in the West, there is, Gandhi used to say,
political power with the people, no doubt, but they have no
swaraj. Gandhi was, therefore, against the centralisation of
power in the hands of the state and that is one reason that he
suggested minimum state ownership. He looked upon an
increase of the power of the state with great fear, for it, he
thought, destroyed both individuality and the mankind.
Gandhi does advocate, in a democracy, a state of his own
thinking. Like the Marxian state, the state would, in Gandhi’s
view of democratic system, wither away as a system which
exercises as a machinery of and power broker; but unlike the
Marxian state, it would work as a welfare institution. Gandhi,
unlike Marx, does not advocate the “end” of the state, but
wanted to reform the state. Gandhi’s model of the state was
the Keynesian one where the role of the state would be that
of a friend, philosopher, and guide with respect to the
maximisation of social welfare. In the matter of governing
power, Gandhi advocated the state that governed the least.
The state’s power turns from violence to service: it keeps
delegating and devoluting at all those levels, which matter in
the field of administration, starting from bottom to the top—
from the individual to the state, nay the world system.
(4) Satya, Satyagraha, and Non-Violence

For Gandhi, power was always moral power and from the
concept of moral power, Gandhi obtained his unflinching faith
in truth and non-violence which, according to him, were
superior to any other power. Truth, for Gandhi, was the
essence of all types of morality: it is what the inner self
experiences at a given point of time; it is an answer to one’s
conscience—what responds to one’s moral self. Gandhi’s
concept of satyagraha was related to his notion of truth. It
means “urge for truth.” In “non-violent Resistance,” Gandhi
says about satyagraha “Its root meaning is holding on to truth,
hence truth-force. | have also called it Love-force or Soul-
force.” Gandhi advocated “self-suffering” as a means of
protest against wrong. If your opponents’ actions were wrong,
Gandhi felt that they could be made to amend their wrong
practices through acts of love and non-violence.
“Gandhi had immense faith in satyagraha as unfailing moral
power. He observed that ‘whatever is needful and can be
gained by political power can perhaps be more quickly and
more certainly gained by satyagraha’. The power of the state
should be used for human development and welfare rather
than for coercion and exploitation. As the politico-economic
power of the state needs to be decentralised for the
betterment of the society and any policy that achieves this
objective without violence can be considered as a good
policy. In Gandhi, one can find a combination between the
political power of the state and the moral dictates of universal
natural religion. In the extreme case of an ideal democracy,
there would be no repository of power and authority, except
the people.” (Baidyanath Ghosh).
For Gandhi, power is a means and that it need not be an
end, a means to serve the people ; the power must belong to
the whole people, and should always maximise the welfare of
the people.
Gandhi's satya and satyagraha were related to his concept
of non-violence. Non-violence, in the negative sense means
“no injury either in words or deeds” and in positive sense, it
means “love for others’—maximum convenience to others at
the cost of maximum inconveniences to oneself. To quote
Gandhi, “Literally speaking, Ahimsa means “non-violence.”
But to me, it has much higher, infinitely higher meaning. It
means that you may not offend anybody; you may not
harbour uncharitable thought, even in connection with those
whom you consider your enemies. To one who follows this
doctrine, there are no enemies. If you express your love
—Ahimsa—in such a manner that it impresses itself indelibly
upon the so-called enemy, he must return that love. This
doctrine tells us that we may guard the honour of those under
our charge by delivering our own lives into the hands of the
man who would commit the sacrilege. And that requires far
greater courage than delivering of blows.” He used to say: “I
have no doubt whatsoever that if non-violence, in its full
measure, becomes the policy of the state, we shall reach
essential equality without strife.”
For Gandhi, the non-violence of the brave was the highest
kind of non-violence, for he/she would have force, but would
not use it; then there is non-violence of the common man,
who would use it to extract his/her objectives; non-violence of
the coward, which is the lowest type of non-violence—non-
violence of the impotent person: Gandhi prefers violence to
impotency.
There is a relationship between Gandhi's concepts of
satya, satyagraha, and non-violence. For Gandhi, truth is the
basic religion; it is God, and, therefore, it alone exists for it is
always true regardless of time, place, and circumstances,
beyond any change and the fluctuations of time. For Gandhi,
truth is the attribute of the soul, and satyagraha is nothing but
the soul-force or holding on to the truth. Satyagraha is not
merely opposing the government, it is opposing what is evil; it
is more than passive resistance; it is a moral force of the
brave; it is what strengthens the self rather than insults or
belittles the opponent (which passive resistance does).
Gandhi makes a distinction between passive resistance and
satyagraha.
i. Passive resistance is not completely wedded to non-

violence. It may use violence, if the circumstances
demand so, while satyagraha does not recognise the
use of force at all. While this may be true in theory, it
needs to be remembered that Gandhi himself claimed
that under certain extreme circumstances, force might
be used to resist force. Physical force, he says, is better
than moral cowardice.
ii. Passive resistance may mean the use of compulsion in
the case of the person against whom it is directed, while
satyagraha believes in the infliction of sufferings on
oneself. In practice, however, satyagraha may mean a
subtle form of coercion.
iii, More than passive resistance, satyagraha aims at the
change of heart of the opponent.
iv. Passive resistance may be motivated by jealousy, while
satyagraha is governed by the principles of love and
charity.
v. Passive resistance is negative and is the instrument of
the weak, whereas satyagraha is positive and is a
weapon of the strong.
Gandhi was convinced that one can reach the end of truth
through the means of non-violence—the end can be achieved
through the means.
(5) Theory of Ends and Means

One of the important principles of Gandhism is his Theory of
Ends and Means. Gandhi, unlike Machiavelli, believed in the
essential unity between ends and means. To quote him:
“Means and end are convertible terms in my philosophy of
life,”. He also said, “They say ‘means are after all means.’ |
would say ‘means are after all everything.’ As the means so
the end, there is no wall of separation between means and
ends. Indeed, the Creator has given us control (and that too
very limited) over means, none over the end. Realisation of
the goal is in exact proportion to that of the means. This is a
proposition that admits of no exception.” “The means may be
likened to a seed, the end to a tree; and there is just the same
inviolable connection between the means and the ends as
there is between the seed and the tree.” “If one takes care of
the means, the end will take care of itself.” “Impure means
result in impure ends. One cannot reach truth by
untruthfulness. Truthful conduct alone can reach Truth. Are
not Non-violence and Truth twins?”
Between ends and means, Gandhi always chose means —
it is means which make ends as real ends; it is through
means that one reaches ends, for as are the means, so are
the ends; we have control over means, and not ends; it is
through the means of non-violence that we are able to attain
the truth, the ends.
Inspired by the Gita, Gandhi upheld what he called
Atmashakti (inner power). One need not perform one’s duty in
expectation of the reward, but one should perform duty for the
sake of duty. One should concentrate on the performance of
one’s duties and rights, Gandhi used to say, would
automatically follow—“You take care of the means, and leave
the rest to Him”. Again, he says, “I know if we can take care
of them (the means), attainment of the goal is assured. | feel
too that our progress towards the goals will be in exact
proportion to the purity of our means.”
(6) Political Reforms

Gandhi was well aware of the alien rule and the diverse
society India then had. That was why he had numerous social
and political reforms to suggest. However, he did ask for four
criteria:
(a) participation of certain sections of people or classes
in the reform activities purely on voluntary and
optional basis;
(b) holistic reforms in the sense that they bring about
the welfare of the masses, particularly that of the
depressed sections of society;
(c) reforms to be based on ethical and moralistic
principles;
(d) reforms to be gradual, non-violent, and non-
coercive.
Gandhi’s reforms were to work at three levels: individual,
institutional, and policy. At the individual level, Gandhi urged
the people to take part in activities (including political) so as to
gain public welfare—“My bent of mind is not political but
religious, and | take part in politics because | feel that there is
no department of life which can be divorced from religion, and
because politics touches the vital being of India almost every
point.”
At the individual level, Gandhi's reforms were basically
confined to make people strong with soul-force and aware of
their rights and duties, and if need be, to launch satyagraha
against unjust laws and policies. But in every case, truth and
non-violence will have to be the guiding principles not only for
individuals but for institutional changes and _ policy
implementation. At the institutional and policy levels, Gandhi
suggested democratic values and welfare programmes so as
to make the society as dynamic as possible. Some of his
reforms may be summed up as under:
i. There has to be non-violent political system together

with a non-violent police system.
ii. Prisons need to be organised in such a way that the
criminals are given opportunities to reform themselves.
iii. The state needs to be secular and tolerant of all the
religions and faith.
iv. The right type of balanced education among the people
be spread, so that there is respect for every human
being (women in particular) and there is progressive
decline of inequality, exploitation, and injustice everyday
that passes on.
v. Gandhi suggests a state as an institution of the people,
a society as a symbol of unity and a community of
common living.
(7) Gandhian Economics

Gandhi’s economics had certain features such as:
the economy has to work towards equality and non-

exploitation;
. itneeds to be consistent with full employment;
. itneeds to provide low-priced consumer goods;
all those industries with sophisticated technology be in
non-private sectors;
there should not be mass production without mass
distribution.
In fact, equality and social justice dominated in his economic

thought:
economic policies to be pursued on a need-base and

not want-base;
. irrational desires to be controlled;
iii. labour-intensive technologies to be preferred to capital-
intensive ones.
Gandhi's economics resolved around certain criteria:
i. poverty to be eradicated and affluence to be minimised;

ii. self-sufficiency to be achieved in basic needs;
iii. human needs to be fulfilled;
iv. economy agro-based—small-scale and village
industries to be promoted;
V. need-based production through small scale units;
Vi. economic power to be decentralised or curtailed.
Gandhi: A Pre-modernist
M.N. Roy once described Gandhi as a medieval type of

thinker. Dr. Radhakrishnan also spoke of Gandhi having a
“medieval attitude of mind.” Though the former struck on
Gandhi as such, the latter found that he was mistaken
about Gandhi. The statement that Gandhi was a pre-
modernist has some element of truth: “... in order to restore
India to its pristine condition, we have to return to it’:
pristine means moving towards village community—village
people whose wisdom he found boundless, in whom he
had all faith, and for whom he always sought what he called
the village republicanism. He was opposed to modern
technology, mechanised industry, centralised bureaucratic
administration, the rule of science. This is his pre-
modernism like his belief in the Hindu traditions — a worthy
life is one of truth and virtue, and not of wealth and power.
pin
\ J
Gandhi was a great champion of swadeshi. For Gandhi,

Swadeshi meant “a spirit” in us which restricts us to the use
and service of our immediate surroundings to the exclusion of
more remote—in economics, it means the use of goods and
services available around us; in politics, it means the use of
indigenous institutions (e.g. panchayats); in religion, it means
the use of native tradition, rituals, folkways, ways of life.
According to the principle of swadeshi, whatever is made or
produced locally, must be used first and foremost locally—
trading among the villages, and between villages and towns
be minimal. Similarly, services should also be used locally.
Swadeshi, therefore, is self-reliance and avoidance of
economic dependence and of market forces. Among the
villages, towns, cities, states and countries, economy would,
Gandhi says, have a place, but it would not dominate society.
Economics, like politics, he would affirm, should be means to
the fulfillment of cultural, spiritual, and thought ends. It should
serve mankind, and should not dictate it. Likewise, Gandhi
never thought of machine civilisation as a true civilisation; it is
a civilisation where a worker is a conveyor belt, where an
animal is cruelly treated, where an economic activity
devastates economy—tt is difficult to call it a civilisation. Such
machine civilisations make citizens neurotics; natural world, a
desert; cities, concrete jungles. Swadeshi, by nature, is not
destructive, it is non-violent.
( Y
Gandhi: A Modernist
Gandhi's experiments with truth are distinctively modernist.

His faith in individual and individualisation is characterically
modernist: “if individual ceases to count, what is left of
society?” Gandhi's conception of religion can be called
modernised. Religion, for Gandhi, was not any particular
religion; it was the totality of all religions, the totality of
morality and ethics, the totality of truth, the totality of all
basic principles of humanity, humanness: “religion is the
search for truth”. Truth, for Gandhi was not only religion,
but it was God for him. Gandhi, as a modernist, had
secularised both religion and God.
Gandhi's theory of trusteeship was an answer to the evils of
the capitalists. Under trusteeship, every one, including the
present owner of the factory, would work and get, in return,
the wages while the entire profit goes to the factory and
becomes, thus, the social profit.
Gandhi's concept of trusteeship is based on the first verse
of the Upanishada, according to which one is asked to
dedicate everything to God, and then use it only to the
required extent. Gandhi used to say that all property is God’s
property and that we use it to the extent we require.
Accordingly, for Gandhi, all property is a trust, and people
hold it as its trustee—we can increase it, but we can not steal
it; we can use it, but we cannot destroy it; we cannot own it
because it does not belong to us. Gandhi was convinced, in
his theory of trusteeship, that everything belongs to God, and
comes to us from God. Thus, what comes from God was for
the people as a whole, and not for any particular individual. If
an individual has more than his share, the “more” that he
possesses is with him as a trust and he is a trustee of the
“more” that he has. If all the people accept this principle,
trusteeship becomes a legalised institution and, to that extent,
trusteeship as an economic category comes to be closely
related to morality. Gandhi saw in the concept of trusteeship a
solution to the capital-labour conflict. Professor Jeevan
Kumar (Economy and Society:The Gandhian Perspective)
formulates the Gandhian concept of trusteeship as under:
(7
Gandhi: A Post-modernist
Post-modernism is adoption or adaptation of western

developmental models to indigenous systems. It may be
described as the synthesis of the old and new which is
qualitatively newer from the old and the new. It is, in fact,
reconstruction of the self. Gandhi may be described as a
post-modernist in the sense that he was a passionate lover
of individuality: individual to be individual at all cost: “I value
individual freedom, but you must not forget that man is
essentially a social being”. A social being is more important
than the freedom he has: if the social being is lost, what
use is there of the liberty he has. Everything that destroys
is not post-modernism, and everything that preserves is not
modernism. Gandhi's pacificism is post-modernism. His
love for peace and non-violence was _ post-modernism.
Again, his fusion of means and ends, of inner and outer, of
religion and politics are distinctively post-modernism in the
constructive sense.
i. Trusteeship provides a means of transforming the

present capitalist order into an egalitarian one.
ii. It does not recognise any right of private ownership of
property, except so far as it may be permitted by society
for its own welfare.
iii. It does not exclude legislation of the ownership and use
of wealth.
iv. Under State-regulated Trusteeship, an individual will not
be free to hold or use his wealth for selfish satisfaction,
in disregard of the interests of society.
v. Just as in the case of a decent minimum living wage, a
limit should be fixed for the maximum income that would
be allowed to any person in society. The difference
between such minimum and maximum incomes should
be reasonable and equitable and variable from time to
time, so much so that the tendency should be towards
the obliteration of the difference.
vi. Under such an economic order, the character of
production will be determined by social necessity and
not by personal greed.
Gandhi is not without his limitations, he did not rise above

his ruralised views; he never accepted capitalism, nor what is
called modernised economy. He provided gospels without
providing either the infrastructure or the strategy—his
decentralised plan was infeasible; his Ramrajya was nothing
less than utopian. And yet no one denies Gandhi's greatness.
Bhikhu Parekh sums up Gandhi very beautifully, “His
(Gandhi’s) uncompromising commitments to truth and justice,
his courage to write the script of his life himself, his relentless
search for coherence and wholeness, his total lack of fear, his
constant experiments with the possibilities of human
existence, and so on are lasting sources of inspiration. As
Gandhi said in 1937, ‘My writings should be cremated with my
body. What | have done will endure, not what | have said or
written.’ His life is surely his greatest legacy.”
lll B.R. AMBEDKAR
(a) B.R. Ambedkar:The Man, His Times, His Works

There are evils such as slavery, apartheid, caste system,
gender bias, and the like which are creations of possessive
people. There are evils which are man-made—created by
man for the exploitation of man. Those who raise their voice
against such evils and give a relentless fight against them go
down in history as immortal personalities. Among these
personalities, mention can be made of Buddha, Jesus Christ,
Guru Nanak and in our days, Dr. Bhimrao Ramjee Ambedkar.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, a great crusader of social justice, was
born on April 14, 1891 in an “untouchable” Mahar family in
Mhow Cantt in Madhya Pradesh as the fourteenth child of his
parents. His father, Ramji, and, grandfather, Maloji were in
the British army and the government of those days required
all army personnel and their children to be educated. Thus,
the Ambedkar family was able to ensure that its children
receive a good education. When Bhim was six years old, his
mother died, and he was brought up by his father’s sister
Meerabai until Ramji remarried. His father was a strict, pious
man, and avoided meat and drink. Along with his children, he
often sang devotional songs composed by Namdev,
Tukaram, Moropant, and Mukteshwar, and read stories from
the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. When he retired from
the army as a Subedar-Major of the Second Grenadiers after
14 years of service, the family moved to Dapoli in Konkan and
then to Satara. Bhim and his elder brother Anand were
enrolled in the Cantonment school—Government High
School.
Despite the opportunity that education permitted, Bhim
began to taste the bitter reality of his birth. He had to sit on
the floor in one corner in the classroom. Teachers would not
touch his notebooks. If Bhim felt thirsty, he could only drink
water if someone else poured water into his mouth. Once
provoked by an uncontrollable thirst, Bhim drank from the
public reservoir. He was found out and beaten by the higher
caste Hindus. These experiences were permanently etched
onto his mind. He realised that this was the fate of everyone
who was born as an “untouchable”.
In the year 1908, young Bhimrao passed the Matriculation
examination from Bombay University with flying colours. Four
years later he graduated in Political Science and Economics
from Bombay University and got a job in Baroda. Around the
same time his father passed away. Although he was going
through a bad time, Bhimrao decided to accept the
opportunity to go to USA for further studies at Columbia
University for which he was awarded a scholarship by
Maharaja of Baroda. Bhimrao remained abroad from 1913 to
1917 and again from 1920 to 1923.
During this period, he established himself as an eminent
intellectual. Columbia University awarded him a Ph.D. for his
thesis, which was later published as a book under the title
The Evolution of Provincial Finance in British India. But his
first published article was “Castes in India— Their
Mechanism, Genesis, and Development.” During his sojourn
in London from 1920 to 1923, he also completed his thesis
titled “The Problem of the Rupee” for which he was awarded
the degree of D.Sc. Before his departure for London, he
taught at a College in Bombay and also brought out Marathi
weekly whose title was “Mook Nayak” (meaning “Dumb
Hero’).
By the time he returned to India in April 1923, Dr. Bhimrao
Ambedkar equipped himself fully to wage war against the
practice of untouchability on behalf of untouchables and
downtroddens. Meanwhile, the political situation in India
underwent substantial changes and the freedom struggle in
the country made significant progress.
While Bhimrao was an ardent patriot on the one hand, he
was the saviour of the oppressed, women, and the poor, on
the other. He fought for them throughout his life. In 1923, he
set up the Bahishkrit Hitkarini Sabha (Outcastes Welfare
Association), which was devoted to spreading education and
culture amongst the downtroddens, improving their economic
status, and raising matters concerning their problems in the
proper forums to focus attention on them and finding solutions
to the same.
The problems of the downtroddens were centuries old and
difficult to overcome. Their entry into temples was forbidden.
They could not draw water from public wells and ponds. Their
admission to schools was prohibited. In 1927, he led the
Mahad March at the Chawdar Tank at Colaba, near Bombay,
to give the untouchables the right to draw water from the
public tank where he burnt copies of the Manusmriti publicly.
This marked the beginning of the anti-caste and anti-priest
movement. The temple entry movement launched by Dr.
Ambedkar in 1930 at Kalaram temple, Nasik is another
landmark in the struggle for human rights and social justice.
In the meantime, Ramsay McDonald announced the
“Communal Award” as a result of which several communities,
including the “depressed classes”, were given the right to
have separate electorates. This was part of the overall design
of the British to divide and rule. Gandhi wanted to defeat this
design and went on a fast unto death to oppose it. On
September 24, 1932, Dr. Ambedkar and Gandhi reached an
understanding, which became the famous Poona Pact.
According to this Pact, in addition to the agreement on
electoral constituencies, reservations were provided for the
untouchables in Government jobs and legislative assemblies.
The provision of separate electorate was dispensed with. The
Pact carved out a clear and definite position for the
downtroddens on the political scene of the country. It opened
up opportunities of education and government service for
them and also gave them a right to vote.
Dr. Ambedkar attended all the three Round Table
Conferences in London and each time, forcefully projected his
views in the interest of the “untouchables”. He exhorted the
downtrodden sections to raise their living standards and to
acquire as much political power as possible. He was of the
view that there was no future for the untouchables in the
Hindu religion and they should change their religion if need
be. In 1935, he publicly proclaimed, “I was born a Hindu
because | had no control over this but I shall not die a Hindu.”
After a while, Dr. Ambedkar, organised the Independent
Labour Party, participated in the provincial elections, and was
elected to the Bombay Legislative Assembly. During these
days, he stressed the need for abolition of the “Jagirdari”
system and, pleaded for workers.
In 1947, when India became independent, the first Prime
Minister Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, invited Dr. Ambedkar, who had
been elected as a member of the Constituent Assembly from
Bengal, to join his Cabinet as a Law Minister. Dr. Ambedkar
had differences of opinion with the government over the
Hindu Code Bill, which led to his resignation as the Law
Minister. The Constituent Assembly entrusted the job of
drafting the Constitution to a committee and Dr. Ambedkar
was elected as Chairman of this Drafting Committee.
In the beginning of 1948, Dr. Ambedkar completed the draft
of the Constitution and presented it to the Constituent
Assembly. In November 1949, this draft was adopted with few
amendments. Many provisions have been made in the
Constitution to ensure social justice for scheduled castes,
scheduled tribes, and the backward classes. Ambedkar laid
special emphasis on dignity, unity, freedom, and rights for all
the citizens as enshrined in the Constitution. He advocated
democracy in every field—social economic, and political. For
him social justice meant maximum happiness to the
maximum number of the people.
On May 24, 1956, on the occasion of Buddha Jayanti, he
declared in Bombay that he would adopt Buddhism in
October. On October 14, 1956, he embraced Buddhism along
with many of his followers.
Dr. Ambedkar’s patriotism started with the upliftment of the
downtroddens and the poor. He fought for their equality and
rights. His ideas about patriotism were not only confined to
the abolition of colonialism, but also addressed the issue of
freedom for every individual. For him freedom without equality
as well as democracy and equality without freedom could
lead to absolute dictatorship.
Dr. Ambedkar died on December 6, 1956. In 1990, he was
bestowed with Bharat Ratna, and the year 1990-91 was
observed as the “Year of Social Justice” in India in the
memory of Dr. Ambedkar.
Dr. Ambedkar’s works, among others, include Annihilation
of Caste (1935); Federation vs. Free-dom (1939); Mr. Gandhi
and the Emancipation of the Untouchables (1942); Ranade,
Gandhi, and Jinnah (1943); What Congress and Gandhi have
done to the Untouchables (1945); Who Were the Shudras?
(1945); The Untouchables (1948); Buddha and His Dhamma
(1957).
(b) Ambedkar: Prophet of Social Justice
Lalit Mansingh, the High Commissioner for India in Britain
said, “Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was seen to be a man of the stature
of Mahatma Gandhi and a great man of India. He has been
influenced by history: he studied Thomas Jefferson’s 1776
US Bill of Rights and the events of the 1789 French
Revolution ... Dr. Ambedkar realised that the Indian
Constitution must incorporate the four elements: equality,
liberty, fraternity, and justice. But above all, he knew the
absolute necessity of social justice . His status was equal to
that of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. 250 million people look upon
Ambedkar as a shining light. He was a great democrat, a
great patriot, and a great man of his people.” Vijay Chintaman
Sonawane writes, “Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar was truly a
multifaceted personality. A veritable emancipator of Dalits, a
great national leader and a patriot, a great author, a great
educationist, a great political philosopher, a great religious
guide, and above all a great humanist without any parallel
among his contemporaries.”
Dr. Ambedkar was a saviour of the downtroddens. His
views with regard to social justice stem from his
understanding of the Indian society based on caste system
leading to the plight of the Dalits.
4 Pa
Dr. Ambedkar Quotes
e “Every man who repeats the dogma of Mill that one

country is no fit to rule another country must admit
that a class is not fit to rule another class.”
e “For a successful revolution, it is not enough that
there is discontent. What is required is a profound
and thorough conviction of justice, necessity and
importance of political and social rights.”
“History shows that where ethics and economics
come in conflict, victory is always with economics.
Vested interests have never been known to have
willingly divested themselves unless there was
sufficient force to compel them.”
“In Hinduism, conscience, reason and independent
thinking have no scope for development.”
“Indians today are governed by different ideologies.
Their political ideal set in the Preamble of the
Constitution affirms a life of liberty, equality and
fraternity. Their social ideal embodied in their religion
denies them.”
“| was born a Hindu because | had no control over
this, but | shall not die a Hindu.”
“A great man is different from an eminent one in that
he is ready to be the servant of the society.”
“It was not enough that India should get Swaray, it
was more important in whose hands the Swaraj would
be.”
“On 26th January, 1950, we are going to enter into a
life of contradictions. In politics, we will have equality
and in social and economic rights, we will have
inequality .. We must remove this contradiction or
else who suffer from this inequality will blow up the
structure...”
“If | find the Constitution being misused, | shall be the
first to burn it.”
“Equality may be a fiction but nonetheless one must
accept it as governing principle.”
“Majorities are of two sorts: (i) communal majority and
(ii) political majority. A political majority is changeable
in its class composition. A political majority grows. A
communal majority is born. The admission to a
political majority is open. The door in a communal
majority is closed. The politics of a political majority
are free to all to make and unmake. The politics of
communal majority are made by its own members
born in it”.
(1) Opposed to Caste System

Dr. Ambedkar was of the opinion that the Caste system of the
Hindu society ultimately led to inequality. Caste system
breeds inequality and inequality leads to the exploitation of
the shudras. Emerging from the Varna system and from the
Hindu scripts—the Manusmriti, the Bhagwada Gita, the
Ramayana—the Mahabharata, caste system created the
caste ladder, indulgedin high-handedness towards the
shudras, and forced them to live as untouchables and
outcastes.
Dr. Ambedkar was opposed to all that which perpetuated
caste system. That was why he strongly felt that the end of
the Varna system would only help reform the Indian society.
That was why he condemned the Manusmriti, making a
bonfire of it in September 1927 at Mahad. That was why he
opposed the nasty caste system and pointed out all its evils
including:
1. It has been responsible for the decline and downfall of
the Hindu society.
2. The Varna system, dividing the Hindu society into four
classes, has led them into four castes with the
Brahman’s exploiting all the other classes.
3. Inequality, based on the division of society into four
separate and rigid sections, is unscientific and illogical.
4. The worst oppression falls on the shudras, denying them
benefits of education and life chances by the upper
classes.
5. Inequality, based on caste system, opposes all principles
of liberty, justice, and brotherhood.
Dr. Ambedkar wrote, “The caste difference has destroyed
the Hindu Vansha. It drew out the Hindu society into deep
darkness, and it has made the society powerless and weak
one.”
(2) Perpetuation of Untouchability

Caste system is the sole factor that perpetuates
untouchability. Dr. Ambedkar said, “The root cause of
untouchability lies in caste system. In a message to the first
issue of the Harijjan weekly, he had pointed out, “.The
outcaste is a by-product of the caste system. There will be
outcastes so long as there are castes and nothing can
emancipate outcaste except the destruction of the caste
system.” He rose as the leader of the untouchables—for
those who had no right to pull water from the well; for those
who had no right to enter the temple; for those who had no
right to get education; and for those who had no socio-
political rights. His Bahishkrit Hitkarini Sabha of 1924 had
aims such as:
1. to establish hostels for the spread of education for the
downtroddens;
2. to start reading for cultural development;
3. to open industrial and agricultural schools for economic
development;
4. to start movement for eradicating untouchability;
5. to remove bad traditions of higher classes.
Dr. Ambedkar led a movement of about 500 untouchables
to use the water of Chawdar tank in Mahad village in March
1927. Addressing the untouchables, he remarked, “You have
to establish your right. If you do not do so, then there will be
no difference between you and the cattle.” And at another
place, he said, “My final word of advice to you is: educate,
agitate, and organise; have faith in yourself. With justice on
our side, | do not see how we can lose our battle. For, our
battle is a battle not for wealth or for power. It is a battle for
freedom. It is a battle for the reclamation of the human
personality.” He wanted the untouchables to rise and abolish
their slavery. He said, “You must abolish your slavery
yourself. Do not depend for its abolition upon God or a
superman.” He was sorry to note that despite all efforts to
abolish it, untouchability remains and so remain the
untouchables. To quote Dr. Ambedkar, “There have been
many Mahatmas in India whose sole object was to remove
untouchability, and to evaluate and absorb the depressed
classes, but everyone has failed in their mission. Mahatmas
have come, Mahatmas have gone, but the untouchables have
remained as untouchables.” The loss of the untouchables has
been, Dr. Ambedkar would say, the gain of other classes. So
he said, “What you have lost, others have gained. Your
humiliations are a matter of pride for others. You are made to
suffer wants, privations, and humiliations, not because it was
pre-ordained by the sins committed in your previous birth, but
because of the overpowering tyranny and treachery of those
who are above you. You have no lands because others have
usurped them; you have no posts because others have
monopolised them. Do not believe in fate; believe in your
strength.”
(3) Women’s Rights and Human Rights

In his political ideas, Dr. Ambedkar stood for equality—social,
economic, and political; he stood for justice:—social,
economic, and political. He remarked, “Justice has always
evoked ideas of equality, of proportion, of compensation.
Equity signifies equality. Rules and regulations, right and
righteousness are concerned with equality in value. If all men
are equal, then all men are of the same essence, and the
common essence entitles them to the same fundamental
rights and equal liberty... In short, justice is another name of
liberty, equality, and fraternity.”
It is, in this spirit, that he wanted rights for women,
especially the protection of their rights. His sponsored Hindu
Code Bill, which was “killed, buried, unwept and unsung” as
he had remarked, had the following points, favouring the
womenfolk:
i. abolition of the doctrine of rights of birth;

ii, women’s absolute rights over property;
iii. a share in the property to the daughter;
iv. provision for divorce.
He was of the view that a society which did not give due
respect and due rights to women was a society most
traditional, most backward, and most undemocratic. For him,
“Democracy is not a form of government, but is a form of
social organisation.” Again, he says, “It (democracy) is
primarily a mode of associated living.. It is essentially an
attitude of respect and reverence towards our fellow men,
especially women. For him, democracy is incompatible and
inconsistent with isolation and exclusiveness resulting in the
distinction between the privileged and unprivileged.
Dr. Ambedkar was a great advocate of rights—human
rights at that. He thought of the state as an institution which
maintains, as Laski also had once said, rights:
i. the right of every person to life, liberty, and pursuit of

happiness;
ii. the right of every class, the depressed class especially,
to have social, economic, and political equality;
iii. the right of everyone to enjoy freedom from want and
freedom from fear.
To him, true freedom was not a mere political freedom, but

it was also social, economic, intellectual, and spiritual. He
said, “Freedom of mind is the real freedom. A person whose
mind is not free though he may not be in chains, is a slave,
not a free man. One whose mind is not free, though he may
not be in prison, is a prisoner and not a free man. One whose
mind is not free, though alive, is not better than dead.
Freedom of mind is the proof of one’s existence.”
Rights to be protected must have an atmosphere of the rule
of law. It is law that helps maintain peace and social justice; it
is law that is guardian of liberty and equality. Dr. Ambedkar
was convinced that law has not created man, but man has
“created law for his own happiness, emphasising that law
must be social and human, should discriminate between the
wolf and the sheep, should protect the sheep against the wolf.
“This is what lies behind the ideas of “protective
discrimination.”
Rights to be protected must have remedies. Unless the
rights are legally protected, they have no meaning at all.
According to him, “Rights are real only if they are
accompanied by remedies. It is no use giving rights if the
aggrieved person has no legal remedy to which he can resort
to when his rights are invaded.” In the absence of legal
remedies, one should not expect rights being protected,
especially from usurpers. In such cases, victims are always
the poor, the downtroddens, for goats as Dr. Ambedkar said,
“are offered for sacrificial offerings and not lions.” He was
keen that the individuals need to be free from the shackles of
old dogmas and rituals. To quote him, “Make every man and
woman free from the thraldome of the shastras, cleanse their
minds of the pernicious notion founded on the shastras.” An
ideal society, for him, was one that is based on equality,
liberty, justice, and fraternity.
(4) Justice for All

Dr. Ambedkar argued for giving justice to all, especially to
those who have been denied justice for centuries; right done
for those wrongs, is justice. This was the spirit behind Dr.
Ambedkar’s concept of justice. His concept of social justice
advocated a social system which is based on right relations
between man and man; between class and class. According
to him, “the strength of a society depends upon the presence
of points of contacts, possibilities of interaction between
different groups that exist in it.” There is what Carlyle calls
“organic filaments’, i.e., the elastic threads which help to bring
the disintegrating elements together and to reunite them. “It is
a society where there are neither the beasts of burden and
nor the beasts of prey.”
Dr. Ambedkar’s use of the term social justice is one that
advocates the organisation of society on the principles of
equality, liberty, and justice, which, in turn, necessitates the
preferential treatment for the weaker sections of society. That
is why such clauses relating to protecting discrimination were
made part of the Constitution in whose making Dr. Ambedkar
played a great role, especially in the provisions relating to the
Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State
Policy. Dr. Ambedkar entertained hatred for those who
debarred the entry of the outcastes on public platforms. He
once remarked with regard to the opening of temples for the
untouchables—“To open or not to open the temples is a
question for you to consider and not for me to agitate. If you
think it is bad manners not to believe in the sanctity of human
beings, then throw open the doors and be gentlemen, but if
you wish to remain an orthodox Hindu then shut the doors
and damn yourself, for | don’t care to come.”
Dr. Ambedkar’s concept of social justice was related to
religion, religion of his own thinking. It was not the religion of
a particular sect or community. It was the religion of humanity.
He emphasised the humanitarian approach by saying, “I tell
you, religion is for man and not man for religion. If you want to
organise, consolidate, and be successful in the world, change
this religion. The religion that does not recognise you as a
human being, give you water to drink, or allow you to enter in
temples, is not worthy to be called a religion. The religion that
forbids you to receive education and comes in the way of your
material advancement is not worthy of the ‘religion’. The
religion that does not teach its followers to show humanity in
dealing with its co-religionists is nothing but a display of a
force. The religion that teaches its followers to suffer the
touch of animals but not the touch of human being is not a
religion but is a mockery. The religion that compels the
ignorant to be ignorant and the poor to be poor is not a
religion but a visitation!” He said, “I like the religion that
teaches liberty, equality and fraternity.”
(5) Political Ideas

Dr. Ambedkar was a great champion of democracy, for
whom, democracy was more than a form of government—it
was a form of social organisation. He believed that in a
democracy, revolutionary changes in the economic and social
life of the people are brought about without bloodshed. The
conditions for that are as follows:
i. there should not be glaring inequalities in society, that

is, privileges for only one class;
ii. there should be the existence of an opposition;
iii. equality in law and administration;
iv. there should be observance of constitutional morality;
v. there should be no tyranny of the majority;
vi. there should be moral order of society; and
vii. there should be public conscience.
Addressing the Constituent Assembly, he suggested

certain devices essential to maintain democracy:
i. constitutional methods;
ii. not to lay liberties at the feet of a great man;
iii, make political democracy a social democracy.
Dr. Ambedkar firmly believed that political democracy

couldn’t succeed without social and economic democracy. In
his talk given on the Voice of America he argued that,
“Democracy could not be equated with either republic or
parliamentary form of government. The roots of democracy
lay not in the form of government, parliamentary or otherwise.
A democracy is a model of associated living. The roots of
democracy are to be searched in social relationship, in terms
of the associated life between the people who form the
society.” His sort of democracy was opposed to every type of
coercive institutional Hobbesian authority. It was a democracy
which, aS a means, would seek to achieve social and
economic ideals of society; rights without economic security
have no meaning for the have-nots. Dr. Ambedkar believed in
secularism, “The secular state would take into consideration
the religious sentiments of the people. In all that a secular
state means is that this Parliament shall not be competent to
impose any particular religion upon the rest of the people.
That is the only limitation that the Constitution recognises.”
He was for equality and freedom. In case of inequalities, he
used to say, the state intervention is a must. Right to
treatment as an equal, he affirmed, must precede the right to
equal treatment as a state policy. Equality of opportunity is a
misleading term. There should be opportunity for equality. He
emphasised on the need for liberty of movement, liberty of
speech, liberty of action, and political liberty to choose his
government for securing “unalienable rights such as life,
liberty and pursuit of happiness.” Political liberty is “really a
deduction from the principle of human personality and
equality.” Liberty and equality exist together. One without the
other is absurd. He said, “So long as you do not achieve
social liberty, whatever freedom is provided by the law is of
no avail to you.”
IV. M.N. ROY
(a) M.N. Roy: The Man, His Times, His Works

Manavendra Nath Roy (1886-1954) was born on February 6,
1886 and died on January 25, 1954. He was born as
Narendranath Bhattacharya. In his student days, Roy was a
revolutionary, and was influenced by Swami Vivekananda,
Bankim Chandra, Swami Ramtirtha, and Swami Dayanand
Saraswati while the political ideas of Bipin Chandra Pal,
Aurbindo Ghose, and Surendranath Bannerjee filled Roy with
enthusiasm. Revolutionary as Roy was, he worked with the
leaders and workers of the Yogantara group. In 1910, Roy
was sentenced to imprisonment in the Howrah Conspiracy
Case and was arrested again in connection with a political
dacoity of Calcutta. Like any youth of his days, Roy
condemned the 1905 proposal of Partition of Bengal.
In 1915, he fled to Dutch Indies and went over to Java, the
Philippines, Korea, and Manchuria. Later he went to the USA
and worked with Lala Lajpat Rai. When he was in the USA,
he read the Marxist literature. At last, he landed in Mexico
where Michael Borodin initiated a revolutionary into a Marxist.
It is said that Lenin called him to Russia in 1920 and he
became the advisor of the Bolshevik Party on colonial
problems. Roy proved himself to a Marxist activist as well as
a theoretician of the Marxist ideology. In fact, Lenin used to
describe Roy as “The Oriental Marx.” Though Roy differed
with Lenin with regard to the position of the bourgeoisie in the
colonial countries (Lenin was of the view that the working
classes in the colonial countries should join hands with the
native capitalists to fight the imperialists, Roy’s view was that
the capitalists in the colonial world would join the imperialists
to suppress the working classes), Lenin respected the views
of Roy who had stated his views in his book /ndia in
Transition (1922). He wrote in this book that the Indian
peasantry and the urban proletariat would be subjected to the
double exploitation of foreign as well as the Indian capitalists.
Towards the end of 1922, Roy published /ndia’s Problems
and Its Solution. |In this book, he criticised Gandhian
medievalism and conservatism together with the Congress’s
constructive programme adopted at Bardoli in 1922, and
pleaded for the creation of a revolutionary mass political party
through mass strike leading to mass awakening. Associating
himself with the Vanguard Party, he sent a_ different
programme to the Indian National Congress on the eve of the
Gaya session, seeking, among others, the complete
independence of India, universal suffrage, federal republic,
and a social and economic programme filled with the
communist ideology.
In 1923, Roy published One Year of Non-Cooperation in
which he praised Gandhi for
i. the use of mass action for political purpose;

ii. making the Indian National Congress as the mass
organisation;
iii. liberation of the national forces from governmental
representation; and
iv. adoption of techniques of non-cooperation, non-
payment of taxes and civil disobedience.
But he criticised Gandhi’s shortcomings which he stated as:
i. his economic programme was unable to win the mass

support;
ii. his policy to unite the landlords/capitalists (the
exploiters) and the workers/peasants was faulty;
iii. his vacillation of appeasing the viceroy by seeking
interviews with him;
iv. his reactionary economies of Charkha.
In 1926, Roy wrote The Future of Indian Politics wherein he

referred to the significance of a People’s Party, a party which
was to supplement the proletarian party—all that was
necessitated to boost the general political slump during 1925-
26.
The People’s Party, Roy thought, would bring about the
unity of the various sections of society and, in the process,
would seek transformations of the society. Roy was of the
opinion that there was a strong need of a mass-based
revolutionary party in India replacing the too-liberal Congress
and too-capitalist Swaraj Party, while the so-called Labour
Party in India represented “economism’”. Still, in 1926 or so,
Roy was a Leninist having faith in the proletarian communist
ideology seeking radical agrarian reforms in India.
In the later years of 1920s, Roy was deputed to organise
the Chinese Communist Party as a representative of the
Communist International. Though initially he succeeded but
with growing differences with the Chinese communists and
the simmering conflictual relations with Stalin (Socialism in
one country’ thesis), there was a final break between Roy and
the Communist International in 1928-29. Roy’s Russian
communism began fading and his Marxism began weakening.
However, Roy’s interest in the Indian political problem
remained active. His suggestion of a constituent assembly in
1927, though, was a premature demand before the Simon
Commission, he kept on seeking revolutionary demands,
despite the Lahore Congress’s Purna Swaraj revolution. In a
pamphlet Lesson of the Lahore Congress, he asked for
a federal responsible Indian republic;
. provincial autonomy;
i. abolition of land-lordism, and all charges on peasants;
nationalisation of mineral resources;
eight-hour working day;
. social insurance;
vil. recognition of worker’s right to strike;
viii. freedom of press and association; and
protection of minorities.
M.N. Roy Quotes
“Gandhism is a mass of platitudes and hopeless self-

contradictions.”
“Gandhism was not revolutionism but weak and
watery reformism.”
“The social basis of Gandhism is cultural
backwardness, its intellectual mainstay superstitions.
The Gandhian utopia is a static society, a state of
absolute social stagnation.”
“Radicalism is a philosophy of freedom based on
scientific knowledge.”
“Revolutionary politics must draw its inspiration from
scientific philosophy. Without that inspiration, politics
becomes the happy hunting ground for demagogues,
charlatans, and job-hunters.”
“The dialectical materialism of Marx, therefore, is
materialist only in name.”
“Radicalism need no longer sail under false colours,
either of a particular brand of nationalism or a
communism.”
“| do not believe in political horoscopes.”
In 1930, Roy came to India and was sentenced to six years’
jail in connection with the Kanpur Conspiracy Case. He was,
thus, back in the Indian political life after 21 years (15 years
the period of exile from 1915 to 1930 and six years in the
Indian Jail from 1930 to 1936). After Roy’s release in 1936,
he intensified, as a Congress member, his campaign against
Gandhism, declaring the Congress not only a bankrupt party
but also a spinner’s association. He founded a weekly
Independent India in 1937 which later on was named Radical
Humanist in 1949. In 1939, Roy organised the League of
Radical Humanist in 1949. In 1939, Roy organised the
League of Radical Congressman and _ contested the
presidentship of the Indian National Congress in 1940 but
was defeated. He left the Congress in 1940 and organised his
Radical Democratic Party, the same year, advocating his
“Twentieth Century Jacobinism”. For Roy, World War Il was
more of an international civil war than an actual war, though
he did favour the Allies. Roy condemned the fascist ideology
and also the 1942 Quit India Movement as a movement
supported by the Indian capitalists and the industrialists. Roy
was of the opinion that Gandhism suffered from the Hindu
fascist national capitalism while had found Jawaharlal Nehru
as the apologist of National Socialism.
Roy made a transition from Marxism to Radicalism (1940-
47) and from Radicalism to scientific humanism (1947-54). He
said himself in the preface to his book Scientific Politics, in
October 1947, “Seven years ago, | still spoke as an orthodox
Marxist criticising deviation from, or faulty understanding of
the pure creed. Nevertheless, the tendency to look beyond
communism was already there in a germinal form. While still
speaking in terms of class struggle, | laid emphasis on the
cohesive factor in social organisation. Already then, |
appreciated Marxism as something greater than the ideology
of a class. | understood it as the positive outcome of earlier
intellectual efforts to evolve philosophy which could
harmonise the processes of physical nature, social evolution
and the will and emotions of individual man”. The philosophy
of radicalism and scientific humanism is formulated in three
books of Roy: Scientific Politics, New Orientation, Beyond
Communism to Humanism. Roy's’ other works’ were:
Revolution and Counter-Revolution in China; Politics; Power,
and Parties, Reason; Romanticism, and Revolution;
Materialism, Science, and Superstition; The Ways of Durable
Peace; Heresies of the Twentiety Century; Fascism; The
Historical Role of Islam; Ideal of Poverty or Plenty; The
Russian Revolution.
(b) M.N. Roy: Political Ideas

Roy was one of the greatest, if not the greatest, Indian
philosophers of the twentieth century. As a youth, he was a
revolutionary; in his late twenties, he became a Marxist and a
materialist (who sought to separate philosophy from religion
and relate it with science); moving away from Marxism as he
became matured in early fifties, he became a radical
humanist. He was a great critic of Gandhi, the Indian National
Congress, and the British rule in India.
(1) The Young Revolutionary
Roy began as a revolutionary at the age of 18, around 1905,
in the wake of the Partition of Bengal. He was active in
underground revolutionary activities, joining the Anshalan
Samiti earlier and helping organise the Yugantar group. The
legendary, Indian revolutionary, Jatindranath Mukherjee,
(Begha Jatin, Roy’s first mentor; Lenin and Stalin were his
other half mentors), wanted Roy to seek arms to fight the
British for attaining India’s independence. He was arrested in
the Howrah—Sibpur Conspiracy Case (1910-11). The trial
went on for a year. Roy fled in the garb of sanyasi in 1914. In
1915, with the beginning of World War I, Roy moved out of
the country in order to obtain arms, especially from Germany.
Roy kept moving with fake passports and different names
(Charles Martin, Hari Sing, Mr. White, D. Garcia, Dr.
Mahmood, Mr. Banerjee) so as to avoid his arrest in countries
such as Indonesia, Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and the
USA where in 1915, he changed his name to Manavendra
Nath Roy. He married an American communist Evelya Trent
until they were separated in 1929. By this time, Roy realised
that revolutionary activities of collecting arms and fighting the
Britishers were of little use due to the following reasons:
i. revolutionary and terroristic activities could hardly be

organised against the mighty Britishers;
ii. it was becoming difficult to obtain arms as Germany
was not serious in giving arms;
iii. police repression had already shattered the
underground organisation, killing his mentor Jatin
Mukerjee in an encounter;
iv. social revolution was needed before the political one.
The change of name to Manavendra Nath Roy, as he

records in his Memoirs, “enabled him to turn his back on a
futile past and look forward to a new life of adventures and
achievements.”
(2) A Marxist
Roy’s journey to Mexico, his meeting with Borolin
(Comintern’s emissary in 1920, and later his visit to the Soviet
Union on Lenin’s invitation and thereafter his holding charge
of numerous offices of Comintern made him a Marxist. He
was a Marxist of the stature of Lenin until he broke with
Comintern in 1929. During his period as a Marxist intellectual,
he contributed to Marxism in numerous ways:
i. he found materialistic interpretation as an intellectual

revolution of history—the highest form of philosophy,
the store-house of human experience;
ii. he thought of the material factors as importantly
significant;
iii. he admired the objective and scientific interpretation
characteristically valuable;
iv. he regarded capitalism responsible for all inequalities,
exploitation, and injustice, considering nationalism as
one aspect of capitalism.
As a Marxist, Roy submitted his own thesis on the colonial

question which was appreciated by Lenin as well; he helped
found the Chinese communist party; he gave a Marxist
interpretation to the Indian history of his times.
(3) Humanist Critique of Marxism

By the end of 1920s, Roy’s love for Marxism faded. His
opposition to the Stalinist line and the Sovietisation of
Comintern had made Roy a critic of Marxism. From 1930
onward, Roy drifted away from Marxism. Though he began
with the idea of revising Marxism, he ended with abandoning
it. He always thought that Marx was right in emphasising the
significance of matter, but he did not accept his materialistic
interpretation of history which he thought had elements of
determinism and idealism; he thought that Marx was always
right in his idea of class struggle and the need for a
revolutionary action but he soon found that Marx’s prophecy
of a classless and stateless society was not feasible. He
always thought that Marx was right in his views on socialism
(socialisation of the means of production) but he soon found
the Soviet socialism both oppressive and tyrannical. He
always thought like Marx that the state’s power went against
individual, but soon found that it was neither diffusing nor
seemed “withering away’ in Soviet Union. Professor V.R.
Mehta, while referring to Roy’s condemnation of Marx, says,
“Marx had indeed provided a_ powerful method of
understanding societies, their power structure and the
process of change. But his very genius made a dogma out of
dialect, which Roy feared, turned into determinism and
fatalism and became an obstacle in our understanding of the
historical process.” Roy always thought that Marx was right in
emphasising the importance of matter, but he soon realised
that ideas too had their positive role in society, which Marx
had denied. According to Roy, Professor Mehta says, “ideas
have a causative force. He thought that Hegel was nearer the
truth than Karl Marx when he declared that the history of
philosophy is the history of civilisation.” The economic view of
history, Roy thought, was one aspect of history and that it
must be studied as the process of integral human evolution—
mental, intellectual, social’. Roy was opposed to the
dictatorship of the proletariat and never thought that the state
would ever “wither away”. Roy writes, “We must realise that
not only parliamentary democracy was a failure, but the
Marxist theory of democracy was fallacious, dangerously so,
“turning the dictatorship of proletariat into the dictatorship of
the communist party and eventually ended into the
dictatorship of the Secretary-General of the Communist Party.
Roy was critical of the Marxist Theory of freedom, and
thought of it as a slavery for the individual.
(4) A Radical Humanist

M.N. Roy embraced radical humanism during the years
following 1940. Roys’ radical humanism presumes individual
as a rational being, a feature individual alone has, either civil
or pre-civil; group life a collective one, seeks to adopt the
principles of a common life—these principles constitute
morality, providing the society its foundation, and
socialisation, individual alone is capable of pursuing self-
fulfilment; freedom as an urge basic to the being of the
individual. Unlike the idealists such as Rousseau, Roy
thought of rationality prior to morality and individual, prior to
the society, thus, remaining a liberal in so far as he keeps
morality to the point of a norm of individual rationality. Thus,
Roy did regard individual as a material being who possessed
rationality because he, through knowledge or rationality, is to
develop his own freedom.
Roy’s radicalism was concerned with the individual, as a
being and as a self, and not as a member of either a nation
(capitalism) or a class (Marxism) who could, as so, make
sense of a life. Such an individual, Roy’s radicalism affirmed,
would make the being an end in itself, his rational level
attaining a value of rationality—rationality of an individual
would lead to cooperative relationship with others—to be
rational would not, for Roy, mean an isolated life. This
cooperative relationship with others at the local levels
(People’s Committees’ levels) would, Roy thought, not cause
narrowing the range of freedom, but, with the emerging and
empowering rational will, would help participate in the group
life as a means to achieve the cosmopolitan form. Prof. V.P.
Varma (Modern Indian Political Thought) describes Roy’s
radical humanism as such—“New humanism (radical
humanism) takes at its starting point man as an ensemble of
social relations. It professes confidence in the creative power
of man not on the basis of faith and credulity or scriptural
sanction but on the solid testimony of vast and historical
researches which testify to the originative and productive
activities of man... The glory of man consists in being the
highest manifestation of the evolutionary process of nature.
New Humanism claims to reassert the sovereignty of man by
emphasising that history is the record of man’s activities, and
society, has no business to impose itself as a leviathan on
man. The ethical ideas of new humanism are based on
rationalism and man’s rationality is traced to the dominant
character of Nature. Man derives rationality from nature
through biological evolution. .. New humanism accepts the
axiological worth of moral and spiritual freedom, reason, and
ethics. . For the achievement of a radical reconstruction of
society, it is essential to start with the recognition of the
primacy of the individual. The totalitarian techniques of
organisation, regimentation, and coordination must not be
allowed to subvert the freedom of the individual. . Roy
formulated the notion of organised democracy where there
would not be the imposition of the commands of the leviathan
. Only an organised democracy can wield real control of the
state. Roy pleads also for doing away with the myth of
democratic centralism. He wanted a social system where
social technology and the pooled powers of human reason
and engineering would be applied to the reconciliation of
individual freedom and social good and practice.”
(5) Roy’s Other Ideas

Roy’s ideas on philosophy are stated in his books Materialism
and Science and Philosophy. Philosophy, Roy opines while
quoting Pythagoras, is contemplation, study, and knowledge
of the nature. It begins, he says, “when man’s spiritual needs
are no longer satisfied by primitive natural religion..Natural
growth impels and emboldens him to seek in nature itself the
causes of all natural phenomena; to find in nature a unity
behind its diversity.” In his book Science and Philosophy, he
defines philosophy as a theory of life whose function was to
solve the riddle of the universe. Roy relates philosophy with
Science. The problems’ of philosophy—cosmological,
ontological, and epistemological—he says, “can all be
progressively solved in the light of scientific knowledge, “the
function of philosophy is to coordinate the entire body of
scientific knowledge into a comprehensive theory of nature
and life.” In Reason, Romanticism and Revolution, he repeats
his concepts of knowledge “as a logical coordination of all the
branches of positive knowledge in a system of thought to
explain the world rationally and to serve as a reliable guide for
life’. Roy was a great supporter of materialism — “Strictly
speaking, philosophy is materialism and materialism is the
only possible philosophy.” According to him, “the origin of
everything that really exists is matter; that there does not exist
anything but matter; all other appearances being
transformation of matter, and these transformations are
governed necessarily by laws inherent in nature.” Roy’s
materialism is physical realism, something not as abstract,
and non-existent but something as real, living, moving,
thinking. “Man is”, Roy says, “not a living machine, but a
thinking animal.” Roy has given an important place to ethics
in his philosophy. In his view, materialistic ethics is not only
possible but materialist morality is the noblest form of
morality, linking it with individual's rationality, “Man is moral
because he is rational; search for truth is the quest for
freedom.” Quest for freedom and search for truth, according
to Roy, constitute the basic urge of human progress. The
purpose of all rational human endeavour, individual as well as
collective, is attainment of freedom in every increasing
measure. The amount of freedom available to the individuals
is the measure of social progress. Roy refers quest for
freedom back to human being’s struggle for existence, and he
regards search for truth as a corollary to this quest. Reason,
according to Roy, is a biological property, and it is not
opposed to human will. Morality, which emanates from the
rational desire for harmonious and mutually beneficial social
relations, is rooted in the innate rationality of man.
In conclusion, one may describe M.N. Roy as one of the
greatest thinkers of twentieth century India. Materialist, as
Roy was, he never lost his passion for individual freedom. He
was a scholar of excellence who sought to restate Marxism,
(though he ended as having abrogated it), materialism and
democracy in the light of humanism which he found not only
“new” but “radical” as well.
Practice
Questions
1. Discuss Sri Aurobindo’s theory of

nationalism or Freedom. (2013) (700-
800 words)
2. Describe, in brief, Sri Aurobindo’s
methods of “passive resistance”. (200
words)
3. Write a note on Gandhi’s theory of
swaraj. (200-250 words)
4. Highlight the Gandhian concepts of
swadeshi or Trusteeship. (200-250
words)
5. Comment on Gandhi’s views on the
relationship between politics and religion
or “end-means” unity. (700-800 words)
6. Describe Dr. Ambedkar as_ the
champion of social justice. (700-800
words)
7. Do you agree that Hinduism and caste
system are inseparable? Give reasons.
(200-250 words)
8. “Philosophy is materialism and
materialism is the only _ possible
philosophy” (Roy). Discuss. (200-250
words)
9. Discuss M.N. Roy’s theory of radical
humanism. (700-800 words)
10. How does Roy offer a humanist
critique of Marxism? (200-250 words)
11. Comment on the Marxist and the
Radical humanist phases of M. N. Roy’s
thought. (2012) (700-800 words)
12. Examine Ambedkar’s critique of
Marxism. (2013) (700-800 words)
13. “Nationalism is not a mere political
programme but is a way of life like
religion.” Aurobindo Ghose (2014) (200
words)
14. Comment on the efficiency of
Satyagraha as a moral resistance to
colonial rule. (2012) (200 words)
15. Comment on Gandhian perspective of
development and_ its contemporary
relevance. (2013) (200 words)
Western Political Thought I:
Plato And Aristotle
INTRODUCTION
estern political thought, as C.L. Wayper rightly
VV remarks, begins with Plato (428/427-348/347 BC)
and Aristotle (384-322 BC). Plato, as a political
philosopher, advocated the ideal state and Aristotle as a
political scientist, sought to build, the best feasible state. Plato
was an idealist; Aristotle was the most practicable. Plato saw
the world from above while Aristotle, from down to upward.
Plato proceeded from general and reached the particular,
whereas Aristotle began from the particular and reached the
general. Plato adopted, largely, the deductive method while
Aristotle, the inductive one. Plato’s philosophy began with the
conclusions whereas Aristotle's ended up with the
conclusions. If all philosophy is described as a footnote to
Plato, all political science may be said to have begun with
Aristotle.
I. PLATO
(a) Introduction
Plato (428/7-348/7 BC), a Greek philosopher, is one of the
most creative and influential thinkers in political philosophy. A
great deal of writings on Plato has appeared from time to
time. Some have described Plato as the real intellectual
founder of Christianity, “a Christian before Christ,” while
others, as a forerunner of Marxian socialism. With some,
Plato is a radical, a revolutionary at that, with others, a
reactionary and a fascist at that. Plato’s modern critics include
C.M. Bowra (Ancient Greek Literature), W. Fite (The Platonic
Legend), R.H. Crossman (Plato Today), A.D. Winspear (The
Genesis of Plato’s Thought), and Karl Popper (The Open
Society and Its Enemies). Plato’s admirers include Roland R.
Levinson (/n Defence of Plato) and John Wild (Plato’s Modern
Enemies and The Theory of Natural Law). The descriptive
and interpretative, and yet sympathetic account of Plato can
be found in Ernest Barker (Greek Political Theory: Plato and
His Predecessors) and Richard Lewis Nettleship (Lectures on
the Republic of Plato).
Plato, inheriting the rich tradition of political speculation,
was an idealist, for he laid down the basis for political
idealism. He was a philosopher, for he had seen in
philosophy a definite vision. He was a revolutionary, for he
attempted to build a new and novel fabric on the ruins of the
society around. Obviously, in the process, Plato drifted away
from the prevailing system, and was, thus, consequently
condemned as utopian, impracticable, idealist, and the like.
Plato’s place, in western political thought, would always
remain unparalleled. Numerous idealists regard Plato as their
teacher and they feel pride in calling themselves his disciples.
Some admire Plato while others condemn him, but none
dares to ignore him. Herein lies Plato’s greatness. He was,
indeed, the idealist among the idealists, the artist among the
artists, the philosopher among the philosophers, and the
revolutionary among the revolutionaries.
(b) Plato: The Man, His Times, His Works and

Methodology
Plato, an aristocrat by both birth and temperament, was born
in democratic Athens, at a time when it was engaged in a war
against Sparta—the Peloponnesian War. The war lasted for
about 28 years and resulted in the fall of Athens. On his
father’s side, Plato traced his descent from Codrus, the last of
the tribal kings of Africa, or even from the God Poseidon, and
on the mother’s side, from that of Solon, the great law-giver.
Plato was a child, when his father, Ariston, died, and his
mother, Perictione, married Pyrilampes, an associate of
Pericles, the statesman. As a young man, Plato had nurtured
political ambitions, but he became a disciple of Socrates,
accepting his basic philosophy and dialectical style of debate:
the pursuit of truth through discussions and dialogues. In fact,
Plato was disillusioned the way things went around. He was
invited to join pubic life when the Spartan puppet government:
the Rule of Thirty, was established in 404 BC and in which his
maternal uncles, Critias and Charmides, were members.
Plato declined the offer, because he was disappointed with
the functioning of political leadership, in general, and with his
disgusting experiences of the two successive governments in
particular: first by the Rule of Thirty, and later by the
democratic faction—the former entrapping Socrates on
charges of corrupting the youth, and the latter executing him
on charges of impiety. All this convinced Plato that all politics
were evil if not given proper direction. Plato himself writes in
the Seventh Letter, supposed to be his autobiography,
saying: “.eager though | had been at first to go into politics, as
| looked at these things (the course of political life in the city-
states) and saw everything taking any course, at all with no
direction or management, | ended by feeling dizzy. ... But at
last | saw that as far all states now existing are concerned,
they are all badly governed. For, the condition of their laws is
bad almost past cure, except for some miraculous accident.
So, | was compelled to say, in praising true philosophy, that it
was from it alone that one was able to discern all true justice,
private as well as public. And so | said that a// the nations of
men will never cease from private trouble until either the true
and genuine breed of philosophers shall come to political
office or until that of the rulers in the states, shall by some
divine ordinance take to the true pursuit of philosophy”. (Italic
added).
After Socrates’ execution in 399 BC, Plato doubted his own
safety, and in all disillusionment, set himself for long travels
temporarily abroad to Italy, Sicily and Egypt. In 388 BC, Plato,
after his return to Athens, founded the Academy, the
institution often described as the first European University. It
provided a comprehensive curriculum, including such
subjects as astronomy, biology, political theory, philosophy
and mathematics, inscribing, on the very gate of the Academy
about mathematics: “Those having no knowledge of
mathematics need not enter here.”
Note: The author acknowledges IGNOU with thanks for having drawn
heavily in his chapter from his own writings in the IGNOU study material.
Pursuing an opportunity to combine philosophy and

practical politics, Plato went to Sicily in 367 BC to tutor the
new ruler of Syracuse, Dionysius, the younger, in the art of
philosophical rule. The experiment failed. Plato made another
attempt to teach Syracuse again, in 361 BC, but once again,
he met with failure. The last years of Plato’s life were spent
lecturing at the Academy, and in writing. Plato died at about
the age of 80 in Athens in 348 BC or 347 BC leaving the
management of the Academy to Specesippus, his nephew.
Plato’s writings were in dialogue forms, and the hero in all
writings except in the Laws was none but his teacher,
Socrates. In the dialogue-type writings, philosophical ideas
were advanced, discussed and criticised in a conversation or
debate form, involving two or more persons. The use of
character and conversation (as in dialogue) allows an author
to enliven his work, to awaken interest of his readership and,
therefore, to reach a wider audience.
The collection of Plato’s works includes 35 dialogues and
13 letters, though doubts are cast on the authenticity of a few
of them. The dialogues may be divided into early, middle, and
later periods of composition. The earliest represent Plato’s
attempt to communicate the philosophy and dialectical style
of Socrates. Several of these dialogues take the same form
—Socrates on encountering someone who claims to know
much, professes to be ignorant and seeks assistance from
him. As Socrates begins to raise questions, it becomes,
however, clear that the one reputed to be wise really does not
know (i.e. Cephalus, Polemarchus, Thrasymachus on
‘Justice’) what he claims to know, and Socrates emerges as
the wiser one because he, at least, knows what he does not
know. Such knowledge, of course, is the beginning of
wisdom. Included in this group of dialogues are Charmides
(an attempt to define temperance), Lysis (a discussion of
friendship), Leaches (a pursuit of the meaning of courage),
Protagoras (a defence of the thesis that virtue is knowledge
and one that can be taught), Euthyphro (a consideration of
the nature of piety), and Book | of the Republic (A Discussion
of Justice).
The middle and the /ater dialogues of Plato reflect his own
philosophical development. Most scholars attribute the ideas,
in these works, to Plato himself, though Socrates continues to
be the main character in many of the dialogues. The writings
of the middle period include Gorgias (a consideration of
several ethical questions), Meno (a discussion of the nature
of knowledge), the Apology (Socrates’ defence of himself as
his trial against the charges of atheism and corrupting
Athenian youth), Crito (though half-finished, Socrates’
defence of obedience to the laws of the state), Phaedo (the
death scene of Socrates, in which he discusses the theory of
forms, the nature of the soul, and the question of immorality),
the Symposium (Plato’s outstanding dramatic achieve-ment,
which also contains several speeches on beauty and love),
the Republic (Plato’s supreme philosophical achievement),
which is also a detailed discussion of the nature of justice).
The works of the later period include the Statesman, the
Theaetetus (a denial that knowledge is to be identified with
sense perception), Promenades (a critical evaluation of the
theory of forms), Sophist (further consideration of the theory
of ideas, or forms), Philebus (a discussion of the relationship
between pleasure and the good), Timaeus (Plato’s views on
natural science and cosmology), and the Laws (a more
practical analysis of political and social issues).
Of all his writings, the Republic (written over a period of
Plato’s early life, as a writer,) though finished around the year
(i.e. about 386 BC) he established his Academy, the
Statesman (written about the year 360 BC), and the Laws
(published after his death in 347 BC and written a couple of
months earlier) may be said to have contained his entire
political philosophy.
The Republic of Plato is by all means the greatest of all his
works. It is not only a treatise on politics, but is also a treatise
dealing with every aspect of human life. It, in fact, deals with
metaphysics (the idea of the Good), moral philosophy (virtue
of human soul), education (the scientific training the rulers
ought to have), politics (the Ideal State), the philosophy of
history (the process of historical change from the ideal state
to tyrannical regime), economy (communism of property and
families),—all combined in one. The Republic has ten books
whose subject matter can be summed up as under:
(i) Book | deals with man’s life, nature of justice and

morality.
(ii) Books || — explain the organisation of the state, and

to lV of the system of education. Here, Plato
lays down the features of good man, the
ideal society, stating three elements in
human nature (appetite, spirit, and reason)
and their corresponding characteristics in
the ideal state (the produc ers, the
auxiliaries, the rulers).
(iii) Books V___while stating the organisation of the ideal

to VII state, refer to such a system based on
communism (of families and property) and
headed by the philosopher-ruler
(iv) Books tell us how anarchy and chaos visit, when

VIII to IX the individuals and states get perverted.
(v) Book X has two parts: Part | relates philosophy to

art, and Part Il discusses the capacity of
the soul.
The Statesman and the Laws deal more with the actual
states and ground realities, and as such do not have the
same idealism and radical overtones, which the Republic
possessed. Plato of the Republic is what is known to the
world: the idealist, the philosopher and the radical.
It is usually said that Plato’s methodology was deductive,
also called the philosophical method. The philosopher, while
following this methodology, has his pre-conceived
conclusions and then seeks to see them in actual conditions
around him: general principles are determined first, and
thereafter, they are related to particular situation. Plato, it is
said, followed the deductive method in so far as he attempted
to find the characteristic features of the state in his own
imagination and not in the existing conditions prevailing in the
city-states of the ancient Greek society. Obviously, he did not
find what he had imagined.
That Plato’s methodology, which is deductive is an
important aspect, but it is, at the same time, an amalgam of
numerous methodologies, which is something more
important; a fact if one seeks to understand Plato. Nettleship
is of the opinion that Plato’s methodology is inductive as well,
for it relates theory with practice. The fact is that Plato follows
a variety of methods in expressing his political thought.
Plato’s methodology is dialectical, for “dialect” has been a
tradition with the ancient Greeks. Socrates followed this
methodology in responding to the views of his rivals by
highlighting fallacies in their thinking. Plato, following his
teacher Socrates, pursued this methodology in his search for
“the idea of good.” In the process, he was not imparting
knowledge as much as he was trying to explain how the
people could achieve it themselves. By following the
dialectical method, Plato discussed the views of numerous
individuals, examined each such view, and ultimately reached
the conclusion. Plato’s notion of justice was the result of
debate, which went on among actors such as Cephales,
Polemarchus, Thrasymachus, Glaucon and Adeimantus—a
dialectal method of reaching true meaning of justice.
Plato’s methodology is analytical in so far as he divided a
phenomenon into its possible parts, analysing each part fully
and thereafter knitting the results of all parts together. We see
in Plato an analytical mind when he talked about what
constitutes human nature: appetite, spirit and reason; he
found these elements in body-politic as well: “appetite” in the
producing class, “spirit” in the soldiers’ class; and “reason” in
the ruling class—, thus stating that the constituents of the
ideal state are producers (who provide the material base),
soldiers (who provide the military base) and the rulers (who
provide the rational base): “proper provision, proper
protection and proper leadership” as C.L. Wayper calls them.
There is also a teleological method in Plato’s thinking.
Teleology means “the object with an objective”. It follows that
every phenomenon exists for itself and keeps moving towards
its desired goal. Plato’s teleological approach can well be
seen in his theory of forms. Plato was convinced that what
appears is the shadow of what it can be. Form is the best of
what we see — realities can attain their forms.
Plato is Known for having pursued the deductive method of
examining any phenomenon and also expressing his
philosophy. He, following the deductive methodology, had
had his pre-conceived conclusions and on their basis,
constructed his ideal state — explaining how it would be
organised, and what characteristic features it would have.
The Republic was nothing but the creation of his deductive
method.
Analogy as a method has also been followed by Plato in his
philosophy. Analogy means a form of reasoning in which one
thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain
respect, on the basis of known similarity in other respects.
There is a clear analogical method in Plato: a method
pursued by Socrates who found analogy in his thought
processes by taking recourse to the realms of arts. Plato saw
such analogies in the realms of the material world. For the
producers of his ideal state, Plato used the word “human
cattle”, “the copper” or “the bronze”; for the soldiers, he used
the word “the watch-dogs” or “the sliver’; and for the rulers,
“the shepherd” and “the gold”. Such analogies are too
common in Plato.
Plato pursued the historical method as well. His Statesman
and the Laws have been written by following the historical
methodology wherein he traced the evolution and growth of
numerous types of state historically. Even in the Republic,
Plato did not lose sight of history. He found the solution of all
evils prevailing in the then city-states in history. Furthermore,
the Republic, Barker tells us, “is not only a deduction from the
first principles, it is also an induction from the facts of Greek
life’, meaning thereby that it is based on actual conditions
existing then.
l(c) Plato’s Political Ideas

I(c)(i) Socratic Base
The Socratic influence on Plato is well known. Professor
Maxey (Political Philosophies) writes, in Plato Socrates lived
again.” Socrates was the unrivalled protagonist whose
matchless logic, flashing irony, and sovereign intellect
dominatetd the writings of Plato. Plato was no mortal of flesh
and bones but an apotheosised Socrates, speaking not only
what the actual Socrates might have spoken but also what
the resplendent imagination of Socrates would have him say.
How much of what is ascribed to Socrates in the works of
Plato is of genuine Socratic origin and how much is a Platonic
inversion, we cannot tell; but it is certain that the genius of
Plato deserves no less credit than the influence of Socrates
(Italics added).
There was never a time when the Socratic image was out
of Plato’s mind. Plato would never find himself complete
without his master, Socrates. He wrote with a sense of pride:
“| thank God that | was born a Greek, and not a barbarian; a
freeman and not a slave; a man, and not a woman; but above
all, that | was born in the age of Socrates.”
It is well said, as George Sabine (A History of Political
Theory) says, that the fundamental ideal of the Republic
came to Plato in the form of his master’s doctrine that virtue is
knowledge. “. The proposition”, Sabine writes for Plato, “that
virtue is Knowledge implies that there is an objective good to
be known and that it can in fact be known by rational or
logical investigation rather than by intuition, guesswork, or
luck? The good is objectively real, whatever anybody thinks
about it, and it ought to be realised not because men want it
but because it is good.” Plato gave his teacher’s doctrine
—‘virtue is knowledge” — a prime place in his philosophy.
Like his teacher, Plato firmly believed that virtue could be
attained through knowledge. He, like his teacher, was
convinced that human nature has four elements: reason,
courage, temperance, and justice. Through these, a man
could attain virtue which makes man capable to work towards
his end; it inspires man.
From Socrates, Plato learnt that the ruler, like a physician
or a navigator, is an artist and to that extent, administration is
an art. Accordingly, taking a lesson from his teacher
Socrates, Plato urged that the ruler should be one who knows
art, science, and knowledge of administration. Socrates used
to say, “The public is ill, we must cure our masters.”
The Socratic imprint on Plato can be observed in every
sentence the pupil wrote. Socrates was Plato’s hero—the
character from whose mouth Plato spoke both for himself and
for the master. In most of Plato’s writings, Socrates was seen
almost everywhere, particularly in the Republic. One may
conclude with Sabine: “It may very well be, then, that some
considerable measure of the political principles developed in
the Republic really belonged to Socrates, and were learned
directly from him by Plato. However this may be, in the
intellectualist cast of the Republic the inclination to find
salvation in an adequately educated ruler, is certainly an
elaboration of Socrates’ conviction that virtue, political virtue
not excluded, is knowledge.”
I(c)(ii) Plato s Theory of Forms or Ideas

Theory of Forms or Ideas is at the centre of Plato’s
philosophy. All his other views on knowledge, psychology,
ethics, and state can be understood in terms of this theory.
His theory of Forms or Ideas, taken from the Greek word
“Edios”, is so inter-related to his theory of Knowledge that
they can be understood together. Following Socrates, Plato
believed that knowledge is attainable and believed it to have
two essential characteristics—one, knowledge is certain and
infallible; two, that it is to be contrasted with that which is only
appearance. Knowledge, being fixed, permanent, and
unchanging is, according to Plato (following Socrates),
identified with the realm of “ideal” as opposed to the physical
world which is seen as it appears. In other words, “Form”,
“Ideal”, and “Knowledge” constitute what is ideal, and what
appears to the eye is the actual. There is, thus, a difference
between what is ideal, and what is actual; between what are
“forms” and what are appearances; and between what is
knowledge and what is an opinion; between what “can be”
and what it is or what it is “becoming” and between what the
eyes see and the intelligence can foresee: one can see a
horse, but one can only foresee horseness.
Plato’s theory of Forms or Knowledge, or /dea is found in
the Republic when he discussed the image of the divided line
and the myth of the cave. In the former, Plato made a
distinction between two levels of awareness—opinion and
knowledge. Claims or assertions about the physical or visible
world are opinions. The higher level or awareness, on the
other hand, is knowledge because reason is involved there.
The myth of the cave, as discussed by Plato, described
individuals chained deep within the recesses of a cave, where
the vision was restricted and no one was able to see another
man; the only visible thing was the wall of the cave. Breaking
free, one of the individuals escaped from the cave into the
light of the day. With the aid of the sun, that person saw for
the first time the real world, telling his fellow men that the only
thing they had seen heretofore were shadows and
appearances and that the real world awaited them if only they
were willing to struggle free of their bonds.
The essential characteristics of Plato’s theory of Forms
would, thus, include:
(a) There is a difference between “Forms” or “Ideas”;
or “Knowledge” and “Appearance”; “Actual”, or
“Opinion” as there is difference between the
ideal/visible world and the physical/visible world.
(b) The form is the ultimate object of appearance.
(c) The actual world can attain the ideal world.
(d) Knowledge can replace opinion and is attainable.
(e) The visible world is the shadow of the real world.
(f) What appears to be is not the Form, but is a form of
the Form?
Plato explained that there is a difference between things
which are beautiful and what beauty is—former lies in the
realm of opinion while the latter, in the realm of knowledge.
What is more important is Plato’s insistence that the journey
from “appearances” to “form” is possible through knowledge.
Plato had conceived the Forms as arranged hierarchically
—the supreme form is the form of the Good, which like the
Sun in the myth of the cave, illuminates all the other ideas.
The forms of the Good (i.e., the idea of the Good) represent
Plato’s movement in the direction of attaining goodness. In a
way, the theory of Forms, as propounded by Plato, is
intended to explain how one comes to know, and how things
have come to be as they are, and also how they are likely to
attain their ideals.
Plato’s theory of Form is closely related to his belief that
virtue is Knowledge. According to Plato, the idea of virtue is
the idea of action; the ultimate object of virtue is to attain
knowledge; the knowledge of virtue is the highest level of
knowledge; knowledge is attainable; and so is virtue.
Plato’s theory of Form has been extended by him to his
political theory. The types of rulers Plato sought to have
should be those who have the knowledge of ruling people.
Unless power is in the hands of those who have knowledge
(i.e., the philosophers), states would have no peace, so
thought Plato.
I(c)(iii) Plato’s Theory of Justice

For Plato, justice does not consist in mere obedience of the
laws, for it is based on the inner nature of the human spirit. It
is also not the triumph of the stronger over the weaker for it
protects the weaker against the stronger. A just state, Plato
argues, is achieved with an eye to the good of the whole. In a
just society, all—the rulers, the military, the artisans—do what
they ought to do. In such a society, the rulers are wise, the
soldiers are brave, and the producers exercise self-control or
temperance.
“Justice” is the central theme of Plato’s Republic; its subtitle
entitled “Concerning Justice”. For Plato, justice is a moral
concept. Barker says, “Justice is’, for Plato, “at once a part of
human virtue and the bond which joins men together in the
states. It makes man good and makes him social.” Almost a
similar view has been expressed by Sabine. He says, “Justice
(for Plato) is a bond which holds a society together.”
Justice gives the resemblance of what is used in the Greek
language—the word “Dikaiosyne”, has a more comprehensive
meaning that the word “justice”. “Dikaiosyne” means “just
righteousness”. That is why Plato’s notion of justice is not
regarded legal or judicial, nor it is related to the realms of
“rights” and “duties’—it does not come within the limits of law;
it is, as such, related to “social ethics’. The essential
characteristics of Plato’s notion of justice can be stated as
these:
i. Justice is another name of righteousness.

ii. Itis more the performance of duties than the enjoyment
of rights.
iii. It is individual’s contribution to the society in accordance
with his abilities, capacities, and capabilities.
iv. It is a social morality; man’s obligation.
v. It is the strength of the social fabric as it involves a web
of social system.
Before stating these views through Socrates, Plato refuted

the then prevailing theories of justice. He denounced the
father-son’s (Cephalus-Polemarchus) theory of justice of
traditional morality—justice giving every man his due, in other
words, “doing to others what is proper” (Cephalus) or “doing
good to friends and harming enemies” (Polemarchus). Plato
recognised the worth of the traditional theory of justice, which
compels men to do what they are supposed to do, or justice
as phenomena creating unity. But he did not approve of
justice being good for some and evil for others. Justice is,
Plato held, good for all — for the giver as well as the receiver,
for friends as well as foes.
Plato also rejected Thrasymachus’ radical notion of justice,
according to which justice is always in the interest of the
stronger. He did agree with Thrasymachus that the ruler,
because he knows the art of ruling, has all the power but did
not agree that the ruler rules always in his own interest. Plato
argued through Socrates that the shoemaker does not wear
all the shoes he makes; the farmer does not eat all the crop
he prepares; accordingly the ruler does not make all the laws
which benefit him. Plato agreed with Thrasymachus that
justice is an art, and that one who knows the art is the artist,
and none else.
And yet, there is another theory of justice advocated by two
brothers—Glaucon and Adeimantus, Plato’s own brothers.
This theory is a conventional theory of justice and one which
was favourably agreed to by Plato’s hero, Socrates. Glaucon
held the view that justice is in the interest of the weaker (as
opposed to Thrasymachus’s view that it is in the interest of
the straoger), and that it is artificial in so far as it is the
product of customs and conventions. Glaucon says, “. men do
not suffer injustice freely and without restraint. But the
weaker, finding that they suffer more injustice than they can
inflict, make a contract, one with another neither to do
injustice, nor to suffer it; and in pursuance of the contract,
they lay down a law, the provisions of which are henceforth
the standard of action and the code of justice.” Plato did see
limitations in Glaucon’s theory by describing justice as natural
and universal as against Glaucon’s notion of it as “artificial”
and “product” of conventions and customs.
Plato’s own theory, as it stems from the discussion which
went on among characters such as Cephalus, Polemarchus,
Thrasymachus, Glaucon, Adeimantus, and Socrates, appears
to be as under:
(a) Justice is nothing but the principle that each one
should pursue a function for which one is fitted by
nature—each one to do one’s own for one’s own
and for common good. Plato says, “I say justice is
that very thing . each one must practice . for which
his nature was best fitted . this in a sense appears
to be justice . to do one’s own business . and
meddle in no other business, meddling in many
businesses would be ruin for the city.”
(b) Justice means specialisation and excellence.
(c) Justice helps people to be in a society; a bond that
holds society; a harmonious union of individuals, of
classes with the state. It is a bond that brings
together individuals, classes, and state into one
frame.
(d) Justice is both a “public” and “private” virtue. It aims
at the highest good of the individual (private), and
of the whole society (public).
Plato’s theory of justice leads to division of labour,
specialisation, and efficiency. It is, therefore, a principle of
specialisation, unity, non-interference, and harmony. His
notion of justice implies a social virtue, private and public
ethics, and a moral dictate. And yet Plato’s theory of justice is
totalitarian in the sense that it subordinates individual to the
state.
I(c)(iv) Plato’s Theory of Education

Plato’s Republic is not merely an essay on government; it is,
as Rousseau informs us, a treatise on education. The
essence of his whole philosophy, as stated in the Republic,
was to bring about reforms (political, economic, social as well
as moral, intellectual, cultural) in the ancient Greek society.
The object of the Republic was to locate and thereafter
establish justice in the ideal state and his scheme of
education aimed precisely at that. For Plato, social education
is a means to social justice. It is, therefore, not incorrect to
say that education for Plato had been a solution to all the
vexed questions. Education as Kolakowski tells us, has been
an instrument for moral reforms.
Plato’s theory of education is an attempt to touch the evil at
its very source. It is an attempt to cure a mental malady by a
mental medicine. Barker rightly says that Plato’s scheme of
education brings the soul into that environment which, in each
stage of its growth, is best suited for its development.
Plato’s theory of education is important in his political
thinking. It is important in so far as it provides a basis for the
ideal state designed to achieve justice. Following his teacher,
Socrates, Plato had a belief in the dictum that virtue is
Knowledge and for making people virtuous, he made
education a very powerful instrument. Plato also believed that
education builds man’s character and it is, therefore, a
necessary condition for extracting man’s natural faculties in
order to develop his personality. Education is not a private
enterprise for Plato; it is public in so far as it provides a moral
diagnosis to the social ailments. Barker, speaking for Plato,
says that education is a path of social righteousness, and not
of social success; it is a way to reach the truth. Education,
Plato emphasised, was necessary for all the classes in
society, especially for those who govern the people. The
rulers, for Plato, are supreme because they are educated as
philosophers, because the rule of the philosophers, as Barker
explains, is the result of the education they receive.
Plato, in his proposed scheme of education, makas certain
assumptions:
i. soul, being and active, throws up, through education,

the best things that are latent in it;
ii. education moulds the character of the growing young; it
does not provide eyes to the blind, but it does give
vision to men with eyes; it brings soul to the realms of
light; it activates and reactivates the individual;
iii, each level of education has a preassigned function: the
elementary education helps individuals give direction to
their powers; middle level education helps individuals
understand their surroundings; and higher education
helps individuals prepare, determine, and decide their
course of action;
iv. education helps people earn a living and also helps
them to become better human beings.
Plato does not want to make education a commercial

enterprise. He wants, as Sabine tells us, that education must
itself provide the needed means to see that citizens actually
get the training they require, and must be sure that the
education supplied is consonant with the harmony and well-
being of the state. “Plato’s plan,” Sabine states, “is, therefore,
for a state-controlled system of compulsory education. His
educational scheme falls naturally into parts, the elementary
education which includes the training of the young persons up
to about the age of twenty and culminating in the beginning of
military service, and the higher education, intended for those
selected persons of both sexes who are to be members of the
two ruling classes and extending from the age of twenty to
thirty-five.”
Plato’s scheme of education had both the Athenian and the
Spartan influence. Sabine writes: “Its most genuinely Spartan
feature was dedication of education exclusively to civic
training. Its content was typically Athenian, and its purpose
was dominated by the end of moral and_ intellectual
cultivation.” The curriculum of elementary education was
divided into two parts—gymnastics for training the body, and
music for training the mind. The elementary education was to
be imparted to all the three classes. But after the age of
twenty, people selected for higher education were those who
were to hold the highest positions in the guardian class
between twenty and thirty-five. The guardians were to be
constituted of the auxiliary class, and the ruling class. These
two classes were to have a higher dose of gymnasium and
music, greater dose of gymnastics for the auxiliaries, and
greater dose of music for the rulers. The higher education of
the two classes was, in purpose, professional and, for his
curriculum, Plato chose only scientific studies— mathematics,
astronomy and logic. Before the two classes could get on to
their jobs, Plato suggested a further education till the age of
about fifty, mostly practical in nature.
In conclusion, we may identify the characteristic features of
Plato’s scheme of education as these:
i. His scheme of education was for the guardian class,

i.e., the auxiliary class and the ruling class; he had
ignored the producing class completely.
ii. His whole educational plan was state-controlled.
iii. It aimed at attaining the physical, mental, intellectual,
moral development of human personality.
iv. It consisted of three stages—elementary between 6 to
20; higher, between 20 to 35; practical, between 35 and
50.
v. It aimed at preparing the rulers for administrative
statesmanship; soldiers for military skill; and producers
for material productivity.
vi. It sought to bring a balance between the individual
needs and social requirement.
Plato’s plan of education was undemocratically devised in

so far as it ignored the producing class. It was limited in
nature and was restrictive in extent by laying more emphasis
on mathematics than on literature. The whole plan was
expectedly and unduly expensive. It was unindividual in the
sense that it restricted man’s thinking process and his
autonomy. It was too abstract and too theoretical, so much
so, it lost sight of administrative intricacies.
I(c)(v) Communism of Wives and Property

Plato’s consistency is beyond any doubt. If his theory of
communism of property is a logical corollary of his conception
of justice, his theory of communism of families was a logical
corollary of his views on communism of property. Justice, as
Plato had put it, was the very objective of the ideal state. The
ideal state, Plato goes on to say, consisted of the three
classes—of the rulers, of the auxiliaries, and of the producers
— each doing its own assigned job. Justice would be ushered
in, Plato argued, if the guardians (the rulers and the
auxiliaries) do away with property, for property represents the
elements of appetite, and to do away with property demands
the communism of families. Barker writes for Plato: “The
abolition of family life among the guardians is, thus, inevitably
a corollary of their renunciation of private property.” According
to Dunning: “As private property and family relationships
appear to be the chief sources of dissension in every
community, neither is to have recognition in the perfect state.”
According to Sabine, “So firmly was Plato convinced of the
pernicious effects of wealth upon government that he saw no
way to abolish the evil except by abolishing wealth itself.” The
same is true also of Plato’s purpose in abolishing families, as
another (first being property) potent rival to the state in
competing for the loyalty of rulers. “Anxiety for one’s children,”
Sabine concludes on behalf of Plato, “is a form of self-
seeking, more insidious than the desire for property.”.
Plato Quotes
“All things will be produced in superior quantity and
quality, and with greater ease, when each man works
at a single occupation, in accordance with his natural
gifts, and at the right moment, without meddling with
anything else.”
“A hero is born among a hundred, a wise man is
found among a thousand, but an accomplished one
might not be found even among a hundred thousand
men.”
“Democracy ... is a charming form of government, but
of variety and disorder; and dispensing, a sort of
equality to equals and unequals alike.”
“Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and
the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery, out
of the most extreme liberty.”
“Excess generally causes reaction, and produces a
change in the opposite direction, whether it be in the
seasons, or in individuals, or in governments.”
“Honesty is for the most part less profitable than
dishonesty.”
“It is right to give every man his due.”
e “Justice in the life and conduct of the State is possible
only as first it resides in the hearts and souls of the
citizens.”
“Love is the joy of the good, the wonder of the wise,
the amazement of the Gods”.
“No law or ordinance is mightier than reason’.
e “The beginning is the most important part of the
work”.
“The most virtuous are those who content themselves
with being virtuous, without seeking to appear so”.
“There are three classes of men; lovers of wisdom,
lovers of honour, and lovers of gain’.
e “There are two things a person should never be angry
at, what they can help, and what they cannot’.
e “The greatest wealth is to live content with little”.
e “The heaviest penalty for deciding to engage in
politics is to be ruled by some one inferior to yourself”.
e “The learning and knowledge that we have, is, at the
most, but little compared with that of which we are
ignorant’.
e “There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of
humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in this
world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really
and truly become philosophers, and political power
and philoso phy thus come into the same hands’.
e “Wise men speak because they have something to
say; Fools because they have to say something’.
\ J
Plato’s communism, to put his theory very briefly, takes two

forms. Sabine says, “The first is the prohibition of private
property, whether houses or land or money, to the rulers (and
auxiliaries) and the provision that they shall live in barracks
and have their meals at a common table. The second is the
abolition of a permanent monogamous sexual relation and the
substitution of regulated breeding at the behest of the rulers
for the purpose of securing the best possible offspring.” This
communism is to be applied on the rulers and the auxiliaries
who were called the guardians by Plato.
Plato’s argument for communism of property and families
was that the unity of the state demands their abolition. “The
unity of the state is to secure; property and family stands in
the way; therefore, property and marriage must go” (Sabine).
To find similarities between Plato's and Marx’s
communism, as Professor Jaszi or Professor Maxey do, is to
draw wrong parallels. Plato’s communism has a political
objective—an economic solution of a political ailment; Marx’s
communism has an economic objective—a political solution
of an economic ailment. Plato’s communism is limited to only
two classes—the rulers and the auxiliaries — while Marx’s
communism applies to the whole society. Plato’s basis of
communism (or property) is material temptation and its nature
is individualistic while Marx’s basis is the growth of social
evils, which results from the accumulation of private property.
Plato’s reasons for offering his scheme of community of
wives and property were the following: those who exercise
political power should have no economic motives, and those
who are engaged in economic activities should have no share
in political power. Pragmatic as his message was, Plato had
learnt, from the Spartan successful experiment, whose
citizens were denied the use of money and where they all had
to consume everything in common.
Plato’s defense of the communism of families was no less
effective. Barker sums up Plato’s argument in this regard:
“Plato’s scheme has many facets and many purposes. It is a
scheme of eugenics; it is a scheme for the emancipation of
women; it is a scheme for the nationalisation of the family. It
is meant to secure a better stock, greater freedom for women
and for men—to develop their highest capacities, a more
complete and living solidarity of the state or at any rate, of the
rulers of the state.”
Plato’s plan of communism has been denounced by many,
from his disciple Aristotle down to Karl Popper. Aristotle
criticises Plato for having ignored the natural instinct of
acquisition, making the scheme partial in so far as excluding
the producing class from it and declaring it ascetic and
aristocratic, surrendering all the best for the guardians.
Others, including Karl Popper, condemn Plato’s scheme of
communism on numerous grounds, especially the following:
(a) It is doubtful if communism of families would bring
greater degree of unity by making the guardians a
single family.
(b) communism of wives and families, which Aristotle
also hints at, was bound to create confusion if not
disorder—one female would be wife of all the
guardians and one male, the husband of all the
females. One may add, as Aristotle really does: a
father would have thousand sons, and a son,
thousand fathers.
(c) common children would tend to be neglected, for
everybody’s child would be nobody’s baby.
(d) It is also doubtful if the state-controlled mating
would ever be workable; it would rather reduce men
and women to the levels of mere animals by
suggesting temporary marital relationship.
(e) The whole scheme of communism is too rigid, too
strict, and too stringent.
(f) Plato’s communism of families suggests a system of
marriage which is neither monogamy, nor bigamy,
nor polygamy, nor polyandry.
(g) Plato’s theory of communism is too idealistic, too
utopian, too imaginary, and accordingly, far away
from the realities of life.
I(c)(vi) Plato s Ideal State: The Philosopher Ruler
In all his works on political theory, there is a strong case
which Plato builds in favour of an omni-competent state.
Living is one thing, but living well is another and perhaps a
different thing altogether. It is the job of the government, Plato
affirmed more than once, to help people live a complete life.
The problem, which Plato addressed, was not how best a
government could be created but how best a government
could be installed.
In the Republic, Plato constructs the ideal state in three
successive stages:
e The healthy state or what Glaucon termed as “the city of

pigs,” is more or less a social grouping where men get
together, on the principles of “division of labour’, and of
“specialisation,” to meet their material needs;
e The /uxurious state, arising out of the men of a healthy
state to quench their thirst of “sofas and tables.” and of
“sauces and sweets,” and requiring, thus, a band of
“dogs keen to scent, swift of foot to pursue, and ready to
fight,” the auxiliaries;
e The just state, the ideal one, where among the “dogs”,
the philosophers are able to judge by “the rule of
knowing, whom to bite,” that is, “gentleness to friends
and fierceness against enemies,” and are there to guide
the rest.
Thus, there is a clear hint of the classes, which constitute

the ideal state—the producing class, the auxiliary class, and
the ruling class. In the Republic, the state is led by the
philosophers; in the Statesman (Politicus), it is a mixed state
ideally led by statesman, and in the Laws, it is an actual state
as it is, led by the laws. The ideal state of the Republic is the
form of the historical (Politicus) and actual (laws) states.
Plato’s rulers, either the philosophers of the Republic, or
statesman of the Politicus or the impersonal laws of the Laws
have the responsibilities of preserving and promoting the
interests of the whole community. Their aim is, as Plato
expressed in the Republic, giving order and happiness of the
state: “Our aim in founding the state”, Plato continues, “was ...
the greatest happiness of the whole; we thought that in a
state which is ordered with a view to the good of the whole we
should be most likely to find justice.” Or again, “we mean our
guardians to be true saviours and not the destroyers of the
state.” In the Politicus, Plato said that the governors ought to
“use their power with a view to the general security and
improvement.” In the Laws, Plato was worried about the “well-
being of the state.” What he wanted were the rulers, and not
pretenders—rulers who must know their job and should be
able to perform it in the interests of all. They should be wise,
courageous, temperate, and just—these are the qualities that
are expressed in the Republic; wise and versed in the
traditional customs — the unwritten laws of the divinely
remote past, as in the Politicus—and work under the dictates
of the written laws as in the Laws.
The use of analogies in the writings of the ancient Greek
thinkers was a usual exercise, showing, as Barker says, “a
characteristic of the transition from the old philosophy of
nature to the new philosophy of man.” Plato’s use of
analogies demonstrated his love for the art of ruling, planning
his ruler in the image of an artist. There were the “dog-
soldiers” for guarding and watching the human cattle and also
for keeping the wolves — enemies — at bay; “the shepherd-
guardian” for looking after the human sheep — all these are
mentioned in the Republic. There is—the physician-
statesman” responsible for “the general health of the ailing-
state”, ‘the pilot statesman’, skilled in his art, wise in his job
and rich in his experiences, for ordering the affairs of the ship
of the state; “the weaver-statesman” for creating a “just
harmony” uniting different elements of human nature—all
these are mentioned in the Polliticus.
Knowledge is the merit which qualifies the rulers to rule
their people. It helps them, Plato said, perform their
responsibilities in the most perfect manner. The rulers, he
insisted, ought to know the science of politics; they ought to
use this science, he held, as the artist uses his art. What
Plato urged was the very competence of the rulers and strict
discipline in the performance of their functions. His rulers do
the job of ruling as the peasant does the tilling; the peasant is
a peasant because he knows the job of tilling, and similarly, a
ruler is a ruler because he knows the job of ruling.
e Plato did not take any chance which could put the rulers
away from their ideals. So he talked about: the
communistic devices applied on the rulers (in the
Republic)
e the promises from them to be alive to the divinely
customs as in the Politicus, and the demands from them
to be loyal to the written codes (in the Laws).
Plato wanted the art and science of politics to be directed

toward the attainment of a just order in which each individual
or each group of individuals does its own appointed function.
This is why he makes his rulers experts in their branch of
business; this is why he makes his rulers undergo an
intensive system of education and training; this is why he
makes his rulers lead a life devoid of any personal
temptations. His anxiety was to build a perfect and
hierarchical society where the rulers are expected to uphold
and maintain ideals of justice (Republic), sustentation
(Politicus), and public good (Laws). Plato vested in his
philosophic ruler absolute powers on the promise that reason
ought to be supreme. However, what he did not safeguard
against, as rightly pointed out by Popper, was the possible
abuse and misuse of unchecked absolute powers at the hand
of the rules no matter how just or wise he might be.
Plato writes in the Laws: “If anyone gives too great a power
to anything, too large a vessel to sail, too much food to the
body, too much authority to the mind, and does not observe
the mean, everything is overthrown, and, in the wantonness
of excess runs in the one case to disorders, and in the other
to injustice...”. His rulers have power, they have power
because they have responsibilities, maintaining ‘the rule of
justice’, allowing, ‘no innovation in the system of education,’
and watching ‘against the entry either of poverty or of wealth
into the state,’ and keeping the size of the state ‘neither large
nor small, but one and sufficient.’
| (D) Evaluation of Plato’s Political Philosophy
(i) Plato s Adversaries

Plato has been interpreted in so many different ways that it
becomes difficult to derive conclu-sions about him. If for one
set of people, Plato is a revolutionary and a prophet of
socialism, for others, he is a forerunner of fascism and an
advocate of reactionaries. Aristotle, Plato’s disciple, was his
greatest critic. R.H.S. Crossman (Plato Today), C.M. Bowra
(Ancient Greek Literature), W. Fite (The Platonic Legend), B.
Farrington (Science of Politics in the Ancient World), A.D.
Winspear (The Genesis of Plato’s Thought), Karl Popper (The
Open Society and Its Enemies) are men who have
condemned Plato. G.C. Field (Plato and his Contemporaries),
Ronald B. Levinson (/n Defence of Plato), John Wild (Plato’s
Modern Enemies and the Theory of Natural Law), A.E. Taylor
(Plato—The Man and His Work), Ernest Barker (Greek
Political Theory), R.L. Nettleship (Lectures on the Republic of
Plato) admire him.
Of all the critics, Popper’s criticism of Plato is the most
devastating. Plato, to Popper, was an enemy of the open
society. Popper holds the view that Plato advocated a closed
system, which was not different from an_ idealised
reproduction of the tribalism of the past. To Popper, Plato’s
philosophy and its theories—of justice, communism, and
education, etc.—are but so many subtle ways of justifying
authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Plato’s philosophy sought
to perpetuate or eternalise the ideal—the ideal of anti-
democracy, anti-change, and anti-open society. Popper’s
tirade against Plato can be summed up in his own words:
“Plato’s fundamental demands can be expressed in either of
the two formulae—the first corresponding to his idealist theory
of change and rest, the second to his naturalism. The idealist
formula is: Arrest all political change. Change is evil, rest
divine. All change can be arrested if the state is made an
exact copy of its original, i.e., of the Form or Idea of the city.
Should it be asked how this is practicable, we can reply with
the naturalistic formula: Back to the Nature. Back to the
original state of our forefathers, the primitive state founded in
accordance with human nature, and therefore, stable; back to
the tribal patriarchy of the time before the Fall, to the natural
class rule of the wise few over the ignorant many.” (Popper's
Italics)
Condemning Plato’s political programme, Popper says that
it “far from being morally superior to totalitarianism, is
fundamentally identical with it.” Popper asserts that Plato’s
ideal state would lead to a closed system. To quote Popper:
“Excellent as Plato’s sociological diagnosis was, his own
development proves that the therapy he recommends is
worse than the evil he tries to combat. Arresting political
change is not the remedy; it cannot bring happiness. We can
never return to the alleged innocence and beauty of the
closed system. Our dream of heaven cannot be realised on
Earth. Once we begin to rely upon our reason, and to use our
powers of criticism ... we cannot return to a state of implicit
submission to tribal magic. For those who have eaten the tree
of knowledge, paradise is lost. The more we try to return to
the heroic age of tribalism, the more surely do we arrive at the
inquisition, at the secret police, and at a romanticised
gangsterism. Beginning with the suppression of research and
truth, we must end with the most brutal and violent
destruction of all that is human. There is no return to a
harmonious state of nature. /f we turn back, then we must go
the whole way ... we must return to the beast.” (Popper's
Italics).
John Jay Chapman, a devout anti-Platonist, called Plato
“the prince of conjurers.” W. Fite holds the view that Plato had
the vacillations of an adolescent. R.H.S. Crossman says that
Plato was wrong, both for his times and for ours.
Plato’s adversaries have been active in all the ages
beginning from his own days and even including his pupils,
Aristotle particularly. Plato’s enemies have been really unfair
to him. Popper’s condemnation is an illustration of such a
treatment of Plato. If Plato were truly totalitarian, then he
would have built a police state; would have made provisions
for secret police; would have suggested severe and harsh
punishments; would have provided concentration camps,
would have lauded terror. But nowhere do we find Plato
saying all this. On the contrary, he pictures an ideal state
whose aim is ethical, whose rulers are guided by a rational
plan and who have to have a particular type of education, a
systematic training; and a life of dedication, almost of
renunciation.
I (ii) Plato’s Place in Western Political Thought

Plato’s political philosophy, which emerges from his writings,
has its special importance in the history of the western
political theory. Jowett (The Dialogues of Plato, 1902) rightly
describes Plato as the father of philosophy, politics, and
literary idealism. He says: “Nowhere in Plato is there a deeper
irony or a greater wealth of humor or imagery, or more
dramatic power (as in the Republic). Nor in any other of his
writings is the attempt made to interweave life and
speculation, or to connect politics to philosophy.” Professor
Maxey (Political Philosophies, 1961) writes: “.. But the midrib
of his (Plato’s) political philosophy was timeless and
universal. As a Greek of the post-Periclean period, he was an
anti-expansionist, a disbeliever in democracy, a foe of
commercialism, and an admirer of Lacedaemonian militarism.
But as an analyst of social and political institutions and a
seeker of the ideal he was the forerunner and inspirer of most
of the anti-materialistic political philosophies, reconstructive
political theories, and radical political programmes which have
appeared in subsequent ages”. For Emerson, “Plato was
philosophy and philosophy, Plato.”
Plato’s contribution to the western political thought is
without any parallel. He has given it a direction, a basis and a
vision. Political idealism is Plato’s gift to western political
philosophy. An idealist, as Plato really was, he was more
interested in future than in the present; in a model that a state
can be than in the actual state; in the form of the state than in
a state that appears at present. This does not mean that the
idealists do not take into account the present or the actual
state. In fact, the idealists build the fabric of the future on the
basis of the present; it is the present that dictates their future.
Plato’s idealism was grounded in the circumstances of the
then city-states; his was a movement to change the Greek of
his own times, not for the past as Popper says, but for a
future, for a model, and that too through a radical plan.
Accordingly, Plato can be described as an idealist but not a
utopian; a physician and not a life-giver; a reformer and not a
dreamer.
There is originality in Plato in so far as he had built not very
uncommon institutions on postulates he thought as basic.
Plato’s significance lies in making education as the bedrock
on which he structured the whole ideal state. If the whole
scheme of education is practised completely, the
development of the state is certainly assured. Sound
education and sound nurturing are guarantees for full-fledged
betterment. He was of the opinion that the state could be
structured afresh as against Popper’s view of piecemeal
social engineering.
Plato is a philosopher and at the same time an idealist. A
philosopher is one who thinks more than he sees; he sees
things in general, and avoids what is particular. Plato was
such a philosopher who saw the general deteriorating
conditions of the city-states of his times. He sought to
diagnose the ailment rather than the symptoms. What ailed
the ancient Greek society was the ever-sickening corrupt
rulers, and his diagnosis, then, was to give the people a set of
rulers who knew the art of ruling. Plato was such a
philosopher who never lost sight of philosophy, one who was
idealistic, purposive, future-oriented, and normative, and yet
within the framework of actual conditions. He did reach the
heights but he remained within the reach of what was
practicable. He was, thus, a philosopher who remained within
the boundaries of realities; he was a philosopher who looked
towards the sky but with his feet grounded on the earth. Plato
may not be a saint, but he is a teacher to all of us. We can
criticise him but we cannot ignore him.
Plato’s another contribution to western political thought was
his radicalism. He innovated novel ideas and integrated them
skillfully in a political scheme. His radicalism lies in the fact
that his rulers are rulers without comforts and luxuries
possessed by men of property; they are masters without
owning anything; they are parents without calling the children
their own; they have powers, absolute powers but they also
have absolute responsibilities. It was a plan to organise the
entire social order on the basis of knowledge, skill, and
expertise. It was a total negation to the Periclean idea of
participatory democratic order with emphasis on capacity and
individuality rather than equality.
Plato’s attempt in the Republic is to portray a perfect model
of an ideal order. With primacy of education he conceived of
an elite which would wield power not for itself but for the good
of the society. But there was no prescription for checking
degeneration or abuse of power. It is because of such an
important omission, his more realistic pupil, Aristotle
conceived of an ideal state not on the blueprint of the
Republic but of the Laws. The beginning of the modern
democratic order based on the rule of the law could be traced
to the Laws and not to the Republic.
However, Plato’s place in western political thought is
matchless. His legacy spreads with age and it is really difficult
to prepare a list of subsequent political philosophers who
might not have Plato’s imprint, either explicitly or implicitly.
ll. ARISTOTLE
Il (a) Introduction
Unlike Plato, Aristotle (384-322 BC) was not an Athenian by
birth. He was born in Stagira, was a pupil of Plato,
subsequently taught Alexander, and then established his own
school, the Lyceum. The fundamental difference between
Plato and Aristotle led them to initiate two great streams of
thought which constitute what is known as the western
political theory. From Plato comes political idealism; and from
Aristotle comes political realism. On this basis, it is easy to
understand the comment by Coleridge, the poet, that
everyone is born either a Platonist or an Aristotelian. The
difference between Plato and Aristotle is the difference
between philosophy and science. Plato is known as the father
of political philosophy; Aristotle, the father of political science;
the former is a philosopher, the latter is a scientist; the former
follows the deductive methodology; the latter, an inductive
one. Plato portrays a utopia—the ideal state whereas
Aristotle’s concern was with the best possible state. Professor
Maxey (Political Philosophies) rightly says: “All who believe in
new worlds for old are the disciples of Plato; all those who
believe in old worlds made anew are disciples of Aristotle.”
Aristotle, like Plato, wrote voluminously. Aristotle has
written on many subjects. His admirers claimed for him the
title of “the Master of Them That Know.” For about thousand
years, according to Maxey: “Aristotle on logic, Aristotle on
mechanics, Aristotle on Physics, Aristotle on Physiology,
Aristotle on Astronomy, Aristotle on Economics, Aristotle on
Politics was almost the last word.” “His information was so
much vaster and exhaustive, his insight so much more
penetrating, his deductions so much more plausible and true
of any of his contemporaries or any of his successors prior to
the advent of modern science that he became the all-knowing
master in whom the scholastic mind could find no fault”
(Maxey). Whatever subject he treated, he treated it well;
whatever work he wrote, he made it a masterpiece. His
legacy, like that of his teacher Plato, was so rich that all those
who claim themselves as realists, scientists, pragmatists, and
utilitarians look to him as teacher, guide, and philosopher.
Il (b) Aristotle: The Man, His Times, His Works and His
Methodology
Aristotle (384-322 BC) was born at Stagira, then a small
Greek colony close to the borders of the Macedonian
Kingdom. His father, Nicomachus was a physician at the
court of Amyntas II. A longer part of his boyhood was spent at
Pella, the royal seat of Macedonia. Because of his descent
from a medical family, it can well be imagined that Aristotle
must have read medicine, and must have developed his
interests in physical sciences, particularly Biology. Upon the
death of his parents, Aristotle’s care fell upon a relative,
Proxenus, whose son, Nicaner, Aristotle later adopted.
Although, not an Athenian, Aristotle lived in Athens for
more than half of his life, first as a student at Plato’s Academy
for nearly twenty years (367-347 BC), and later as the master
of his own institution, the Lyceum, for about twelve years or
so, between 335 and 323 BC. He died a year later in Chaleis
(the birth place of his mother, Phalstis) while in exile,
following fears of being executed by the Athenians for his pro-
Macedonian sympathies: “I will not allow the Athenians to
commit another sin (first being the execution of Socrates in
399 BC),” he had then said. During the intervening period of
twelve years (347-335 BC), he remained away from Athens,
his “journeyman period”. Between 347-344 BC he stayed at
Assus with one Hermias, a tyrant, and an axe-slave but a
friend of the Macedonian King, Philip. He married Hermias’s
niece and adopted daughter, Pythias, and on whose death,
later he began a union, without marriage, with Herphyllis, a
Stagirite like Aristotle—they had a son named Nicomachus,
after Aristotle’s father.
Aristotle’s relationship, with Hermias got Aristotle close to
the Macedonian King whose son, Alexander (later Alexander
the Great) was Aristotle’s student for some time, much before
the establishment of Lyceum in 335 BC. Like his teacher
Plato, Aristotle had kept his association with men of the ruling
classes—with Hermias between 347-344 BC, with Alexander
between 342 and 323 BC and with Antipater after Alexander’s
death in 323 BC. Such an association with rulers helped
Aristotle’s penetrating eyes to see the public affairs governed
more closely. From Hermias, he came to value the nature of
one-man role, learnt something of economics and the
importance of foreign relations and of foreign policy, some
reference to these are found in his Politicus. From Alexander,
Aristotle got all possible help that could impress upon his
collections (Alexander is said to have utilised the services of
about 800 talents in Aristotle's service, and inducted all
hunters, fowlers, and fishermen to report to Aristotle any
matter of scientific interest). From Antipater came Aristotle’s
advocacy of modern polity and of the propertied middle-class,
something that Aristotle had advocated in Politicus. From
Lycurgus, the Athenian statesman (338-326 BC) and a
Platonist and Aristotle’s classmate, Aristotle learnt the
significance of reforms which he made a part of his best
practicable state. But that was not all that was Aristotle’s.
Aristotle, indeed, had his own too—his family background of
looking at everything scientifically, Plato’s impact over a
period of twenty years, his keen observation of political
events, his study of 158 constitutions of his times, and his
elaborate studies at the Lyceum through lectures and
discussions—all these combined to make him = an
encyclopedic mind and prolific writer.
Aristotle is said to have written about 150 philosophical
treatises. About 30 of which survive; all these touch on an
enormous range of philosophical problems from biology and
physics to morals, to aesthetics, to politics. Many, however,
are thought to be ‘lecture notes’ instead of complete, polished
treaties, and a few may not be his, but of members of the
school. There is a record that Aristotle wrote six treatises on
various phrases of logic, twenty-six on different subjects in
the field of natural sciences, four on ethics and morals, three
on art and poetry, one each on metaphysics, economics,
history, and politics, and four or more on miscellaneous
subjects.
Aristotle’s Works can be classified into three headings:
i. dialogues and other works of a popular character;

ii. collections of facts and materials from scientific
treatment;
ili. systematic works.
Among his writings of a popular nature, the only one, which

we possess, is the interesting tract On the Polity of the
Athenians. The works on the second group include 200 titles,
mostly in fragments. The systematic treatises of the third
group are marked by a plainness of style. Until Werner
Jaeger (Aristotle: Fundamentals of the History of His
Developments), it was assumed that Aristotle’s writings
presented a systematic account of his views. Jaeger argues
for an early, middle, and late period, where the early period
follows Plato’s theory of forms and soul, the middle rejects
Plato, and the late period, including most of his writings, is
more empirically oriented.
It is not certain as to when a particular work was written by
Aristotle. W.D. Ross (Aristotle) presumes that Aristotle’s
writings appeared in the order of the progressive withdrawal
from Plato’s influence. The dialogues, especially in Rhetoric
(also the Grylus), On the Soul (also the Endemus), the
Protrepticus (On Philosophy) were written during Aristotle’s
stay in the Academy. Dialogues like Alexander and On
Monarchy were written during the time or later when
Alexander assumed power. To the period between 347 and
335 BC, belong Aristotle’s the Organon, the Physics, the De
Daele, a part of De Anima and the ‘Metaphysics’, the
Eudemian Ethics, and a greater part of the Politicus— all
these are largely Platonic in character, but in the forms of
dialogues. To the period of his headship of the Lyceum
belong the rest of the works, notably the Meteorological, the
works on psychology and biology, the Constitutions, the
Nicomachean Ethics after his son (and not father), the
Poetics, and the Politicus.
Aristotle’s political theory is found mainly in the Politicus,
although there are references of his political thought in the
Nicomachean Ethics. His Constitutions analyses the system
of government on the basis of his study of about 158
constitutions. Notable among them is the Constitution of
Athens. Aristotle’s Politicus, like any other work of his, has
come down to us in the form of lecture notes (See Barker:
The Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle) and consists of
several essays written at various times about which the
scholars have no unanimity. Jaeger argues that a distinction
is to be made between “The Original Politics” (Books 2, 3, 7,
8) which is Platonist in inspiration and which deals with the
construction of the ideal state or the best possible, and the
truly “Aristotlelian Politics” (Books 4, 5, 6) which contains a
much more empirical grasp of how politics works in the real
political world. Barker puts the order of the eight books of the
Politicus on the basis of internal development of Aristotle’s
ideas: the first three books deal with the beginning of
preliminary principles and criticism, the fourth and the fifth
books (traditionally arranged as the seventh and eighth
books) deal with the construction of the ideal or the best
possible state, the last three books, i.e., sixth to eighth
(traditionally, fourth to sixth) deal with the analysis of the
actual states, and also with the causes and cures of
revolutions.
Aristotle's methodology was different from that of Plato.
While Plato adopted the philosophical method in his approach
to politics, Aristotle followed the scientific and analytical
methodology. Plato’s style is almost poetic whereas that of
Aristotle, prose-like.
Scientific as Aristotle’s method of study is, it is, at the same
time, historical, comparative, inductive, and observational.
Barker comments that Aristotle’s methodology is scientific; his
work is systematic, his writings are analytical. Aristotle’s each
essay begins with the words: “Observation shows ....” It is
said that Alexander had employed over a thousand people for
reporting to him anything of scientific nature. He did not
accept anything except which he found was_ proven
empirically and scientifically. Unlike his teacher Plato who
proceeded from general to the particular, he followed the path
from the particular to the general. Plato argued with
conclusions that were pre-conceived while Aristotle, in a
scientific way, arrived at his conclusions by the force of his
logic and analysis. Empiricism was Aristotle’s merit. Aristotle’s
chief contribution to political science is to bring the subject
matter of politics within the scope of the methods, which he
was already using to investigate other aspects of nature.
Aristotle, the biologist, looks at the developments in political
life in much the same way that he looks at the developing life
of other natural phenomena. Abraham Edel identifies features
of scientific methodology in Aristotle. Some such features are:
e “His (Aristotle’s) conception of systematic knowledge is

rationalistic’;
e According to him: “Basic concepts and relations in each
field are grasped directly on outcomes of an inductive
process.”
e “Data are furnished by accumulated observation,
common opinion, and traditional generalisation.”
e “Theoretical principles emerge from analytic sifting of
alternative explanation.”
e “The world is a plurality of what we could today call
homeostatic systems, whose ground plan may be
discovered and rationally formulated.”
e “Matter and form are relative analytic concepts.
Dynamically, matter is centred as potentiality ... and
form as culminating actuality.”
e “Man is distinctively rational.”
Characteristic Features of Aristotle’s Methodology
Major characteristic features of Aristotle's methodology can
be briefly explained as under:
(a) Inductive and Deductive

Plato’s method of investigation is more deductive than
inductive whereas Aristotle’s methodology is inductive than
deductive. The deductive features of Aristotle’s methodology
are quite visible, though shades of Plato’s reasoning remain
on the margins. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics does contain
ideals of normative thinking and ethical life. Same is true
about his Politicus as well. Like Plato, Aristotle does conceive
‘a good life’ (his deductive thinking) but he builds, ‘good’ and
‘honourable life’ on the inductive approach about the state as
a union of families and villages which came into existence for
satisfying the material needs of man. His inductive style
compels him to classify states as he observes them but he
never loses sight of the best state that he imagines.
(b) Historical and Comparative

Aristotle can claim to be the father of historical and
comparative methods of studying political phenomena.
Considering history as a key to all the secrets, Aristotle takes
recourse in the past to understand the present. The fact is
that all his studies are based on his historical analysis: the
nature of the causes and description of revolution, which
Aristotle takes up in Politicus, have been dealt historically.
Aristotle also follows the comparative method of study, both
intensively and extensively. His classification of states
together with the consequent cycle of change is based on his
intensive study of 158 constitutions of his times. Through
comparative analysis, he speaks about the ‘pure’ and
‘perverted’ forms of states.
(c) Teleological and Analogical

Aristotle pursued teleological and analogical methods of
analysing and_ investigating political phenomena. His
approach was teleological using the model of craftsmanship.
Aristotle insisted that nature works like an artist and in the
process it seeks to attain the object for which, it exists.
Nature, Aristotle used to say, does nothing without a purpose
—man lives in society to attain his development; state helps
man to achieve his end. Following his teacher Plato, Aristotle
found much in common between a ruler and an artist,
between a statesman and a physician.
(d) Analytical and Observational

Aristotle’s methodology was both analytical as well as
observational. In his whole thought-process, he observed
more than he thought; all his studies were based on data and
facts, which came under his keen observation. Through
study, experiments, and observations, Aristotle analysed
things and, therefore, reached conclusions. Regarding state
as something of a whole, for example, Aristotle went on to
explain its constituents—families and villages. He declares
man as a social animal by nature, considers family as the
extension of man’s nature, village as the extension of family’s
nature, and state as the extension of village’s nature.
Il (c) Aristotle: His Political Ideas
Il (c)(i) Plato and Aristotle

There was much that separated Aristotle from Plato—the
pupil from the teacher. Their views about life were different;
their vision about the world was different; their approaches
were different and accordingly, they differed in conclusions.
Maxey writes: “Where Plato let his imagination take flight,
Aristotle is factual and dull; where Plato is eloquent, Aristotle
is terse; where Plato leaps from general concepts of logical
conclusions, Aristotle slowly works from a multitude of facts to
conclusions that are logical but not final; where Plato gives us
an ideal commonwealth that is the best his mind can
conceive, Aristotle gives us the material requisites out of
which, by adapting them to circumstances as model state
may be constructed.”
Aristotle was Plato’s disciple but he was his critic as well. It
is, therefore, common to project Aristotle against Plato as
Andrew Hacker (Political Theory) really does. One is
acclaimed to be a scientist while the other, a philosopher, one
a reformist, the other, a radical; one willing to work and build
on the actual state, the other, anxious to recast the state
afresh. On the farthest possible extreme, one advocating
political realism, the other adhering to political idealism; one
beginning with particular and ending at general, the other
starting from the general and coming down to the particular.
Aristotle’s criticisms of Plato were on the following grounds.
His greatest complaint against Plato was that he made a
departure from experience. Aristotle says: “Let us remember
that we should not disregard the experience of ages; in the
multitude of years these things, if they were good, would
certainly not have been unknown.. “ He admitted Plato’s
works were “brilliant and suggestive” but were at the same
time “radical and speculative” (see Sabine, A History of
Political Theory).
Aristotle criticised Plato’s state as an artificial creation, built
successively in three stages with producers coming first and
thereafter the auxiliaries and the rulers. As an architect, Plato
built the state. Aristotle, on the contrary, regarded the state as
a natural organisation, the result of growth and evolution. He
says that if the numerous forms of the society before society
were natural, so was natural the state as well. With Plato,
Aristotle does recognise the importance of the state for the
individual, and also, like Plato, considers the state like a
human organism, but unlike him, he does not think of the
state as a unity. For Aristotle, the state was a unity in
diversity.
Aristotle did not agree with Plato on the notion of justice, for
he, unlike Plato, found justice more in the realms of enjoying
one’s rights rather than performing one’s duties. For Aristotle,
justice was a practical activity, a virtue and not doing things in
accordance with one’s nature. Plato’s justice was ethical in
nature while that of Aristotle, judicial or more specifically,
legal in nature. Plato’s justice was, as Aristotle believed,
incomplete in so far as it dealt predominantly with duties, and
more or less ignored rights. In other words, Aristotle labelled
Plato’s justice as moral in nature since it gave primacy to the
performance of one’s duties.
Aristotle did not approve of the three classes of Plato’s
ideal state, especially the guardians having the political
power. He disagreed with the idea of one class (guardians
consisting of the rulers and the auxiliaries) enjoying all
powers of the state. The failure to allow circulation, says
David Young (Rhetorical Discourse), “between classes
excludes those men who may be ambitious, and wise, but are
not in the right class of society to hold any type of political
power.” Aristotle, he continues, looks upon this ruling class
system as an ill-conceived political structure.
Plato, in his Republic did not consider laws as important.
He was of the opinion that where the rulers were virtuous,
there was no need of laws, and where they were not, there
the laws were useless. Aristotle realised the significance of
laws and held the view that the rule of law was any day better
than the rule of men, howsoever wise those rulers might be.
Even Plato realised the utility of laws and revised his position
in his Laws.
Aristotle doubted if Plato’s community of wives and
property would help produce the desired unity. Rather, he
regarded these devices as impracticable, for communism of
property created conflicts while that of the family led to a
system where love and discipline within the family would
evaporate. By providing communistic devices, Plato, Aristotle
felt, had punished the guardians and deprived them of
intrinsic love among the members of the family. Plato’s
communism created a family of the state which, according to
Aristotle, led to a point where the state ceases to be a state.
Sabine says: “A family is one thing and a state is something
different, and it is better that one should not try to ape the
other.”
Aristotle’s criticism of Plato, violent as it is at times, is a
matter of fact. But there is the other fact as well and that is
that there is a Plato in Aristotle. Foster (Masters of Political
Thought) says: “Aristotle, the greatest of all Platonists that he
is, is permeated by Platonism to a degree in which perhaps
no great philosopher besides him has been permeated by the
thought of another.” Every page which Aristotle wrote bears
the imprint of Plato. In fact, Aristotle begins from where Plato
ends up. “The ideas, expressed by Plato as suggestions,
illusions, or illustrations are taken up by Aristotle.” (Dunning:
A History of Political Theories). It would not be unfair if the
pupil is thought to be an extension of the teacher. Aristotle,
instead of damaging Plato’s ideals, builds on them. Ross
(Aristotle) points out: “But of his (Aristotle’s) philosophical, in
distinction from his scientific works, there is no page which
does not bear the impression of Platonism.” Both Plato and
Aristotle start with ideal, examine the actual, and stop at the
possible. There is, in each, a belief in natural inequality, in the
dominance of reason over the passion, in the self-sufficing
state as the only unit necessary for individual development.
Like his teacher Plato, Aristotle thinks that the ethical
perfection of man is possible only in a state and that the
interest of the state is the interest of those who constitute it.
Indeed, Aristotle’s criticism of Plato cannot be ignored, and
in fact, he had no regrets on that count. Will Durant rightly
says: “As Brutus (a character of Shakespeare Julius Caesar)
loves not Caesar less, but Rome more, so Aristotle says—
dear is Plato, but dearer still is truth.” So writes Ebenstein
(Great Political thinkers): “Plato found the corrective to his
thinking in his own student.”
Il(c) (ii) Aristotle: Politics and Ethics

Aristotle is not a philosopher of Plato’s sort, but the
philosophical basis of his political ideas cannot be ignored.
There is the philosophical basis in whole of his political
theory. There is a belief in God in Aristotle. He considers god
as the creator of everything . This provides a spiritual outlook
to him. According to him, every phenomenon has two aspects
—form and matter. Aristotle gives significance to what
constitutes matter whereas Plato believes that whatever is
visible is the shadow of the form. Aristotle, on the other hand,
is convinced that what is visible is also important in so far as it
is itself the result of numerous elements constituting it, the
form only activates it, guides it, and helps it to attain its end
which is ethical. Aristotle also believes that man’s soul has
two parts—logical and illogical—and through ethical virtues,
man attains rationality, the logical part of the soul.
Aristotle is a political realist, but in spite of it, he has not lost
sight of politics existing to achieve its moral ends. In fact,
Aristotle does not regard politics as a separate science from
ethics; politics is the completion of verification of ethics. To
say it in other words, politics is, in Aristotle’s views,
continuation of, and continuation with ethics. If one would like
to put Aristotle’s point, one would say that just as it is human
nature to seek happiness, it is human nature to live in
communities. We are social animals and the state is a
development from the family through the village community,
an off-shoot of the family. Formed originally for the
satisfaction of natural wants, state exists for moral ends and
for the promotion of the family; formed originally for the
satisfaction of natural wants, state exists for moral ends and
for the promotion of the higher life. The state is a genuine
moral organisation for advancing the development of human
beings. In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle clearly says, “We
regard the object of politics as supreme which is the
attainment of a good and honourable life of the members of
the community.” Ethics guides his political theory, seeking the
co-relation of political and ethical life. His Nicomachean
Ethics is an inspiration to his Politicus.
Following are the main points of Aristotle’s political theory:
i. For Aristotle, the state is not merely a political

community; it is at the same time a government, a
school, an ethics, and a culture. It is what expresses
man’s whole life; gives man a good life which, in turn,
means a moral and ethical living.
ii. In his Nicomachean Ethics, he describes the moral
qualities which a man should possess. In Politicus as
well, he points out the qualities of a citizen; a good man
can only be a good citizen. As in a good man, so ina
good citizen there ought to be qualities such as
cooperation, tolerance, self-control; qualities which
Aristotle says, are imbibed by practice. Thus, practice
helps attain qualities and politics helps achieve ethical
ends.
iii. Aristotle’s bias of political theory is his ethics. In his
work on ethics, he says emphatically that man is
different from animal in so far as he is more active and
more rational than animals. It is through his rationality
— the element of reason in him—that man does what is
in his interest or is in the interest of the community he is
a part of; he seeks what is good for him and for his
fellow-beings. Men, Aristotle holds the view, and not
animals, have lessons of ethics.
iv. Aristotle’s political theory is intimately related to his
ethical theory. His theory of justice, for example, is
ethically-oriented. For Aristotle, justice is virtue, a
complete virtue, morality personified and all that is
good. This is his notion of justice in his Nicomachean
Ethics. In his Politicus, he puts forth the view that justice
is distributive and linked to the notion of proportionate
equality which for Aristotle meant to treat equals
equally, and unequals, unequally. Ethics is not only a
basis for his political theory, it is its escort and
inspiration as well. Nowhere in the discussion of his
political ideas does Aristotle say anything which is not
ethical.
Il (c) (iii) Aristotle: Theory of Justice

Like his teacher Plato, Aristotle believed that justice is the
very essence of the state and that no polity can endure for a
long time unless it is founded on a right scheme of justice. It
is with this consideration in view that Aristotle seeks to set
forth his theory of justice. He held the view that justice
provides an aim to the state, and an object to the individual.
“When perfected, man is the best of animals, but when
separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all.”
Like Plato, Aristotle regarded justice as the breadth of the
state/polity. According to him, justice is virtue, complete
virtue, and the embodiment of all goodness. It is not the same
thing as virtue, but it is virtue itself, and virtue in action.
Justice is virtue, but it is more than virtue; it is virtue in
action, i.e., virtue in practice. Reason is, for example, a virtue,
but the reasonable/rational conduct is justice; truth is a virtue,
but to be truthful is justice. What makes a virtue justice is the
very practice of that virtue. So Aristotle says, “The good in the
sphere of politics is justice, and justice contains what tends to
promote the common interest.”
For Aristotle, justice is no less significant, for he regards
justice as the very virtue of the state. It is justice that makes a
state, gives it a vision, and coupled with ethics, it takes the
state to the heights of all ethical values. Justice saves the
state from destruction, it makes the state and political life pure
and healthy. Ross says, “Aristotle begins by recognising two
senses of the word. By ‘Just’, we may mean what is lawful or
what is fair and equal.”
For Aristotle, justice is either general or it is particular
justice as a part of general justice; a part of complete virtue if
by general justice we mean complete virtue. According to
Aristotle, “General justice is complete goodness ... It is
complete in the fullest sense, because it is the exercise of
complete goodness not only in himself but also towards his
neighbours.” Particular justice is a part of complete/general
justice; it is, therefore, a part of complete goodness, its one
aspect. A person seeking particular justice is one who
observes laws but does not demand from the society more
than what he deserves.
Particular justice is of two types—distributive and
corrective. For Aristotle, distributive justice hands out honours
and rewards according to the merits of the recipients—equals
to be treated equally and unequals, unequally. Corrective
justice takes no account of the position of the parties
concerned but simply secures equality between the two by
taking away the advantage from the one and adding it to the
disadvantage of the other—giving justice to one who has
been denied and inflicting punishment on one who has denied
the other justice.
One can compare Plato’s notion of justice with that of
Aristotle in the following ways:
i. For Plato, justice is the performance of one’s duties to

the best of one’s abilities and capacities; for Aristotle,
justice is the reward in proportion to what one
contributes.
ii. Plato’s justice is related to ‘duties’ (it is duties-oriented)
whereas Aristotle’s justice is related to ‘rights’ (it is
rights-oriented).
iii. Plato’s theory of justice is essentially moral and
philosophical while that of Aristotle is legal.
iv. Both had a conception of distributive justice. For Plato,
that meant individual excellence and performance of
one’s duties while for Aristotle it meant what people
deserve, the right to receive.
v. Plato’s justice is spiritual whereas Aristotle’s, practical,
i.e., itis virtue in action, goodness in practice.
vi. Plato’s justice is related to one’s inner self, i.e., what
comes straight from the soul; Aristotle’s justice is related
to man’s actions, i.e., with his external activities.
Aristotle’s theory of justice is worldly, associated with man’s

conduct in practical life, of course, with all ethical values
guiding him. But he is unable to correlate the ethical
dimension of justice to its legal dimension. His distributive
justice (rewards in accordance to one’s abilities) is far, far
away from the realities of the political world. It is, indeed,
difficult to bring about a balance between the ever-increasing
population and ever-decreasing opportunities of the state.
Il (iv) Aristotle on Property, Family and Slavery

Aristotle’s theory of property is based on his criticism of
Plato’s communism of property. Plato thought of property as
an obstacle in the proper functioning of the state and,
therefore, suggested communism for the guardian class. But
for Aristotle, property provided psychological satisfaction by
fulfilling the human instinct for possession and ownership. His
chief complaint against Plato was that he failed to balance the
claims of production and distribution. In Plato’s communism of
property, those who produce properly do not obtain the
reward of their efforts, and those who do not produce (the
rulers and the auxiliaries), get all comforts of life. His
conclusion, therefore, is that communism of _ property
ultimately leads to conflicts and clashes. He is of the opinion
that property is necessary for one who produces it and for
that matter, necessary for all. Professor Maxey expresses
Aristotle’s voice when he says, “Man must eat, be clad, have
shelter, and in order to do so, must acquire property. The
instinct to do so is as natural and proper as the provision that
nature makes, in supplying wild animals, and the means of
satisfying the needs of sustenance and production.” Property
is necessary; Aristotle says, “Wealth (property) is a store of
things, which is necessary or useful for life.”
According to Aristotle, “Property is a part of the household
and the art of acquiring property is a part of managing the
household; for no man lives well, or indeed live at all unless
he is provided with necessaries.” With regard to the
ownership of property, Aristotle referred to:
i. individual ownership, and individual use, which is, for

Aristotle, the most dangerous situation;
ii, Common ownership, and individual use, a situation that
begins with socialism, but ends in capitalism—it is also
not acceptable;
ili. Common ownership and common use, a devise
invariably impracticable;
iv. individual ownership and common use, a device
generally possible and equally acceptable.
Aristotle says, “Property ought to be generally and in the

main private, but common in use.”
According to Aristotle’s thesis, private property is essential
and, therefore, is justified, but it has to be acquired through
honest means: “Of all the means of acquiring wealth, taking
interest is the most unnatural method.” Aristotle is also
against amassing property. So he said, “To acquire too much
wealth (property) will be as gross an error as to make a
hammer too heavy.”
As against Plato, Aristotle advocates the private family
system. According to Aristotle, family is the primary unit of
social life, which not only makes society but keeps it going.
Criticising Plato’s communism of families, Aristotle writes,
“For that which is common to the greatest number has the
least care bestowed upon it. Everyone thinks chiefly of his
own, hardly at all of the common interest, and only when he is
himself concerned as an individual. For besides other
considerations, everybody is more inclined to neglect
something which he expects another to fulfill, as in families
many attendants are often less useful than a few. Each
citizen will have a thousand sons who will not be his sons
individually, but anybody will be equally the son of anybody,
and therefore, will be neglected by all alike.”
Aristotle believed that family is one institution where an
individual is born, is nurtured, gets his identity, his name and
above all attains intellectual development. He asserts that
family is the primary school of social virtue where a child gets
lessons of qualities such as cooperation, love, tolerance, and
sacrifice. It is not merely a primary association, but is a
necessary unit of society. If man is a social animal which
Aristotle insists he is, family becomes the extension of man’ s
nature; the village, the extension of families; and the state, an
extension and union of families and villages.
(— Y
Aristotle Quotes
e “At his best, man is the noblest of all animals,

separated from law and justice, he is the worst.”
e “Change, in all things, is sweet.”
e “Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and,
therefore, deprive them of their arms.”
e “Democracy arises out of the notion that those who
are equal in any respect are equal in all respects;
because men are equally free, they claim to be
absolutely equal.”
“Education is an ornament in prosperity and a refuge
in adversity.”
“He who is unable to live in society, or who has no
need because he is sufficient for himself, must be
either a beast or a god.”
“In a democracy, the poor will have more power than
the rich, because there are more of them, and the will
of the majority is supreme.”
“Man, by nature, is a political animal.”
“Nature does nothing uselessly.”
“Plato is dear to me, but dearer is truth.”
“Republics decline into democracies and democracies
degenerate into despotisms.”
“The law is reason, free from passion.”
e “The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is
always sweet.”
“The worst form of inequality is to try to make
unequals equal.”
“This is the reason why mothers are more devoted to
their children than fathers: it is that they suffer more in
giving them birth and are more certain that they are
their own.”
“Those who educate children well are more to be
honoured than they who produce them; for these only
gave them life, those the art of living well.”
e “We make war so that we may live in peace.”
e “Well begun is half done.”
e “What it lies in our power to do, also lies in our power
not to do.”
A family, Aristotle says, consists of husband, wife, children,
slaves, and property. It involves three types of relationships
that of the master and slave, marital (between the husband
and wife), and parental (between the father and the child).
The master, Aristotle held, rules the slave; the husband rules
the wife (Aristotle regards woman inferior to man), and the
father rules the son. With his belief in patriarchy, Aristotle
wants to keep woman within the four-walls of the house, good
only for household work and reproduction and nurture of the
species. For him, man is the head of the family. Likewise,
Aristotle affirms that man is superior to woman, wiser than the
slave, and more experienced than the children.
Aristotle is convinced that family is the very unit, which
makes up, ultimately, the state—from man to family, families
to village, from villages to the state. This is how the natural
growth of the state takes place.
Aristotle justifies slavery, which in fact, was the order of the
day. He writes, “For that some should rule and others be
ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the
hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others
for rule.” So Foster rightly says, “In fact, Aristotle justifies
slavery on grounds of expediency”. According to Barker,
“Aristotle’s conception of slavery is more a justification of a
necessity than a deduction from disinterested observation of
facts.” Maxey is more clear than numerous others in
expressing Aristotle’s justification of slavery: “Some persons,
remarks Aristotle, think slavery is unjust and contrary to
nature, but he is of the opinion that it is quite in accord with
the laws of nature and the principles of justice. Many persons,
he asserts, are intended by nature to be slaves; from the
hours of their birth they are marked for subjection. Not that
they are necessarily inferior in strength of body or mind, but
they are of a servile nature, and so are better off when they
are ruled by other men. They lack somehow the quality of
soul that distinguishes the freeman and_ master.
Consequently, it is just that they should be held as property
and used as other property is used, as a means of
maintaining life.”
Why should one person be a slave and another, master?
Aristotle’s answer is: “For he who can be, and, therefore, is,
other’s and he who participates in rational principle enough to
apprehend, but not to have, such a principle, is a slave by
nature,” and one who is one’s own, and participates in the
rational principles because he has such a principle is a
master. What distinguishes a master or freeman from a
slave? Aristotle makes the point: “Nature would like to
distinguish between the bodies of freemen and slaves,
making the one (slave) strong for servile and labour, the other
(freeman) upright, and although useless for such services (as
labour), useful for political life, in the arts both of war and
peace.” So he concludes: “It is clear, then, that some men are
by nature free, and others slaves, and that for these latter
slavery is both expedient and right.” The argument supporting
Aristotle’s contention may be stated in his own words: “Where
then there is such a difference as that between soul and
body, or between man and animals (as in the case of those
whose business is to use their body, and who can be nothing
better), the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for
them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a
master.”
Slavery is not only natural, it is necessary as well. It is
natural, Aristotle argued, because nature does not admit
equality; it is necessary, he continues, because if the master
needs a slave so that he is able to enjoy a free life, the slave
also needs a master so that he is able to attain the virtues of
freeman only in the company of freemen.
A slave, according to Aristotle, is not a human being. He is
sub-human, incomplete, and a barbarian. However, he is an
animate, a means for action and not intended for production,
for he helps in the business within the household. He belongs
to the master. But Aristotle rejects inhumane treatment of
slaves, and advocates their emancipation as a reward for
their good behaviour. Aristotle had emancipated his slaves a
year before his death.
Il (v) Aristotle: Theory of Revolution

In Book V of the Politicus, Aristotle discussed one of the most
important problems, which made it a handbook for all the
statesmen for all times to come. The problem, which he took
up, was one that related to political instability or the causes
and cures of revolutions. The analytical and the empirical
mind of Aristotle gives numerous causes, which would affect
the life of the state. As a physician examines his patient and
suggests remedies, so does Aristotle, the son of a medical
practitioner, Nicomachus, ascertains the causes of what ails
the states and thereafter suggests remedies. Gettel says,
“Politicus is not a systematic study of political philosophy, but
rather is a treatise on the art of government. In it, Aristotle
analyses the evils that were prevalent in the Greek cities and
the defects in the political systems and gives practical
suggestions as to the best way to avoid threatening dangers.”
Dunning writes the same thing: “In Book V of the Politicus,
Aristotle follows up his elaborate array of the causes that
produce revolutions by an equally impressive array of means
of preventing them.”
Revolution according to Aristotle, means, a change in the
constitution, a change in the rulers, a change—big or small.
For him, the change from monarchy to aristocracy, an
example of a big change, is a revolution; when democracy
becomes less democratic, it is also a revolution, though it is a
small change. In Aristotle’s views, political change—big or
small, total or partial—is a revolution; So to sum up Aristotle’s
meaning of revolution, one may say revolution implies:
i. a change in the set of rulers;

ii. a change, political in nature;
iii. a palace revolution;
iv. political instability or political transformation;
v. a change followed by violence, destruction and
bloodshed.
Aristotle was an advocate of status quo and did not want

political changes, for they brought with them catastrophic and
violent changes. That is why he devoted a lot of space in the
Politicus explaining the general and particular causes of
revolutions followed with his suggestions to avoid them.
Professor Maxey identifies the general causes of
revolutions as stated by Aristotle in his Politicus: “They are
i. that universal passion for privilege and prerogative

which causes men to resent and rebel against condition
which (unfairly in their opinion) place other men above
or on a level with them in rank or wealth;
ii. the overreaching insolence or avarice of rulers or ruling
classes which causes men to react against them;
iii. the possession by one or more individuals of power
such as to excite fears that they design to act up a
monarchy or an oligarchy;
iv. the endeavours of men guilty of wrongdoing to foment a
revolution as a smokescreen to conceal their own
enemies;
v. the disproportionate increase of any part (territorial,
social, economic, or otherwise) of the state, causing
other parts to resort to violent means of offsetting this
preponderance;
vi. the dissension and rivalries of people of different races;
vii. the ruling family feuds and quarrels; and
viii. struggles for office and political power between rival
classes and political factions or parties.”
To the general causes of revolutions, Aristotle adds the

particular ones peculiar to the various types. In democracy,
the most important cause of revolution is the unprincipled
character of the popular leaders. Demagogues attack the rich,
individually or collectively, so as to provide them to forcibly
resist and provide the emergence of oligarchy. The causes of
overthrow of oligarchies can be internal as and when a group
within the class in power becomes more influential or rich at
the expenses of the rest, or external, by the mistreatment of
the masses by the governing class. In
aristocracies, few people share honour. When the number
of people benefitting becomes smaller or when disparity
between rich and poor becomes wider, revolution is caused.
Monarchy, Kingship, and tyranny are bad forms of
constitution to begin with and are very prone to dissensions.
To these causes of revolutions, Aristotle suggested means
to avoid them. Maxey, in this connection, says: “The first
essential, he (Aristotle) says is jealously to maintain the spirit
of obedience to law, for transgression creeps in unperceived,
and at last reins the state,, .The second thing is not to
maltreat any classes of people excluded from the
government, but to give due recognition to the leading spirits
among them.The third device for preventing revolution,
according to Aristotle, is to keep patriotism at fever pitch. The
ruler who has a care of the state should invent terrors, and
bring distant dangers near, in order that the citizens may be
on their guard, and like sentinels in a night-watch, never relax
their attention. The fourth expedient is to counteract the
discontent that arises from inequality of position as condition
by arrangements which will prevent the magistrates for
making money out of their positions by limiting the tenure of
office and regulating the distribution of honours so that no one
person or group of persons will become disproportionately
powertul...fifth, and finally, this: ... of all the things which |
have mentioned, that which most contributes to the
permanence of constitutions is the adaptation of education to
the form of government.”. The young, in other words, must be
trained in the spirit of the constitution whatever that
constitution may be; must be disciplined to social habits
consonant with the maintenance of the constitution; must
learn to think and act as integral parts of a particular form of
political society.
Profound and realistic analysis of the general and particular
causes of revolution together with the suggestion to cure the
ailing system was important for Aristotle because according to
him, the whole treatment of the subject of revolution was not
without serious weaknesses. He has given a very narrow
meaning of revolution by calling it a political change only,
forgetting that revolution is always a comprehensive social
change in the fabric of the whole system. He also assigns a
negative role to the revolution by saying that revolution brings
with it destruction, violence, and bloodshed. In doing so,
Aristotle fails to recognise the fact that revolutions, as Marx
had said, are locomotives of history, violence only a non-
significant attending characteristic of that wnolesome change.
Aristotle emphasised that revolutions need to be kept away,
and this made him the status-quoist of his times.
Aristotle’s treatment of revolution was to describe it as a
political upheaval, and accordingly limited in nature. Marx
gives to the concept of revolution a broader view which is
social. For Aristotle, revolutions caused bloodshed, violence,
catastrophic changes while, for Marx, revolutions signify a
direction towards a new change, an improved state of affairs,
and therefore, a welcome step in the society. Aristotle’s
theory of revolution suggests Aristotle as a status-quoist—his
theory states revolutions lead to violence and create a
situation of uncertainty. Marx regards revolutions as those
changes which relieve society of stagnation and help enter
the society into a life of new beginnings.
Il (vi) Aristotle: Theory of State

For Aristotle, as with Plato, the state (Polis) is all-important.
Both Plato and Aristotle see in the polis more than a state.
The polis is for both a community as well as a state, state as
well as a government; government as well as a school; school
as well as a religion. What is more is the fact that both regard
the polis as a means for the attainment of complete life. The
state with Aristotle, as with Plato too, began for the
satisfaction of basic wants, but as it developed, it came to
perform more elevated aims essential for good life. Aristotle
says, “But a state exists for the sake of a good life, and not for
the sake of life only.”
The characteristic features of Aristotle’s theory of state can
be briefly stated as under:
The state, for Aristotle, is a natural organisation, and not

an artificial one. Unlike Plato’s ideal state, Aristotle’s
state is not structured or manufactured, not a make, but
is a growth—growing gradually out of villages with—
villages growing out of families, and the families, out of
man’s nature, his social instincts. The state grows like a
tree.
. The state is prior to the individual. It is so in the sense,
the whole is prior to the part. “The state” Aristotle says,
“is by nature clearly prior to the family and the
individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the
part; for example, if the whole body be destroyed, there
will be no foot or hand, except in an equivocal sense, as
we might speak of a stone hand; for when destroyed the
hand will be no better than that. But things are defined
by their working and power; and we ought not to say
that they are the same when they no longer have their
proper quality but only that they have the same name.”
“The proof that the state is a creation of nature, and
prior to the individual’, he continues “is that the
individual, when isolated, is not self-sufficing; and
therefore, he is like a part in relation to the whole. But
he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need
because he is sufficient for himself, must either be a
beast or a god; he is no part of a state.”
The state is not only an association or union as Aristotle
calls it, but is an association of associations. The other
associations are not as large as is the state; they are
specific, and, therefore, limited in their objectives and
essence. The state, on the other hand, has general and
common purposes, and, therefore, has larger concerns
as compared to any or other associations.
The state is like a human organism. Aristotle is of the
opinion that the state, like the human organism, has its
own parts, i.e., the individuals. Apart from the state, he
argues, the individuals have no importance, and
separated from the body, the parts have no life of their
own. The interest of the part of the body is inherent in
the interest of the body—what separate interest a hand
has when apart from the body. Likewise, the interest of
the individuals is inherent in the interest of the state.
The state is a self-sufficing institution while the village
and the family is not. The self-sufficient state is higher
than the families and the villages—it is their union. As a
member of the family the individuals become social.
Vi. The state is not, Aristotle says, a unity which it is for
Plato. Plato seeks to attain unity within the state.
Aristotle too seeks to attain the unity, but for him, it is
unity in diversity. For Aristotle, the state is not
uniformity, but is one that brings all the diversities
together.
Vii. Aristotle’s best practicable state is, according to Sabine,
what Plato called second-best state. Aristotle’s state is
the best possible state, the most practicable. Mcllwain
sums up Aristotle’s best possible state, saying:
“Aristotle’s best possible state is simply the one which is
neither too rich nor too poor; secure from attack and
devoid of great wealth or wide expansion of trade or
territory, homogeneous, virtuous, defensible,
unambitious community, self-sufficient but not
aggressive, great but not large, a tightly independent
city devoted to the achievement of the highest possible
measure of culture and virtue, of well-being and true
happiness attainable by each and by all.”
It is one
i. which is a small city-state;

ii. whose territory corresponds to the population it has;
iii. that is geographically located near the river and where
good climate conditions exist;
iv. where the rule of law prevails; and
v. where authority/power is vested in the hands of the
citizens.
On the basis of his study of 158 constitutions, Aristotle has

given a classification which became a_ guide for all
subsequent philosophers who ventured to classify
governments. For him, the rule of one and for the interest of
all is monarchy and its perverted form is tyranny if such a rule
exists for the benefit of the ruler. The rule of the few and for
the interest of all is aristocracy, and its perverted form is
oligarchy if such few rule in their own interest. The rule of
many and for the interest of all is polity, and its perverted form
is democracy if such a rule exists for those who have the
power. Aristotle too refers to the cycle of classification—
monarchy is followed by tyranny; tyranny, by aristocracy;
aristocracy, by oligarchy; oligarchy, by polity; polity by
democracy; and democracy, by monarchy and so goes on the
cycle of classification.
Aristotle’s classification has become outdated, for it cannot
be applied to the existing system. What he calls the
classification of states is, in fact, the classification of
governments, for, like all the ancient Greeks, he confuses
between the state and the government.
Il (c) (vii) Aristotle: Evaluation of his Political Ideas
Aristotle is rightly regarded as the father of political science as
through his meticulous and painstaking research of political
institutions and behaviour, he provided the first framework of
studying politics empirically and __ scientifically. His
classification of constitutions provided the first major thrust for
studying comparative politics. The primacy of the political
science was most forcefully argued when he commented that
man by nature is a political animal, distinguishing between
individualistic animals like the lions and tigers to the
gregarious ones like the humans. His lasting importance was
his advocacy of the rule of law rather than personalised rule
by the wisest and the best. Aristotle’s practical prescriptions
have been more lasting and more influential than the radical
and provocative ideas of Plato.
It is because of such extraordinary acumen that Aristotle’s
influence on the subsequent political philosophers is without a
parallel in the history of political theory. In fact, he is accepted
more than his teacher. His views about the state and
particularly the nature of the state have not been challenged.
All those who venture to classify states start from Aristotle.
His views on revolution were the last words on the subject
until Marx came to analyse it differently. However, the
collapse of communism has revived more interest in
Aristotle’s perceptions than that of Marx. Polybius (204-
122BC), Cicero (106-43 BC), Thomas Aquinas (1225-74),
Marsilio of Padua (12701342), Machiavelli (1469-1527), John
Locke (1632-1704) and the recent communitarians like
MaclIntrye, Sandel and Taylor follow Aristotle in spirit. This
spirit is evident in all the major works of political theory
originating even in contemporary times.
Practice
Questions
1. “In Socrates Plato lived again”. Explain.

(200-250 words)
2. Evaluate Plato’s theory of Justice. (700-
800 words)
3. “The state is individual writ large.”
Discuss. (200-250 words)
4. “Central to Aristotle’s political thought is
his classification of the different types of
political constitutions in the politics.”
Evaluate. (2014) (200 words)
5. Discuss Plato’s theory of State. (700-
800 words)
6. Compare Plato’s views on communism
with those of Marx. (700-800 words)
7. “The state is prior to the individual.”
Explain. (200-250 words)
8. Evaluate Aristotle’s criticism of Plato.
(700-800 words)
9. Compare Aristotle’s views on revolution
with those of Marx. (700-800 words)
10. State and examine Aristotle’s theory of
1\
My
slavery. (700-800 words)

Western Political Thought II:
Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Mill
estern Political Thought moves into the modern

\/\V ee with Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) who
stands at its doorsteps. Machiavelli’s chief
contribution lies in his theory of statecraft and the use of the
word ‘state’. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), a materialist-
scientist, begins his philosophy with ‘man’, and ends up with
the ‘state’. John Locke (1632-1704) is described as the
forerunner of liberalism. John Stuart Mill (1806-73) is a great
democrat and a great humanist at that.
I. NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI: 1469-1527
| (a) Machiavelli: The Man, His Times, His Works

Niccolo Machiavelli, the essayist, the dramatist, the historian,
the sketch writer, the biographer, the dialogist, the novelist,
the poet, the statesman, the political realist, was born on May
3, 1469 in Florence, and died of illness, on June 22, 1527, in
Florence. He was, in every sense of the word, a true
‘Renaissance man’, ‘the child of his own age.’ He was
remarkably well-educated, though he did not join any major
university due to limited finances of the middle-class family he
belonged to. The effect of humanist teachings—prevalent at
most of the institutions of higher learning at that time—on
Machiavelli was limited. His knowledge of the specific details
of politics was due to his career as a bureaucrat and
diplomat. Little is known about his early life. His studies of
Livy and Polybius had made him sufficiently a republican.
There is no evidence of his having served the Medici family
before 1494 but as the republic was established in Florence,
Machiavelli rose high in administration rapidly. He served the
Florentine republic from 1498 to 1512 holding high official
positions relating to foreign affairs— interior and war. As the
Medici family again succeeded in obtaining Florence in 1512,
Machiavelli lost the job and was even imprisoned on charges
of conspiracy. After his release, he retired to the countryside.
How difficult was it for any politician and for Machiavelli to
lead life in political disgrace! From his hamlet, he made all
efforts to gain favour with the new Medici rulers. But all this
was of no particular use. Even the task of writing the history
of Florence, given to him by the Medici rulers, at the end of
his life was meant, in fact, to keep him out of mischief.
Perhaps, the Medici rulers knew of what Machiavelli had
himself said, “An able statesman out of work, like a huge
whale, will endeavour to overthrow the ship unless he has an
empty cask to play with.” It is, therefore, not as to what
Machiavelli taught dangerous politics to the princes, but on
the contrary, as the commentator Bayle says, “princes have
taught Machiavelli what he has written.” Machiavellies
teachings fell on his own. In his own political career,
Machiavelli was always on the wrong side. When he was to
be with his republican friends, he had begun appeasing the
Medici rulers, and when he should have been with the Medici
rulers, he was seeking to be friendly with his erstwhile
republican friends. Shortly, before his death, Florence, once
again, was pronounced a republic and his old post of
secretary was given to someone else. Machiavelli lost the
opportunity and lost his life. It was, indeed, an irony that a
man who laid down rules of political success so successfully
was an utter failure in his own political career.
The Italy of Machiavelli's times was economically
commercial-minded, socially divergent, politically disunited,
ethically corrupt but at the same time intellectually fairly
advanced. F.J.C. Hearnshaw (The Social and Political Ideas
of Some Great Thinkers of the Renaissance and
Reformation) writes, “Intellectually and aesthetically in the van
of all European peoples, morally and politically she (Italy)
lagged far in the rear. Her people, widely diverse in race and
culture, were utterly degenerate and corrupt; she had lost all
military capacity; her princes were craven and criminal; her
Church was secularised and incredibly depraved; she was
born by violent schisms and incessant intrigues.” Italy, at
Machiavelli’s times, comprised Naples in the south, the duchy
of Milan in the northwest, Venice in the northeast, Florence
and the papal state Rome in the centre— almost all at war
with one another. The game of politics, then of Italy, knew no
rules whatsoever. Hearnshaw points out, “Treasons,
betrayals, poisonings, assassinations, perjuries, hypocrisies,
sacrileges, infidelities—all kinds of base and hateful villainies
—were employed without scruple or remorse.” Related to it
was the lack of native military capacity. The people of
peninsula, as a whole, were cowardly, feeble and femininely,
and as such were, in general, contentious and quarrelsome.
More alarming than the mutual domestic strifes was the
alien’s interest in Italy. The Papal state was always ready to
invite the Spanish forces; Florence had the French as its
allies; the Swiss and the Turkish auxiliaries were ready at any
invitation. Internal disorders, and _ frequent external
interferences were Italy’s lot during Machiavelli's times. The
role of papacy, in this regard, was damaging as Machiavelli
saw it. To all the ills of Italy, Machiavelli found a solution in
strong and powerful government, whose job was not so much
to promote as was to protect, not so much to preserve as was
to expand, and not so much to be moral as was to be
powerful. All his writings are directed to make a case in favour
of a potent authority.
Machiavelli's Libra della arte della guerra (The Art of War)
was published in 1521, his /storie Florentine (The Florentine
History) in 1532; his Discorsi sopra la Prima Deca de T. Livio
(The Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius) was
not published till 1531; and his Principe (The Prince) was
published in 1532.
Machiavelli shared with the Renaissance humanists a
passion for classical antiquity. To their wish for a literary and
spiritual revival of ancient values, guided by such authors as
Plato, Cicero, and St. Augustine, he added a fierce desire for
a political and moral renewal on the model of the Roman
Republic as depicted by Livy and Tactius. Though a
republican at heart, he saw as the crying need of his day a
strong political and military leader who could forge a unitary
state. The
Prince was written to envision the possibility of a strong
state with an energetic prince like Cesare Borgia to lead it,
though the Prince was dedicated to Lorenzo, the Magnificent
—the Medici ruler of Florence.
The 25 chapters of The Prince are written in a terse,
analytical, and frequently aphoristic style. Preceding political
writers—from Plato and Aristotle in ancient times and through
the Middle Ages and the fifteenth century humanists—had all
concurred in treating politics as a branch of morals.
Machiavelli's chief innovation was to break with this long
tradition and to confer autonomy upon politics. In Chapter 15
of The Prince, he writes: “My intent being to write a useful
work for those who understand, it seemed to me more
appropriate to pursue the actual truth of the matter than the
imagination of it. Many have imagined republics and
principalities which were never seen or known really to exist;
because how one lives is so far removed from how one ought
to live; that he who abandons what one does for what one
ought to do, learns rather his own ruin than his preservation.”
Like Galileo in astronomy at the end of the sixteenth century,
Machiavelli in politics describes the world as it is rather than
as people are taught that it should be.
The Prince is a work on how to found a state while the
Discourses constitute a work on how to maintain the state.
The Prince is great because it provides a grammar of power.
The Discourses are great because they provide a philosophy
of organic unity in a state. Whereas The Prince is concerned
with the qualities of princes, the Discourses place a greater
emphasis on the civic demands on citizens. Machiavelli's
central claim in the Discourses is that liberty is a necessary
precondition for the accumulation of power and riches. The
protection of liberty is, therefore, the fundamental political
task in a republic, and requires first and foremost a citizen
body of the highest ‘virtue’.
Machiavelli also wrote Dell’arte della guerra (1519-20; the
Art of War), which discussed military organisation and tactics.
Machiavelli believed strongly that states should develop
citizen mili-tias, which would be much more reliable than the
untrustworthy and fickle mercenary soldiers. His /storie
florentine (1520-24; Florentine Histories) used episodes from
Florentine history to illustrate political principles and to
criticise Florentine factionalism. But he carefully avoided
either praising or criticising the Medici. His play La
mondragola (c. 1517; The Mandrake Root) is a thoroughly
amoral and hilarious masterpiece, the best comedy to come
from Renaissance Italy. He also wrote another comedy, Clizia
(c. 1525), the short story Belfagor (written between 1515 and
1520), poetry, and shorter historical work.
l(b) Machiavelli: Political Ideas
I(b)(i) Machiavelli’s Methodology

Politics, as a study of man’s political activities, is public and
hence social in its essence. An investigator on politics,
therefore, is not to be blamed if his study is not the study of
any other physical science. But this is not to say that politics
cannot be studied scientifically. Politics can be inexact, as it
really is but nothing forbids it from being a science, if by
science we mean a sum-total of knowledge derived after
study, observation and experiment.
Machiavelli Knew the age he lived in. He, more than
anybody else, realised the limitations of the localised
feudalistic institutions to combat the oncoming forces
resulting through changes in the social and economic spheres
over the years. He, therefore, was the one who had
denounced papacy as a social force in the changing society
of his times, liberating politics from the clutches of the
feudalistic tendencies in general and the Church in particular.
It was Machiavelli who had comprehended the services that a
strong administration could render in the new conditions the
society was to witness.
It was against this background that Machiavelli wrote his
chief writings, mainly The Prince, the Discourses, the Art of
War and the Florentine History. Sabine very aptly sums up
Machiavelli's position vis-a-vis his age when he says, “No
man of his age saw so clearly the direction that political
evolution was taking throughout Europe. No man knew better
than he the archaism of the institutions that were being
displaced or accepted more readily, the part that naked force
was playing in the process. Yet no one in that age
appreciated more highly the inchoate sense of national unity
on which this force was obscurely based. No one was more
clearly aware of the moral and political corruptions that went
with the decay of long-accustomed loyalties and pieties, yet
no one, perhaps, felt a keener nostalgia for a healthier social
life, such as was typified in his mind by ancient Rome.”
Machiavelli was, thus, the child of his times in the fullest
sense of the term. He lived at a time when the age of faith
was being replaced by the age of reason. It was a time when
man had started moving out of the closed feudalistic society,
a time that marked the beginning of what was later to be
known as capitalism. The whole of West Europe, at
Machiavelli's age, had started experiencing the effects of the
scientific discoveries. The decline and fall of the feudalistic
system was, by that time, a foregone conclusion; the capitalist
society had already registered its birth. Machiavelli’s writings
demonstrated the end of one age and the beginnings of
another, notwithstanding the typical Italian influence that was
marked vividly in all his works.
Since Machiavelli was to represent a society which had
undergone the effects of what was then termed as
renaissance, he was, therefore, bound to condemn the
institutions and the laws governing such institutions which
represented the age prior to the days of renaissance. The
papacy, for example, was one such institution, which became
a target of his criticism. So were criticised the various other
ethos adorning the pre-renaissance society. Machiavelli
favoured a near break with the past.
True to the kind of ‘new’ society that he came to represent,
Machiavelli, while denouncing the methods of investigation
prevalent in the middle ages, is said to have adopted what
may be termed in one word, as scientific method of study—an
inquiry based on observation, experiment and study. That
Machiavelli should have relied on observation and the study
of the past in finding solutions to the ills of Italy of his age was
but natural. Machiavelli is, thus, believed to have attended
political issues through the eyes of history. Accordingly, the
true method in the science of politics was, in Machiavelli’s
opinion, the historical method. He believed that men in all
ages had been the same as at present and hence had to
solve almost the same problems through the same means. It
was, in Machiavelli’s view, necessary to study the past if one
wanted to understand the present. This was why Machiavelli
took much interest in the ancient Greece and particularly the
history of the ancient Rome. This was why he, as Dunning
points out, felicitated himself on being the first to perceive the
true relation of history of politics.
But Machiavelli’s historical method was peculiar in the
sense that it was not history that provided any clue to the
understanding of the _ present-day politics. In _ his
arrangements, it was not the past that guided the present, but
it was the present that guided the past. In Sabine’s words,
“His (Machiavelli's) method, in so far as he had one, was
observation, guided by shrewdness and common sense.”
Machiavelli's historical method was historical in so far as
history was able to support his point of view in describing the
present. It was, thus, present to be found in the past; politics
to be found in history. What were important in Machiavelli's
writings were not the conclusions drawn from history, rather
the support to reinforce the conclusions already drawn. He
had used Livy, as Dunning tells us, “for the purpose of
sustaining than for the purpose of discovering principles.”
More than this, what is important in Machiavelli is the use of
inductive processes replacing the deductive reasoning used
earlier. Even in using the inductive processes, Machiavelli's
conclusions bore marks of perception rather than of any kind
of reasoning. Allen remarks in this connection, “In the Discorsi
Machiavelli frequently announces the widest generalisations
without giving any reasons for his belief.” Machiavelli's
explanation of the sense of right and wrong in man, his belief
in the radical selfishness of man, his conception of fear and
its as dominant factors in human doings and his belief in a
tendency of corruption and ruin inherent in all institutions
were such examples arrived through perceptions rather than
through reasoning.” But to say all this is not to criticise
Machiavelli. His merit lies in the fact that he had, as Allen also
admits, attempted a new method in dealing with political
problems. Allen says, “In attempting to do all this by means of
observation of and inferences from undisputed facts of the
past and the existing, he was doing what had never been
done before, since, at all events, the classical days of
antiquity.”
In adopting the use of inductive processes, Machiavelli was
almost like a scientist. He never blamed or praised political
actions; he simply gave a descriptive analysis of them. Ernst
Cassirer holds, “Machiavelli studied political actions in the
same way as a chemist studies chemical reactions.
Assuredly, a chemist who prepares in his laboratory a strong
poison is not responsible for its effects. In the hands of a
skilled physician, the poison may save the life of a man—in
the hands of a murderer it may kill. In both cases we cannot
praise or blame the chemist. He has done enough if he has
taught all the processes that are required for preparing the
poison and if he has given us its chemical formula.
Machiavelli's Prince contains many dangerous and poisonous
things, but he looks at them with the coolness and
indifference of a scientist. He gives his political prescriptions.
By whom these prescriptions will be used and whether they
will be used for a good or evil purpose is not a concern of
his.”
In fact, Machiavelli possessed the insight of both a scientist
and an artist. He was a scientist in the sense that he had
based his study on observation and experiments. He was an
artist in the sense that he knew how best a presentation could
be made. Whatever he had said and the way he had
presented his sayings did make sense in so far as they were
directed with a purpose. Machiavelli had a message to deliver
and he did not hesitate in delivering it through whatever
methods available to him. What he said was important, but
more important was the way he had said.
Machiavelli was a political realist, and there are realistic
parallels in him as are found in Arthashastra’s tradition, one
who was not interested in abstract philosophical questions.
The state as it is interested him more than the state as it
ought to be. This was why he dealt with politics as politics
only. To Machiavelli, Felix Gilbert notes, “politics is an
exacting mistress; man’s whole behaviour must be adjusted
to her commands. Man ought be to purely home politicus. It
was not a weakness, but a matter of pride to Machiavelli that
he could not ‘reason about the production of silk or wool, or
about gains and losses, but that it was his lot to reason about
politics.” This was why he favoured its separation from all
morality, ethics or religion. This was why the conduct of the
ruler concerned him more than that of the Pope. We may
conclude in the words of Gilbert, “When we read his
(Machiavelli) works, we find that they still speak to us directly,
immediately, in a strangely compelling way. Many of his
examples are antiquated, many of his proposals exaggerated
and unreal. But these are insights which disclose an opposite
truth, there are passages which touch us like an electric
shock. In placing politics in the stream of history, in
demonstrating that every situation is unique and requires man
to use all his forces to probe all the potentialities of the
moment, Machiavelli has revealed—more than anyone before
or after him—that, at any time, politics is choice and
decision.”
I(b)(ii) Machiavelli on Human Nature

Beyond Machiavelli’s political ideas lies the assumption that
human nature, in general, was selfish and that the rulers had
to work upon their policies on this assumption. According to
Machiavelli, “Men are, in general, bad, and that the wiser ruler
will construct his policies on this assumption”. The Prince and
the Discourses dealt at length with human nature. In The
Prince, Machiavelli said that men were “ungrateful, fickle-
minded, deceitful, cowardly and avaricious.” In a world
consisting of such people, the Prince would do better if he
were feared more than loved. Since love demanded
obligation on the part of the subjects and since subjects were
wicked, they would break the obligation whenever their
interests demanded so; while fear, fear of the Prince, would
hold people together and hold them _ indefinitely. The
Discourses also described almost the same picture of human
nature as was characterised in The Prince. Here in the
Discourses, Machiavelli drew up human nature in the
psychological setting, though in lesser degree than what
Thomas Hobbes did a little later. In the words of Professor
Dunning, Machiavelli says, “men have by nature endless
desires, and that the craving for additional satisfaction of
them is the mainspring of all human action. One of the most
potent of these desires is that which finds satisfaction in
private property,” This is why Machiavelli, while keeping this
view of human nature in relation to property, had said in The
Prince that “men more readily forget the death of a father than
the loss of patrimony.” and extended the theme in the
Discourses when he _ said that executions should be
reasonably few, but confiscation none at all. Machiavelli’s
man, in this sense, is a market man about whom Hobbes had
to say more at a later stage. The society that was appearing
after Renaissance was indeed not the feudal society but of
growing middle class people, with whom nothing was more
dear than the personal security and the security of their
private property; nothing more dear than the material gain
they cherished so much. Machiavelli was echoing their voice
when he favoured republican government because from it,
there were more chances of material gains than from
princedom.
I(b)(iii) Machiavelli on Forms of Governments

Machiavelli classified governments either as republicans or as
princedoms. The Prince was essentially a study of monarchy
in relation to the extension of political dominion, and the
Discourses was in like manner, a study of republican
government in relation to the same end. Of the two forms of
government, Machiavelli preferred the republican system to
that of the monarchical for reasons, as may be mentioned
below:
(a) The people, as a whole, were wiser than the
Prince.
(b) They were, in general, no more vacillating than a
Prince.
(c) The adjustment of the people in the choice of the
rulers was in_ general sound = and_ often
unimpeachable. This could not be the case in
monarchies.
(d) The Princedom could better establish and found a
state; the republic alone could maintain it.
(e) The republics kept faith better than princes.
(f) The republics were better suited to changing
conditions and circumstances of the monarchies.
The government by a few (aristocracy), in Machiavelli’s
opinion, was the worst of all. Machiavelli's anger according to
Berki (The History of Political Thought), “is especially directed
against feudal lords, ‘gentleman in their castles,’ whose
capacity constituted the greatest constant danger to the
peace of Italian cities.” “A landed aristocracy,” Dunning
echoes Machiavelli’s voice, “in particular renders free
government impossible. This class, indeed, when possessing
castles and subjects of their own, he (Machiavelli) considers
fatal to all social order.” In fact, Machiavelli was an ardent
advocate of popular regime. He was, as Felix Gilbert
(Machiavelli and Guicciardini) says, “convinced that the best
form of government was a regime in which the great mass of
citizens had the controlling power.”
I(b) (iv) Machiavelli on the Preservation of the Dominions

Machiavelli's political ideas revolved around the devices
through which the states could be pre-served as effectively as
possible. He drew up a series of methods in The Prince for
purposes of stabilising princedom and in the Discourses he
made a plea for making republics permanent. For the stability
of the princedoms, he offers the following advice in The
Prince:
The Prince ought to respect the established institutions

and the customs of the country.
. The Prince ought to have a well-trained army consisting
of citizens and not mercenaries.
iii. The Prince ought to be miserly with his own money and
those of his subject, but lavish in distributing the spoils
of war.
The Prince ought to be very careful in his attitude
towards the public. He should keep his hands off the
property and the women of his subjects.
The Prince ought to punish people through his
subordinates but the act of grace be performed by him
alone.
Vi. The Prince ought to be feared but not hated by his
people.
Vil. The Prince ought to keep his people busy in great
enterprises, in controversies of the neighbouring states
and in encouraging commerce, trade, arts, etc.
viii. The Prince ought to act as the father-patron of his
people.
The Prince ought to be shrewd in matters relating to
religion, ethics and morality.
The preservation of the republics is to be achieved by
almost those means which are required in the case of
monarchies. Since the republican government has to have
the popular will as its base, Machiavelli refers to the
constitution, custom and law to be very carefully framed and
changed if at all necessary. Echoing Machiavelli's voice,
Dunning says, “An adaptation of constitution as well as law to
the varying conditions in a state is indispensable to the
preservation of the republican government. But modification
of fundamental law (i.e. constitution) in republics should
always be made with the least possible deviation from ancient
forms (i.e. customs etc.), however, great the change in
substance.” In the Discourses, Machiavelli refers to the
following major methods for the preservation of the republics:
i. There should be a provision in the republican

constitution for the exercise of absolute power by some
officials to meet emergencies like revolutions.
ii. There should be a provision for making judicial
investigation of charges against public officials.
iii, There should be adequate provisions for the people to
express their feelings, emotions, and views.
iv. There should be respect for law, both by the people and
those who execute it.
I(b) (v) Machiavelli on the Extension of the Dominions

The Prince deals with the methods as to how monarchies
could be enlarged while the Discourses, with extension of the
republics. The Prince refers to the founding of the princedoms
by giving illustrations of some princes endowed with virtue
and of others blessed with fortunes. Moses was described as
having founded princedom through his own ability and
resources, i.e. virtue; while Cesare Borgia was described as
having established princedom through the aid of others; i. e.,
fortune. But Machiavelli emphasised in The Prince that it was
better for the prince to depend more on virtue than on fortune.
Even fortune, Machiavelli says, sides those who are virtuous
— men of wisdom; of virility—of rash energy. “But | surely
think,” he says, “that it is better to be impetuous than to be
cautions, for fortune is a woman and in order to be mastered
she must be jogged and beaten. She submits more readily to
boldness, than to cold calculation. Therefore, like a woman
she always favours young men because they are not so much
inclined to caution as to aggressiveness during mastering
her.”
Both the monarchy and republic have, Machiavelli tells us,
tendencies of expansion. While the Prince is impelled by his
own nature to enlarge his kingdom, the republics are
compelled by necessity. Machiavelli drew a blueprint for
purposes of enhancing the dominion of the states. Dunning
sums up Machiavelli's point of view when he says, “Increase
the population of the city; acquire allies rather than subjects;
establish colonies in the conquered territory; turn all booty
into the treasury; carry on war rather by field campaigns and
pitched battles than by sieges; keep the state rich and the
individual poor; and with the utmost care, maintain a well-
trained army.” Machiavelli favoured a well-disciplined citizen-
soldiery so as to enable both the monarchy and the republic
to pursue the aggrandisement policy and maintain existence.
In Machiavelli's view, good soldiers and not good amount of
money are the real strength of the state. “Money will not,”
Machiavelli says, “procure good soldiers,” but good soldiers
will always procure money.” Force, indeed, he admits, is
essential for the very life of the state. “He who acquires,” he
says, “dominion but lacks strength is doomed to ruin.” But that
is not all what a state really needs. Along with force, craft is
also necessary. “While force without craft”, Machiavelli says,
“is never sufficient, craft with force will meet with success.”
This principle holds as good for monarchy as for republic.
7
Machiavelli Quotes
“A Prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his

promises.”
“Benefits should be conferred gradually; and in that
way, they will taste better.”
“He who wishes to be obeyed must know how to
command.”
“It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be
both.”
“Men rise from one ambition to another: first they
seek to secure themselves against attack, and then
they attack others.”
“The promise given was a necessity of the past. The
word broken is a necessity of the present.”
“The wise man does at once what the fool does
finally.”
“Hence, it comes about that all armed princes have
been virtuous, and all unarmed princes have been
failures.”
“Politics have no relation to morals.”
“It is a double pleasure to deceive the deceiver.”
“God creates men, but they choose each other.”
“When neither their property nor their honour is
touched, the majority of men live content.”
“The first method of estimating the intelligence of a
ruler is to look at the men he has around him.”
e “Never do any enemy a small injury.”
e “To understand the nature of the people one must be
a Prince, and to under stand the nature of the Prince,
one must be of the people.”
e “Men should be treated generously or destroyed,
because they take revenge for slight injuries - for
heavy ones, they cannot.”
I(b) (vi) Machiavelli’s Theory of State

Machiavelli may not be a theorist of state, but he did make a
plea for the state. He may not be a political philosopher in the
sense Plato and Aristotle were before him or Hobbes,
Rousseau, and Marx were after him, but he had the insights
of a political realist. He might not have discussed theoretically
the nature of the state, but he did discuss what a stable state
could be or ought to be. Significantly, it is Machiavelli who
gave the state its very name. Dowdall writes, “A word was
wanted for the kingdom of the king, the duchy of a duke, the
county of an unmitt ebar count, the dominium of an
independent lord, and the government of a free city —...
Machiavelli ... decisively selected and defined, and
proclaimed, the appropriate word, ... and himself founded, the
modern science of the State.”
The Machiavellian state exists for its own and its own
existence, its own maintenance and its own expansion. It has
a system of its own values; its own security is the only law,
and its own promotion, the only object—“When the safety of
our country is absolutely at stake, there need be no question
of what is just or unjust, merciful or cruel, praiseworthy or
disgraceful, but all other considerations set aside, that course
alone is to be taken which may save our country, and
maintain its liberty.. The reason of the state is the state for its
own sake,..the end in itself.”
The Machiavellian state is a secular one. Machiavelli
opposes papacy but he is not against Christianity. He is
against the Church but he is not the enemy of religion. He is
not non-religious, much less irreligious. His main concern was
not religion but politics, power and the unity of the state. He,
thus, puts religion in the political context. Berki writes: “... the
value of religion for him (Machiavelli) lies in its function of
making the people obedient to the laws.” “There is no surer,”
Machiavelli says, “sign of decay in a country than to see the
rites of religion held in contempt.”
The Machiavellian state is ethically a neutral one. What it
means is that the state is not any ethical body, wedded to
morals, but Machiavelli does not preach in moralism, deceit,
or treachery. He does not want the state/prince to preach
moralism or ethics either. He regards ethics and morals
necessary means for developing people into law-abiding
citizens. Though Machiavelli would not want the Prince to act
ethically always, he would not demand of ethics to guide the
affairs of the states either.
I(b) (vii) Machiavelli on Morality and Religion

With regard to Machiavelli’s views on morality and religion, he
has been denounced as an a postle of devil, the teacher of
evil, as Leo Strauss (Thoughts on Machiavelli) says, for
having advised the ruler to avoid values of justice, mercy,
temperance, wisdom, and love of his people in preference to
the use of cruelty, violence, and fear of deception. Scholars
like Benedetto Croce (Elementi de politica) and Quintin
Skinner (The Foundations of Modern Political Thought) view
Machiavelli sympathetically: the ruler’s commission of acts
deemed visions by convention are a ‘last best’ option. Even
Rousseau held the view that The Prince teaches the people
the truth about how princes behave rather than celebrating
the immorality. Machiavelli did not teach morality in his ideas
nor wanted his rulers to preach it. What he did was that he
made satire on public affairs. Rather he wanted the people to
observe ethical and moral standards so to help them become
obedient citizens.
Likewise, Machiavelli was not opposed to Christianity and
religion, though he was no friend of Christian Church. His
anger against papacy and the Church was due to their role of
dividing the Italians and making them fight with one another.
The fact is that Machiavelli was a true Christian who wanted
the papacy and the church to confine their activities to
education and religion. Machiavelli held men of religion in
high esteem: the prophet ranked above the legislator in
Machiavelli's scheme of things. What he wanted was to keep
religion separate from politics: the other-worldly phenomena
should concentrate on other-worldly job. He would not allow
religion to guide politics; he would rather allow the state attain
its ends with any or all means possible.
l(c) Machiavelli’s Place in the Western Political Thought

Machiavelli remains an impenetrate figure. As Sabine
observes, “He has been represented as an utter cynic, an
impassioned patriot, an ardent nationalist, a political Jesuit, a
convinced democrat, and an unscrupulous seeker after the
favour of despots.” His works excite similar controversy. Civil
republican commentators (e.g. Skinner, Pocock) see
Machiavelli as part of a broader contemporary renaissance of
the virtues of classical humanism. Straussians (e.g. Strauss,
Mansfield), in contrast, view Machiavelli as a pivotal figure in
the history of political philosophy in his elevation of “liberty”
above “nature” as the defining object of political inquiry. To
these interpreters, Machiavelli is the first modern political
philosopher. Machiavelli was, indeed, first in many respects—
he gave the state its recognition as a state; he made politics
an independent science, an end in itself; he sought to show
that religion and politics were two distinct arenas; he made a
strong plea that religion was an internal affair of the individual;
he made it clear that the rulers may be religious and moral as
individuals, they need not be so as rulers; for him, the security
of the state was above all religions, all ethics, and all morality.
And yet he could not rise above his time and above Italy.
Sabine rightly says that Machiavelli was narrowly local and
narrowly dated. He could not foresee the emerging state in
the rest of Europe of his days. “Had he written in any country
except Italy or had he written in Italy .. after the beginnings of
counter Reformation in the Roman Church, it is impossible to
suppose that he would have not treated religion as he did.”
His republican thought had, indeed, a great influence on the
coming generations (Pocock, Rahe: Machiavelli's
republicanism was novel). And yet, Machiavelli was neither a
complete medieval nor a complete modern. He was
entrapped into innovation (modern) and _ tradition
(medievalism). He had neither the best of both the world—
neither “medieval” nor “modern’—but stood at the interstices
between the two.
ll. THOMAS HOBBES (1588-1679)
l(a) Hobbes: The Man, His Times and His Works

Hobbes was born on April 5, 1588, in Malmesbury, England.
He claimed that his mother gave birth to him on hearing the
rumour that the Spanish Armada would destroy the nation.
She gave birth to twins, wrote Hobbes—himself and fear. His
father, also named Thomas, was an illiterate clergyman prone
to quarrels. Biographers are of the opinion that timidity and
argument were notable traits of Hobbes throughout his life.
After Hobbes’s father abandoned his village and family, the
children were raised by their uncle, Francis Hobbes. The
uncle was determined to give Hobbes a good education.
From the beginning, Hobbes demonstrated _ brilliance—
reading and writing at four, learning Greek and Latin at six,
and entering Oxford at fifteen. His stay at Oxford for a period
of five years, though brought him a University degree, was
not a happy time. He found Oxford teaching too dry and too
obsolete. After leaving Oxford, Hobbes was introduced to
Lord Cavendish (later the first Earl of Devonshire) and
became tutor of his eldest son. He gave instructions to
Charles Il in Mathematics between 1646 and 1648. His
association with the royal families proved to be of much help
to Hobbes. He could, thus, travel extensively and meet the
leading and scientific figures of the day, especially Bacon,
Harvey, Descartes, and Galileo, whose influence had a
marked imprint on Hobbes’ philosophy. Learning, at whatever
age it comes, was never a late affair for Hobbes—he was 40
years old when he worked on Geometry as John Aubrey,
Hobbes’s friend, tells us, something which along with Physics
became Hobbes’s pattern of thinking that time onward. He
was employed as Roger Bacon’s secretary in 1623-24. In
1628, Hobbes published his translation of Thucydides’s
History of the Peloponnesian war. Around 1640, he is said to
have met Galileo. Stirred by his chance discovery of Euclid,
Hobbes considered applying the science of geometry to
politics. He wrote a treatise in 1640 on citizenship and
absolution— The Elements of Law Natural and Politique,
which circulated widely in manuscript form. Fearing for his
safety at the hands of Parliament, Hobbes fled to Paris,
where he promptly composed numerous objections to Rene
Descartes’s Meditations, which he saw before publication. He
began work on a proposed trilogy on the body, the man, and
the citizen. After the publication of Leviathan in 1651, Hobbes
returned to England, notorious but respected at the same
time, and carried on years of controversies, notably on free
will with Bishop John Bramhall and on mathematics with John
Wallis, the inventor of Algebra. Hobbes, considered an atheist
by many in Parliament, was saved from a charge of Christian
heresy by the interception of the King, who gave Hobbes a
handsome pension, ordered Hobbes to refrain from further
publishing any inflammatory works. In 1672, Hobbes wrote a
brief, compelling autobiography and in 1675, at the age of 86,
translated the /liad and the Odyssey. Hobbes died on
December 4, 1679.
Hobbes’s chief writings include The Elements of Law
(finished in 1640 but published in 1950) De Cive (1642),
Leviathan (1651), De Corpore (1655), and De Homine (1659).
Hobbes’s Leviathan, was the strongest and boldest
statement of his political thought in which he offered to show
that there was an alternative. According to Hobbes, people
are more or less equals in strength and intelligence. Mankind
is driven by the desire to fulfill their wants and needs. In
satisfying themselves, men, however, would _ inevitably
encroach on people attempting to fulfill their own wants and
needs. Therefore, people would constantly be at odds, and
the essentially matched strengths of the opponents would
ensure a constant state of warfare, which to Hobbes included
the tendency to war and the lack of assurance to the contrary.
Hobbes proposed that there is an even more powerful drive,
the fear of death, and that to assuage this fear, people join in
a contract with one another. This sovereign, called the
Leviathan by Hobbes, would keep his subjects in check and
protect them from their enemies. Where once good and bad
were relative values decided by individuals, there would now
be a common rule since all were under the sovereign and
under his total control, which would allow no review. In De
Corpore (1655, The Body), Hobbes turned to the philosophy
of motion and to the idea that life as well as thought was
merely motion. His utterly mechanistic view of life in these
works was the source of great contention. In 1668, Hobbes
finished a history of the Long Parliament and submitted it to
the King, who denied its publication because of Hobbes’s
dangerous political suggestions; Behemoth, the History of the
Causes of the Civil Wars of England, from 1640 to 1660, did
not reach the public until 1682, buried in a composite edition
of his treatises.
Il(b) Hobbes: Political Ideas

Hobbes’s reason for the emergence of Leviathan, can be
stated as under: The civil state, that is, the result of the
passage of primitive man from the state of nature to a social
life, derives from a contract, the purpose of which is to
procure the greatest possible pleasure—a pleasure which
could not be had in the state of nature. The state of nature in
which man lived before the formation of society, was founded
on savage egoism, which drove man to secure a maximum of
pleasure without hindrance from a norm of justice or mercy
toward other men. Every man was continually engaged in war
against all other men. With the dawn of reason, man
understood that he could not live in eternal warfare and that if
he wished to satisfy his instinct of egoism, he must seek
peace. The means of attaining peace consisted in man’s
ceding his natural rights in favour of an authority which would
ensure this peace and allow the greatest possible pleasure.
Once man had ceded his rights to this authority, he would be
bound to obey him.
This contract having been made, authority came into being
in the person of the sovereign, who had not ceded his natural
rights. The members of the state, then, have given up their
rights in favour of the ruler, while the ruler alone still enjoys
the same unlimited and absolute power which belonged to all
men in their primitive condition. The ruler must retain this
power if he is to have the authority and strength to dominate
the instincts and passions of individuals and to ensure the
maximum of good for all.
This massing together of individuals, dominated by force, is
the state, the symbol of which Hobbes believed he had found
in the monstrous Biblical animal, the leviathan, which was
capable of devouring all other animals. Thus, Hobbes named
his greatest work The Leviathan.
Il(b)(i) Hobbes s Methodology

The Hobbesian method is said to be “resolutive-compositive”
one. According to this method, one comes to understand a
given object by “resolving” it into its constitutive parts and
then subsequently “composing” it back into a whole. Such a
process, Hobbes says, may be used when one investigates a
natural body (say a man, a table), an abstract body (say a
square), or a political body (such as a state). So, to use
Hobbes’s example, one can intellectually resolve the idea of a
human being into the following ideas: “rational,” “animated,”
and “body”. On the other hand, one can compose the idea of
a man by reconstructing these concepts. In the process of
resolving and composing a thing, one is able to discover its
essential qualities.
Hobbes used the method of resolution and composition in
his science of politics. He first resolved the state into its parts
(i.e., human beings), and then resolved these parts into their
parts (i.e. the motions of natural bodies), and then resolved
these into their parts (i.e. abstract figures). After such a
resolution, Hobbes recomposed the state in his grand trilogy
that progressed from the abstract and physical investigation
of natural bodies, to the study of human bodies, to finally the
examination of political bodies.
Hobbes’s resolutive-compositive method can be traced to
Galileo whom he had met in around 1640: the resolutive part
was the way to reach the required basic propositions and the
compositive was the way to build the complex ones from
them. The Galilean method was, in its resolutive part, an
exercise in imagination. What simple motions or forces could
be imagined, which logically compounded, would provide a
casual explanation of the complex phenomenon which are to
be explained. One had to begin, then, by assuming that the
observable thing to be explained was the compound effect of
some simple observable factors, and search in one’s
imagination for such factors as would, by strict logical
combination, necessarily produce results.
Motion is a fact of history. Human behaviour, Hobbes says,
is a mode of motion, and the social behaviour is a special
case of human behaviour which arises when men act with
reference to one another. He, accordingly, says that the
government is what it demonstrably is to contract successfully
beings whose motivation is that of human machine.
Hobbes’s hypothesis, keeping his resolutive-compositive
method in view, was that the motion of individual human
beings could be reduced to the effects of a mechanical
apparatus consisting of sense organs, nerves, muscles,
imagination, memory, and reason. The apparatus was always
in motion because other things were always impinging on it.
In a loose sense, it was self-moving because it had built into
it, a desire or endeavour to maintain its motion. These
endeavours could be called appetites and aversions. Hobbes
thus held the view that all human actions could be resolved
into elementary motions of body and mind, which the scientist
could recombine in a way that would explain everything.
Without taking his readers to the resolutive stage of his
postulates, he starts up straight away with the postulates and
compositive reasoning.
Hobbes believes that “resolution” and “composition” are the
methods to obtain philosophical knowledge. The appropriate
method for scientifically investigating the natural world,
Hobbes says, is resolution. The goal of physics is to
understand the motions of the world as experienced by us.
Since our knowledge of the physical world comes from our
experiences, Hobbes believes the first job of physics is to
analyse the faculty of sense. Hobbes reso/ves human
sensation into its various “parts”: the sense organs, the
faculties of imagination and fancy, and the sensations of
pleasure and pain. Hobbes then resolves natural bodies,
starting with a resolution of the “whole” world, to unveil the
variety of motions responsible for physical phenomena, such
as the motion of the stars, the change of seasons, the
presence of heat and colour, and the power of gravity. All of
these natural phenomena are explained, just as geometric
figures are, in terms of bodies in motion.
Hobbes uses a compositive method in Geometry. Starting
with definitions of lines and points, Hobbes derives a number
of conclusions about the world of geometric figures. In his
Physics, on the other hand, Hobbes starts by resolving
senses and the phenomena provided by them. Moral
Philosophy is a part of Physics because the motion of
material bodies on our sense organs causes a variety of
motions in the human body. While Moral Philosophy is
technically a part of Physics, it may also be seen as the
starting point for Political Philosophy in so far as it lays down
the foundational ethical principles from which _ social
conclusions are derived. Following the method of resolution,
Hobbes resolves the state into its fundamental “parts”, i.e.
humans, and further resolves humans into their “parts”, i.e.
motions of the mind. WHobbes’s political argument in
Leviathan, then, begins with his views on the nature of the
mind and human psychology. After studying human
individuals in isolation, he reconstructs the state by placing
them in a state of nature, an abstract condition prior to the
formation of political society. By analysing the behaviour, or
“motions”, of humans in this controlled environment, Hobbes
believes, he has discovered the causes of causes. At the
same time, Hobbes uses the compositive method to
intellectually reconstruct the states. He also tries to
demonstrate his political conclusions following the paradigm
of Geometry by defining fundamental features of his scientific
method, there is, in him, the materialistic vision, quite visible.
It should be noted that Hobbes is not always consistent or
rigorous in applying a scientific method to political matters. In
the introduction to Leviathan, for example, Hobbes claims that
self-inspection is the primary method for understanding his
political ideas. In this case, the foundational principles of his
political science are not derived from Physics but are known
simply by reflecting on one’s experience.
Il(b)(ii) Hobbes’s Philosophical Bases

Hobbes’s political philosophy as evident in Leviathan begins
with a study of human individuals and the “motions” of their
parts. In the early chapters of Leviathan, Hobbes advocates a
mechanistic and materialist psychology. He claims that the
motions of external physical objects on sense organs cause a
variety of mental experiences in the mind, which Hobbes
refers to as “fancies” or “appearances”, which mental
phenomena ultimately cause human behaviour. As Hobbes
sees it, the movement of external objects lead to the
production of mental motions called “endeavours,” which are
of two types: appetites and aversions. An appetite is an
endeavour that causes an individual to seek out a particular
object. An aversion, on the other hand, is an endeavour that
causes one to avoid an object. For Hobbes, individuals
naturally have an appetite for the “good,” which he defines
simply as the object of one’s appetite. In other words, if a
person desires an object, that object is “good” for that person.
When deciding how to act in a particular situation, humans
must “deliberate” by weighing appetites and aversions.
Individuals will necessarily choose the act that apparently
produces the greatest good for the individual concerned.
Deliberation, therefore, is not as much a matter of choice as it
is the result of a mechanical process.
Il(b) (iii) Hobbes on Human Nature

Hobbes’s belief is that all phenomenon in the universe,
without exception, could be explained in terms of motions and
interactions of material bodies. He did not believe in the soul
or in the mind as separate from the body, or in any of the
other incorporeal and metaphysical entities. Instead, he saw
human beings essentially as machines, with even their
thoughts and emotions operating according to physical laws
and chains of cause and effect, action and reaction. As
machines, human beings pursue their own self-interest
relentlessly, mechanically avoiding pain and _ pursuing
pleasure. Hobbes saw the commonwealth, or society, as a
similar machine, larger than the human body and artificial but
nevertheless operating according to the laws governing
motion and collision.
In putting together this materialist view of the world,
Hobbes was influenced by his contemporaries, Galileo and
Kepler, who had discovered laws governing planetary motion,
thereby discrediting much of the Aristotelian worldview.
Hobbes hoped to establish similar laws of motion to explain
the behaviour of human beings, but he was more impressed
by mathematical precision of Galileo and Kepler than by their
use of empirical data and observations. Hobbes hoped to
arrive at his laws of motion deductively, in the manner of
geometrical proofs.
Hobbes maintained that the constant back-and-forth
mediation between the emotion of fear and the emotion of
hope is the defining principle of all human actions. What
human nature always wants is the prospect (i.e. hope) of
attaining some apparent good, whereas fear is the recognition
that the same apparent good may not be attainable. Man
tosses between hopes and fears, always wanting hope to
avoid fear. He is, therefore, selfish, wants what he desires,
unto himself, the property of his own person, owes everything
to himself, and nothing to none else. Selfish as he is, he is
always insecure; insecure as he finds himself, he never rises
from his timidness (“My mother gave birth to twins—myself
and fear”). To cover up his lacks, he wants power— power
over others, and power for himself. No wonder, Hobbes
regards individual’s nature timid, selfish, bad, quarrelsome,
egoistic, suspicious, nothing beyond him, and full of appetite.
Hobbes’s picture of human nature, thus, is all negative with
nothing positive in it.
II(b)(iv) Hobbes on the State of Nature

The Hobbesian state of nature is a state without government,
without authority, without the state. It is a state without laws
but with people; it is a state of men with their natural powers;
a state of perpetual war, suspense, hatredness; a state where
there is “no building, no knowledge of the face of Earth, no
account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is
worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death.” The
state of nature, as depicted by Hobbes, is really horrible,
unbearable, unlivable where everyone is everyone else’s
enemy. And where “everyone is at war with all else.” In the
“natural condition of mankind, “Hobbes says,” humans are
equal, despite minor differences in strength and mental
acuity.” Hobbes’s notion of equality is peculiar in that it
Hobbes’s Quotes
“Curiosity is the lust of mind.”

“Force and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues.”
“In the state of nature profit is the measure of right.”
“It is not wisdom but authority that makes a law.”
e “Leisure is the mother of philosophy.”
e “Not believing in force is the same as not believing in
gravitation.”
e “Such truth as opposes no man’s profit, nor pleasure,
is to all men welcome.”
e “Life itself is a motion, and can never be without
desire, nor without fear, no more than without sense.”
e “Words are the counters of wise men, and the money
of fools.”
e “Give an inch, he’ll take an”
e “Where there is no common power, there is no law,
where no law, no injustice.”
e “When, therefore, our refusal to obey frustrates the
end, then there is no liberty to refuse, otherwise, there
is.”
\ J
refers to the equal ability to kill or conquer one another, but

quite consistent with ‘ his notion of power. This equality,
Hobbes says, naturally leads to conflict among individuals for
three reasons: competition, distrust, and glory. In the first
case, if two individuals desire a scarce commodity, they will
compete for the commodity and necessarily become
enemies. In their efforts to acquire desired objects, each
person tries to “destroy or subdue” the other. On account of
the constant fear produced in the state of nature, Hobbes
believes, it is reasonable to distrust others and use
preemptive strikes against one’s enemies. Hobbes also
considers humans to be naturally vainglorious and so seek to
dominate others and demand their respect.
The natural condition of mankind, according to Hobbes, is a
state of war in which life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and
short” because individuals are in a “war of all against all.” In
such a state, Hobbes contends that individuals have a
“natural right” to do whatever they believe is necessary to
preserve their lives. In other words, individuals in the state of
nature are not constrained by moral or legal obligations, as
neither could exist prior to the establishment of a
commonwealth. Human liberty, for Hobbes, is simply the
freedom of bodily action and is not limited by any moral or
legal notions. A person is free, in other words, when not
physically confined or imprisoned.
II(b)(v) Hobbes on Natural Rights

Natural rights constitute one of the important aspect of
Hobbes’s political ideas. Natural rights, for Hobbes, were
those rights which were related to the self-preservation of the
people. Arguing his case, Hobbes wrote, “...we have a right to
do whatever we think will ensure our self-preservation If we
have any rights at all, if nature has given us any rights
whatsoever, then the first is surely this—the right to prevent
violent death befalling us.” “We do not just have a right to
ensure our self-preservation,” he continues, “we, each, have
a right to judge what will ensure our self-preservation,” Since
we have to judge ourselves and since we do not trust
anybody else, we all are insecure because trust is more or
less absent. In a state of natural condition of this kind — of
war of one against all, and of all against each—‘nothing can
be,” Hobbes says, “unjust, the motions of right and wrong,
justice and injustice have no place.” The natural right to life,
thus, is extended to right to free activity, to acquiring any thing
(i.e., property). Such rights belong to all of us, implying, thus,
right to equality. It is possible to highlight the major features of
the Hobbesian theory of natural rights:
i. natural rights emanate from the state of nature, i.e., they

are available in the state of nature;
ii. they are, in nature, therefore, neither moral nor legal;
they emerge from man’s brutal life, they are less rights,
and more physical energies;
iii. they demonstrate more of man’s physical powers
because there are no duties which bind them not to
demonstrate it;
iv. they are absolute because there are no constraints on
them;
v. they express man’s selfishness and his passions.
Within such a state of nature, the only law that prevails is

the law of manipulation—“Take whatever you can and keep
till the time you can.”
II(b)(vi) Hobbes on Law of Nature and the Social Contract

As the state of nature is a state of continuous and
comprehensive war, Hobbes claims that it became, with the
passage of time, necessary and rational for individuals to
seek peace to satisfy their desires, including the natural
desire for self-preservation. The human power of reason,
Hobbes says, reveals the law of nature that enables them to
establish a state of peace and escape the horror of the state
of nature; passions (of man) draw people in the state of
nature towards war while the reason (of men) inspire people
to move from the horrible state of nature to peace, security,
and development; reason is this law of nature. “A law of
nature is”, Hobbes says, “a precept or general rule, found out
by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which is
destructive of the life...” A law of nature is a general principle
given to the individual by nature rather than revealed by God.
Of the nineteen such general laws of nature, two are
important. These are:
i. Every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has

hope of obtaining it, and when he cannot obtain it, that
he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war.
(Leviathan, xiv.4)
ii. That a man be willing, when others are so too, as far-
forth as for peace and defense of himself he shall think
it necessary, to lay down this right to all things, and be
contented with so much liberty against other men, as he
would allow other men against himself. (Leviathan,
xiv.5)
What Hobbes sought here to explain is the transition from

the state of nature to civil society. He made each one enter
into a contract with everyone else to surrender these natural
rights to Leviathan. Thus, by surrendering the natural rights
each individual or part (his resolutive component of his
scientific method) became a part of the whole under
Leviathan (now the compositive component comes forth)—
thus was born a civil society; thus was born the state, the
Leviathan; thus was achieved the security and peace, one
that was not found in the state of nature. The social contract
so made created both the society and the state, a contract in
which the Leviathan (state, sovereign) was only a product,
and not a party. Hobbes explained the situation after the
social contract—“They (individuals) agree to limit drastically
their right of nature, retaining only a right to defend their lives
in case of immediate threat. The sovereign (Leviathan, the
state), however, retains his (or her, or their) right of nature, a
right to all things — to decide what everyone else should do,
to decide the rules of property, to judge disputes and so on.”
Hobbes concedes that there are moral limits on what
sovereigns should do. However, since in any case of dispute
the sovereign is the only rightful judge—on this Earth, that is
—those moral limits make no practical difference. In every
moral and political matter, the decisive question for Hobbes is
always—who is to judge? As we have seen, in the state of
nature, each of us is judge in our own cause, part of the
reason why Hobbes thinks it is inevitably a state of war. Once
civil society exists, the only rightful judge is the sovereign.
Il(b)(vii) The Leviathan State

The Hobbesian Leviathan state is the product of the social
contract concluded by the people living in the horrible state of
nature— reason prevailed passion in the state of nature. “The
final cause, end or design of men’, (for forming
commonwealth/state) Hobbes says, is the foresight of their
own preservation and of a more contented life thereby; that is
to say, of getting themselves out from that miserable
condition of war ... (where) there is no visible power to keep
them in awe, and tie them by fear of punishment to the
performance of their covenants, and observation of laws of
nature.” Thus was created the state whose powers lay in the
hands of one man (Leviathan), the sovereign or an assembly
of men. He had with the power received from the people who,
after having surrendered their natural rights, had after having
entered into the civil society no power against the Leviathan
—the people were now powerless against the omnipotent
sovereign; they had all the duties to obey the state. The
Leviathan now awed them all. With no rights and with all
duties towards the state, the people had entered the civil
society with the law of nature guiding them under a powerful
state.
The Hobbesian state was an all-powerful body with
absolute and unlimited and centralised powers. Hobbes’s
sovereign was absolute in so far as his powers were
indivisible. No one but he alone could exercise them. Hobbes,
obviously, preferred monarchical or one man’s rule to any
other form of government. His theory of state was, thus, the
theory of a sovereign state. He had advocated an
authoritarian state but his state was not totalitarian. Though,
he would give the sovereign all powers, he would not allow
him to be killed nor his liberty of life to be doomed. “If the
sovereign,” Hobbes says, “command a man to kill, wound .
man had the liberty to disobey.” The Leviathan came up to
give people their security of life, and therefore, was not
supposed to take it away. Andrew Hacker (Political Theory:
Philosophy, Ideology, Science) says, “... Hobbes’s state is
authoritarian, but it is not totalitarian. That is, the sovereign
does not try to regulate all facets of human and social life;
economic, residential, familial and other decisions are left to
the individual.” At another place, he says, “His (Hobbes’s)
task of reconciling power and consent is a far harder one than
Machiavelli's: to combine authoritarian rule with as much
freedom as possible, to concentrate power while respecting
the individuality of each citizen.. “
Hobbes’s political ideas on political obligation (why to obey
the sovereign) were not engineered, so either to give the
obligation of any medieval/godly outlook or to promise man to
have a good life if he obeyed the sovereign. His argument
was simple: man obeys because he had himself willed the
Leviathan (legal obligation); he obeys because he was
morally obliged to obey for having himself invited the
Leviathan (moral obligation); and he obeys because if he did
not, he would go back to the state of nature (disobedience
would amount to telling the Leviathan that he was no more
wanted) and would lead the life as “solitary, poor, nasty,
brutish, and short.”
Il(c) Hobbes: Conclusion

Hobbes’s whole political philosophy is partly convincing. His
picture of the nature of man leading to his views on the state
of nature, law as it existed, filled with human passions, on the
natural rights began with the first flaw (man as selfish, etc.)
continued till the end, though at places he seemed
convincing. His individualism disappeared the moment he
made man surrender his natural rights and enter the civil
society. His sovereign, the Leviathan, was omnipotent to the
extent of being absolute. His philosophy, unlike of those who
came before him, began with individual and ended up with the
state. On one side of the contract, Hobbes was an
individualist (devoted, almost eleven of the Leviathan’s
chapters are on the individual) while on the other side of the
social contract, he is absolutist—a man worshipping the
setting sun of state.
Hobbes’s merit lies in applying the Galilean resolutive-
compositive method though partially, in building a society of
discrete individuals to be held in check by the absolute
sovereign. His mechanical construction seems so complete
and so systematic that there appears no crack in the
argument. So smooth is Hobbes’s push that once one agrees
with him on his first assumption, one has no other way but to
follow him. Hacker says, Hobbes model is, in reality, a self-
contained and internally consistent political system... It is
fascinating to note how Hobbes virtually drags the reader into
his model—one must accept each element of the system ...
individualism, the state of nature, the social contract,
sovereignty, the Natural Law— because each hinges logically
on all the rest. Before the reader knows it, he is rolling along
in an elaborate snowball, and he must travel in the direction in
which Hobbes has pushed him.” Sabine holds the same
opinion when he says, “His (Hobbes’s) philosophy illustrates
the saying of Bacon that “Truth emerges more easily from
error than from confusion.” Because of this clarity ... Hobbes
was probably the greatest writer on political philosophy that
the English-speaking peoples have produced.
There is, in Hobbes, a bit of everything that was to become
a leading theme - either for appreciation or for condemnation
—in the times to come. There is the theory of state
sovereignty from which John Austin was to learn much. There
is atheism or what one may call, his secularism which the
West was to cherish in future. There is a flavour of hedonism
on which Jeremy Bentham was to construct his utilitarianism,
his pleasure-pain theory. There is materialism, mechanical
and sensual, that was to pave way for a theme which
wrapped a greater portion of the world. There is individualism
on which the later liberal thinkers, Jonn Locke and others,
were to formulate liberal-democratic theory. There is
authoritarianism and absolutism, a type akin to the fascist
regimes and their state. And this — containing a bit of
everything— has been Hobbes’s chief demerit as well. It is
his weakest point in so far as his theory could not be
accepted in totality. It is his strongest point because his
theory became a source of strength for all shades of opinions
coming in days ahead. Even Hobbes’s critics did not miss
respecting his analysis.
lll. JOHN LOCKE: 1632-1704
Ill (a) Locke: The Man, His Times and His Works
Unlike Hobbes’s philosophy, Locke’s philosophy begins and
ends up with the individual, though Locke is not as consistent
a philosopher as Hobbes. Locke, unlike Hobbes, sets the
beginning of what came to be later known as liberalism, the
others who followed him, from Bentham to Dworkin, from Mill
to Nozick, from Green to Rawls, built on his teachings. The
later liberals accepted the fundamental assumptions of Locke
and carried the liberal ethos forward to their own times,
making changes here and there.
Born at Wrington, Locke was the son of a Somerset
attorney and the grandson of a clothier. Locke’s father had
participated in the English civil war as a captain on the
parliament’s side. Born in a storm, Locke, in fact, lived all
through in the storm. He started his education at home and at
the age of 20, he entered Christ Church College, Oxford, then
managed by the fanatical and intolerant left wing of the
Puritans. He did his B.A. in 1656 and M.A. in 1658 and then
worked at Oxford as a Philosophy tutor, his association with
Oxford lasted upto 1684. His interest in sciences, particularly
in medicines, was well known at Oxford. In 1666, he was
introduced to Lord Ashley, later known as Earl of Shaftsbury,
on whom he conducted a successful operation. This brought
Locke close to Lord Ashley, the founder of the Whig group
and he became Lord Ashley’s personal physician and his
confidential secretary. From this time onward, for about fifteen
years, Locke’s fortune fluctuated with that of Lord Ashley’s.
When Lord Ashley had gained the king’s favour, Locke used
to hold charge of important offices as he really did till about
the year 1673 when he acted as Secretary of Presentations,
and Secretary of the Council of Trade and Plantations. In
1673, Lord Ashley lost the king’s favour, so Locke also went
out of public office. During the period between 1673 to 1679,
Locke spent most of his time in France presumably for
purposes of rest and treatment. In 1679, Charles II brought
Lord Ashley back to public life, so it was time for Locke to
resume office—all this till 1681 when Lord Ashley again got
into trouble. Locke, fearing his arrest, this time took refuge in
Holland in 1683. In Holland, Locke became acquainted with
William Ill who was to occupy the English throne in 1689.
With William Ill as the king and with Lord Somers as Lord
Ashley’s successor whose friendship Locke prized too much,
he was able to command respect under the new regime after
the 1688 revolution. He became Commissioner of Appeals
and in 1696 Commissioner of Trade and Plantations. In 1700,
he resigned and thereafter did not appear in public life.
Locke’s death came in 1704, and as Lady Masham, Locke’s
friend says, “His death was like his life, truly pious, yet
natural, easy and unaffected; nor can time, | think, ever
produce a more eminent example of reason and religion than
he was, living and dying.”
Both Hobbes and Locke had certain important similarities.
Both were Englishmen living at the same crucial period of
English history; both had education at the same place,
Oxford, entertaining the same small view of Oxford
intellectuals; both had close contacts with the ruling families
of their respective times—Hobbes with Lord Cavendish and
Locke with Lord Ashley; both took refuge on foreign land
when in trouble—Hobbes fleeing to France and Locke, to
Holland. But these similarities did not make them similar. In
fact, they were not similar as individuals. In their personal
commitments, they stood apart—Hobbes with the royalists’
cause and Locke with the parliament's. In their mental
attitudes, they were poles apart—Hobbes was rigid in
arguments and robust in health while Locke was as liberal in
thoughts and feeble in body. In their philosophical messages,
both stood for entirely different teachings, Hobbes built the
case for a strong Leviathan and Locke, for a limited
government.
A glance at the English history of that period shows that
when Hobbes lived, and thought, the crisis was still on. There
was no final victory of either the king or the Parliament. In
fact, the civil war was in its continuing stage. Hobbes looked
at this problem as a problem of division of power and he was
against it. As he said, “For these (powers) are
incommunicable, and inseparable.. But if he (the sovereign)
transferes the Militia, he retains the Judicature in vain for
want of execution of the Laws; or if he grant away the Power
of raising Money, the Militia is in vain.. And so if we consider
any one of the said rights, we shall presently see, in the
conservation of Peace and Justice.. “ Hence Hobbes wanted
the powers of the government not to be divided and not to be
vested in two or more than two hands or bodies. He would be
happy if these were exercised by one, the monarch or by
many, Cromwell’s men. That was precisely Hobbes’s problem
—the problem of the division of powers. That was precisely
his solution to the English Civil War—the solution of
entrusting sovereignty to either the King or the parliament.
Locke’s times were different. Locke had lived to see the
fleeing of James Il, the 1688 revolution, the final victory of the
parliament, the incarnation of William Ill, and the signing of
the Bill of Rights (1689). His own commitment to the
parliament were a matter of no secret. He was, thus, to
defend and justify the revolution that parliament had so
successfully engineered. He did this by explaining the nature
and justification of political power. This is why he comes to
build a theory of state which limits more than it enhances the
powers of the state. To put it more crudely, Locke’s points—it
is that the powers be limited because there are limited
functions for which politics exists.
Locke’s writings were numerous. Mention may be made to
A Letter on Toleration (1689), Two Treatises of Government
(1690), A Second Letter on Toleration (1690), Essay
Concerning Human Understanding (1690), A Third Letter on
Toleration (1692), Some Thoughts Concerning Education
(1693), and The Reasonableness of Christianity (1695). In his
Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke explains his
experimental psychology of knowledge. The mind, he says, is
like a piece of blank white paper upon which experience
writes. His idea that the mind is blank until experience “writes
upon it” has been described by his followers as the tabula
rasa theory of mind (in Latin tabula rasa means “blank slate”).
Thus, for Locke, knowledge is rooted in experience, and that
the truth is never absolute, for it keeps modifying and
expanding as new experience is gained. Hence, if the
knowledge is to be expanded, ideas have not to be
suppressed. He further says that toleration is required for
acquiring scientific truth and if toleration is required, the state
has to be limited. Thus, Locke is a strong advocate of
religious toleration and that is why he writes not one, but
three letters on toleration. Locke’s The Reasonableness of
Christianity is his theological work providing Christianity a
rational defence. His Two Treatises (the first treatise was a
refutation of Filmer Patriarcha monarchy, Godly ordained
Laslett asserts that Locke wrote a rejoinder to Filmer’s
Patriarcha, in which the first treatise was an attack on
patriarchalism in the form of sentence-by-sentence refutation
of Robert Filmer’s book while the second outlines Locke’s
ideas for a more civilised society based on natural rights and
contract theory) who had defended the principle of absolute
hereditary was not directed against Hobbes’s views with
whom he disagreed drastically on the social contract theory,
but was one in which Locke had defended the natural rights,
property rights; and sought to build a state with limited
functions and limited powers; one which could be overthrown
by those who made it. He wrote “lest men fall into the
dangerous belief that all government in the world is merely
the product of force and violence.”
IIl(b) Locke: Political Ideas
III(b) (i) Locke on Human Nature

Locke’s view of human nature is entirely different from that of
Hobbes. Locke is of the opinion that men, being made in
God’s image and thus endowed with natural reason, are
rational; they are social in so far as God had made them
equal (with equal rights and equal corresponding duties),
helping, and reciprocal. Because of the reciprocity, men, by
nature, not only respect but also recognise another—they are,
thus, moral beings in so far as they conduct themselves
according to the law of nature (which is that of
reasonableness, equity and justice). So, the Lockean man is
a rational being, a social being, and a moral being. Hence,
man is good, rational, social, cooperative, and helpful. The
Lockean human nature stands opposite to the Hobbesian one
which is selfish, egoistic, and quarrelsome.
IIl(b) (ii) Locke on State of Nature
Like Hobbes, Locke also visualised the state without the
state, i.e., the state of nature. Locke’s description of the state
of nature is, indeed, not of “an unbearable condition’, his
“men in the state of nature” were not afraid of violent death,
nor is life presented as “being solitary, poor, nasty, brutish,
and short”; his perfect freedom of the state of nature seemed
“to work out reasonably well.” But that was not the stage of
the state of nature from where the civil government was
formed. This was a stage where, as Hacker puts it, “Men do
not appear to abuse their liberty, and they do not go about
threatening the lives of their neighbours.” This was a stage
where men left good for others, and also to the amount that
they usefully used it. This was a stage when men lived in the
pre-monetary stage, a stage when the property right of men
was limited. But as money came to be introduced, not merely
for exchange purposes but also for accumulation purposes,
there and then, property right of men became unlimited. That
was also a state of nature. Here, in this stage, the post-
monetary stage, there were more transgressors than in the
pre-monetary stage. How men learn to form the state from the
post-monetary stage of the state of nature? Locke says, and
this was here that he presents almost the Hobbesian picture
of the state of nature: “. though in the state of nature he (man)
has such a right (free, equal, and proprietor of his own person
and possessions), yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain
and constantly exposed to the invasion of others; for all being
kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater
part no strict observers of equity and justice; the enjoyment of
property he has in this state (the state of nature) is very
unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a
condition which, however free, is full of fears and continual
dangers.”
C.B. Macpherson (The Political Theory of Possessive
Individualism) has rightly hinted at this contradiction in Locke.
He says, the contradiction between Locke’s two sets of
statements (as pointed out above) about natural man is
fundamental. The state of nature is sometimes the opposite of
the state of war, sometimes identical with it. This is the central
contradiction in the explicit postulates on which Locke’s
political theory is built.
Locke claims that in the first stage of the state of nature,
men were social, and as they were guided by the law of
nature, i.e., reason, they were rational as well. He also claims
that men were free and that they were equal. Since there was
everything in the state of nature—the family, trade and
commerce, peaceable living—one could assume that there
was a society in the state of nature. Although, the Lockean
society of the state of nature in the beginning was both free
and equal, but it turned out to be unfree and unequal society
at the close of the state of nature. Such a change occurred
within the state of nature when the limited property right
became unlimited property right. This was what was made out
by Locke himself: “... that is a stage (the state of nature) of
perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their
possessions as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of
nature, . A state also of equality, wherein all the power and
jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another”
(para 4). “The state has a law of nature to govern it, which
obliges everyone; and reason, which is that law teaches all,
mankind.” (para 6).
And this state of nature now became one where there
appeared certain inconveniences. The law of nature like civil
laws could be violated. There were no police and no
prosecutors or judges in the state of nature. It lacked the
common lawgiver, common law-executor, and common
judge. It was here that men united to form and put themselves
under the government so to protect their property—both
property in kind and property in person, i.e., labour.
III(b) (iii) Locke on Law of Nature and Natural Rights

Locke admits the existence of law of nature as well as people
living in the state of nature having natural rights. He says:
“though this (state of nature) be a state of liberty, yet it is not
a state of licence.” What Locke meant by this was that men in
the state of nature were bound by the natural law. Natural law
was one which people not only recognised but would apply to
themselves — one where people realised one another's
existence; one’s rights and one’s duties towards others.
Natural right was meant as an entitlement of an individual
under the Natural Laws. Natural right was naturally given to
men by God, for their living, their sustenance. Property was
such right and it was one which included the lives, liberties,
and the estates.
Natural law was not the divine law, as Locke saw it; it was a
law discovered by reason, and applied to all the people.
Because it was related to reason, natural law was just and
known to each and all. The state of nature, as depicted by
Locke, was one that worked through the natural law. To some
extent, Locke even thought of natural law as complementary
to each other.
The existence of the natural law in the Lockean state of
nature cements the type of society existing then. It is here
that Hobbes and Locke drastically differ. For Hobbes, the
state of nature was a state of perpetual war while for Locke, it
had the people together though it lacked the state; for
Hobbes, the law of nature in the state of nature initially, was
the law of “might as right” while for Locke, it was a law of
reason; for Hobbes, natural rights were nothing but sheer
physical energies while for Locke, they were a set of
entitlements, possessed and enjoyed by the individuals in the
state of nature, having behind them the sanctions of natural
laws in the state of nature and those of the state when the
latter is formed by the people from among themselves. Unlike
the Hobbesian view of surrendering the natural rights in the
state of nature at the feet of Leviathan, the Lockean
individuals’ natural rights were inalienable. Hobbes’s
Leviathan was made omnipotent while the Lockean state was
a trustee one with limited powers.
f- YY
Locke’s Quotes
e “Wherever law ends, tyranny begins.”

e “It is one thing to show a man that he is in error and
another to put him in possession of truth.”
e “Good and evil, reward and punishment, are the only
motives to a rational creature; these are the spur and
reins whereby all mankind are set on work, and
guided.”
e “Government has no other end but the preservation of
property.”
e “Wherever the society is dissolved, it is certain the
government of that society cannot remain.”
e “Things of this world are in so constant a flux, that
nothing remains long in the same state.”
e “Where there is no law there is no freedom.”
e “Right and convenience go together.”
e “The great and chief end, therefore, of men’s uniting
into commonwealth and putting themselves under
government is the preservation of their property.”
e “As much as one can make use of any advantage of
life before it spoils, so much he may by his labour fix
a property in; whatever is beyond this, is more than
his share, and belongs to others.”
e “God gave the world to men in common, but it cannot
be supposed he meant it should always remain in
common.”
e “The state of nature is the state of perfect freedom,
also of equality, but it is not a state of licence; all
being equal, no one harms others.”
III(b) (iv) Locke on Property Right

Locke, as the forerunner of liberal theory, was a great
advocate of individual, his rights, his liberties and his
autonomy, and thus, in the process, made out a case for a
state that was limited not only in functions but also in powers.
His individual was an end in himself while the state served as
a means for the end, for the individual’s welfare. The state, for
Locke, existed for the protection and preservation of
individual’s rights. His views on rights and preservation may
be stated as under:
Rights
Rights were the domain of all human beings because only
humans have rights. Natural rights, Locke affirms, stemmed
from the fact that a person exists—if a person did not exist,
he did not possess rights, the human existence ensures the
existence of rights for human beings. In his An Essay
Concerning Humane Understanding and Two Treatises of
Government, Locke argued that natural law and natural rights
were inherent to man’s being, while the statists, such as
Hobbes, reject the idea of inborn human rights. Rights only
resided in the individual. Since such individual was a single
human being, and separate from all others, he, as with
everyone else, retained, like all other human beings, natural
rights. Locke seemed saying, “Either natural rights existed in
each person or they existed in none.”
Because society, community, state, or government were
not human beings, none of these had natural rights. Rights
existed with individual and remained with him. As the rights
remained with individual and could not be taken from him,
they were inalienable. No power, Locke insists, could take
them away from the individual, not the government or the
state which the individuals agreed to form. The state, Locke
says, existed to preserve and protect the individual’s rights,
which rights already existed with individuals as human
beings. The state preserved, protected, maintained, and
guaranteed rights. The individual had the right to seek
protection of his rights from the state. He even had the power
to overthrow the state which did not maintain or protect his
rights.
Rights: Description
Locke was convinced that individual lives and lives by reason.
To survive by reason, Locke contin-ues, the individual must
be free from the initiation of force. Society, indeed, benefits,
and is beneficial to the individual because it provided him
protection, division of labour, and other related things. It was
beneficial to that extent also from where the individual was
still free to act and survive according to his own reason. Being
required by man’s rational nature, rights were not arbitrary or
negotiable, they were absolute in the sense that they were
absolute requirements for life within a society. These rights
included right to life, to liberty, to equality, and to property.
Right to Property: Locke’s Theory: Analysed and
Evaluated
According to Locke, right to property is an important one, in
so far as it is the essence of his theory of rights. Property, for
Locke, in the broader sense includes life, liberty, and estates.
In this sense, right to property includes right to life and to
liberty as well. But it is property (in the narrower sense) in the
sense of “estates” and “possessions” that Locke uses the
right to property in his whole political ideas.
Locke’s theory of property can well be explained and
analysed in his own words, (emphasis added in italics):
“,..men, being once born, have a right to their preservation,
and consequently to eat and drink and do such other things
as nature affords for their subsistence;...” (Para 25)
“God..., has also given them reason to make use of it to the
best advantage of life and convenience,... And though all the
fruits... belong to mankind in common;...; and nobody has
originally a private dominion exclusive of the rest of
mankind...; yet being given for the use of men, there must of
necessity be a means to appropriate them...” (Para 26)”...
every man has a property in his own person; this nobody has
any right to but himself. The labour of his body and the work
of his hands, we may say, are his property. Whatsoever then
he removes out of the state that nature has provided and left
in it, he has mixed his labour with, and joined to it something
that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.” (Para 27)
“And the taking of this or that part (from the nature given to
men in common) does not depend on the express consent of
all the commoners.” (Para 28)
“As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of
life before it spoils, so much he may, by his labour fix a
property in; whatever is beyond this is more than his share
and belongs to others. Nothing was made by God for man to
spoil or destroy.” (Para 31)
“God gave the world to man in common, ... for their benefit
and the greatest conveniences of life they were capable to
draw from it, it cannot be supposed he meant it should always
remain common and uncultivated. He gave it to the use of the
industrious and rational.. not to the fancy or covetousness of
the quarrelsome and contentious.” (Para 34)
“..that every man should have as much as he could make
use of, would hold still in the world without straining anybody,
since there is a land enough in the world to suffice double the
inhabitants, but not the invention of money and the tacit
agreement of men to put a value on it introduced—by consent
—larger possessions and a right to them.” (Para 36)
“And as different degrees of industry were apt to give men
possessions in different proportions, so this invention of
money gave them the opportunity to continue and enlarge
them..” (Para 48)
“But since gold and silver ...has its value only from the
consent of men, whereof labour yet makes, in great part, the
measure, it is plain that men have agreed to disportionate and
unequal possession of the earth, they having, by a tacit and
voluntary consent, found out a way how a man may fairly
possess more land than he himself can use the product of, by
receiving in exchange for the overplus gold and silver which
may be hoarded up... these metals not spoiling or decaying in
the hands of the possessor. This partage of things in an
inequality of private possessions men have made practicable
out of the bounds of society and without compact, only by
putting a value on gold and silver, and tacitly agreeing in the
use of money; ...” (para 50)
“,.it is very easy to conceive how labour could at first begin
a title of property in the common things of nature, and how
the spending it upon our uses bounded it. So, that there could
then be no reason of quarrelling about title, nor any doubt
about the largeness of possession it gave. Right and
convenience went together...” (para 51).
“The equality of a simple, poor way of living, confining their
desires within the narrow bounds of each man’s small
property, made few controversies, and so no need of many
laws..., where there were but few trespasses and offenders.
Since, then, those who liked one another so well as to join
into society..., they could not but have greater apprehensions
of others than of one another; . it was natural for them to put
themselves under a frame of government..” (para 107).
“Nobody doubts but an express consent of any man
entering into any society makes him a perfect member of that
society; a subject of that government... every man that any
possession or enjoyment of any part... does thereby give his
tacit consent....” (para 119).
“The great and chief end, therefore, of men’s uniting into
commonwealths and putting themselves under government is
the preservation of their property.” (para 124)
Characteristics of Property Right
From above, we may bring out certain characteristics of
property right as they appear in Locke’s writings:
1. Property, as a right, is a natural right. It exists because
man exists. It is a possession of the individual as a
human being.
2. Property, as a right, is a possession, a right possession
in the sense that one owns it; it is not that one as
individual possesses it, it is that he owns it, makes it,
controls it. To possess it does not mean that one owns it
and conversely, to own it does not mean that one
possesses it; a car John owns, but he does not possess
it because a thief after having stolen the car, possesses
it.
3. Property, as a right, becomes property of a person who
has put labour in having it; what is in the nature belongs
to nature and is everyone’s, but when a person has an
apple by using his hand (i.e., labour), an apple becomes
his property.
4. In the initial stages and until the discovery of rare metals
such as gold and silver, property rights were limited. No
one would take more than he required; for no one could
have it or store it. Obviously then, things were left for
others and in good conditions as well. Till then, all the
world was America, for many, silver, gold were then
unknown, and, therefore, property could not be owned
more than it was required.
5. With the introduction of money, gold and other rare
metals, property right became unlimited, for gold or silver
became not only property, but the medium of exchange
of goods. Locke justifies the unlimited right of property in
amassing it, for, the world, Locke would say, belongs to
the entrepreneurs, and not the lazy.
6. The state comes to be established for the protection of
property of those who had it in the form of “estates,” and
of those who had it in the form of “life and liberties’.
It is clear that the Lockean society in the state of nature, in
its initial stages, is free and indeed, equal—a society where
there are few or no trespassers—but as money, gold, and
silver were introduced, property right which was limited earlier
became unlimited, resulting thus in a society of unequal men.
As a result of unlimited property rights, on the eve of the
formation of the state, trespasses increase, controversies
enhance, and the state is formed to protect the property of the
people—of those who have possessions and of those who
have only labour. The Lockean society, though free, is
unequal and this inequality is taken over by the political
society where the government is called upon to protect the
property relations as existed in the state of nature. Locke’s
defence of property, though suggests for him a title of one
who is advocating the case for a “class” state as Macpherson
feels, yet it goes to his credit that he is presenting a
mercantilist argument in a very successful manner. He is
granting unlimited right of accumulating money to the
“industrious” and “rational” and that too in the interest of
public good. William Ebenstein rightly remarks, “When Locke
defended property on the ground of individual effort and
initiative, he protected the productive capacities of a new
system of commercial and industrial capitalism against the
restrictive traditions of a repressive state’.
Locke’s theory of rights and property is not without its
weaknesses. Locke has been assailed as a philosopher of
inconsistencies. Some of the demerits in his theory of rights
and property may be briefly stated as under:
1. At times, Locke insists that the rights are natural, natural
because they belong to the individual as a human being;
while at other times, he says that these rights are the
result of his labour—property right being individual’s after
having put his labour in what is common for all.
2. Locke’s rights, especially property right, are limited at
one stage and after the introduction of gold and silver the
right to property becomes unlimited. Locke’s division of
“right as limited” and “right as unlimited” is made with a
view to justify right to property, as claimed by the
capitalists in the later years.
3. Locke’s theory of rights, property right including, paves
the way for the rise of capitalist class in the society. He,
therefore, emerges as a defender of capitalism.
4. Locke’s theory of rights, property right again including,
earns for him the title of the forerunner of the liberal
doctrine, which dominated the West in the later centuries.
5. Locke’s theory of property is a contradiction in itself. In
the initial stages, property right is described limited; but in
the later stages, following the introduction of gold and
silver, this right is described unlimited and more so, it is
defended as such.
Ill (b) (v) Locke: The Social Contract

According to Locke, the commonwealth is instituted by the
explicit consent of those who were to be governed. Those
who made this agreement transferred to the civil government
their right of executing the law of nature and judging their own
case. The establishment of the commonwealth, Ruth Grant
(John Locke’s Liberalism) says, was a two-step process. One
step was universal consent, i. e., unanimity informing the
political community — consent to join a community, a consent
which was binding, which could not be withdrawn. The
second step was to form the government so as to rule
through a consent for which there was no need of unanimity;
majority consent was sufficient to rule. The universal consent
was to form the community, a stable society; the majority
consent was to form and conduct the business of the
government, one that could be changed; majority consent to
make it and run it through, and majority consent to oust it.
Locke and Hobbes Compared
Table 13.1 Premises
Issues Locke Hobbes
Human Man is by nature a Man is not by nature

social animal. a social animal,
society nature could
not exist except by
the power of the
state.
The state In the state of “no society; and

of nature nature, men mostly which is worst of all,
kept their promises continual fear, and
and honoured their danger of violent
obligations, and, death; and the life of
though insecure, it man, solitary, poor,
was mostly peaceful, nasty, brutish and
good, and pleasant. short.”
He quotes the
American frontier
and Soldania as
examples of people
in the state of
nature, where
property rights and
(for the most part)
peace existed.
Princes are ina
state of nature with
regard to each other.
Rome and Venice
were in a state of
nature shortly before
they were officially
founded. In any
place where it is
socially acceptable
to punish
wrongdoings done
against any person,
for example on the
American frontier,
people are in a state
of nature. Though
such places and
times are insecure,
violent conflicts are
often ended by the
forcible imposition of
a just peace on evil
doers and peace is
normal
Knowledge Humans know what Humans are

of natural is right and wrong, imperfect as to be
law and are capable of mostly worthless in
knowing what is resolving practical
lawful and unlawful disputes. In a state
well enough to of nature, people
resolve conflicts. In cannot know what is
particular, and most theirs and what is
importantly, they are someone else’s.
capable of telling the Property exists
difference between solely by the will of
what is theirs and the stronger, thus in
what belongs to a state of nature
someone else. men are condemned
Regrettably they do to endless violent
not always act in conflict. In practice,
accordance with this morality is for the
knowledge. most part merely a
command by some
person or group or
God, and law merely
the momentary will
of the stronger.
Episte- The gap between It is the naming that

mology our ideas and words makes it so.
about the world, and Sometimes, Hobbes
the world itself, is comes close to the
large and difficult, Stalinist position that
but still, if one man truth itself is merely
calls something the will of the
good, while another stronger.
man calls it evil, the
deed or man
referred to still has
real qualities of good
or evil, the
categories exist in
the world regardless
of our names for
them, and if one
man’s word does not
correspond to
another man’s word,
this a problem of
communication, not
fundamental
arbitrariness in
reality.
Conflict Peace is the norm, Men cannot know

and should be the good and evil, and in
norm. We can and consequence can
should live together only live in peace
in peace by together by
refraining from subjection to the
molesting each absolute power of a
other’s property and common master,
persons, but for the and, therefore, there
most part we do. can be no peace
between kings.
Peace between
states is merely war
by other means.
Table 13.2 Conclusions
Issues Locke Hobbes
The Social Wegive up ourright If you shut up and do

Contract to ourselves of exact as you are told, you
retribution for crimes have the right not to
in return for impartial be killed, and you do
justice backed by not even have the
overwhelming force. right not to be killed,
We retain the right to for no matter
life and liberty, and
gain the right to just,
impartial protection
of
Violation If a ruler seeks No right to rebel,

of the absolute power, ifhe “there can happen
Social acts both as judge no breach of
Contract and participant in covenant on the part
disputes, he puts of the sovereign; and
himself in a state of consequently none
war with his subjects of his subjects, by
and we have the any pretence of
right and the duty to forfeiture, can be
kill such rulers and freed from his
their servants. subjection.” The
ruler’s will defines
good and evil for his
subjects. The King
can do no wrong,
because lawful and
unlawful, good and
evil, are merely
commands, merely
the will of the ruler.
Civil Civil society Civil society is the

Society precedes the state, application of force
both morally and by the state to
historically. Society uphold contracts and
creates order and so forth. Civil society
grants the state is a creation of the
legitimacy. state. What most
modern people
would call civil
society is “jostling”,
pointless conflict and
pursuit of selfish
ends that a good
government should
suppress.
Rights Men have rights by You conceded your

their nature. rights to the
government, in
return for your life.
Role of The only important Whatever the state

the State role of the state is to does is just by
ensure that justice is definition. All of
seen to be done. society is a direct
creation of the state,
and a reflection of
the will of the ruler.
Authorised Authorisation is The concept of just

use of meaningless, except use of force is
force that the authorisation meaningless or
gives us reason to cannot be known.
believe that the use Just use of force is
of force is just. If whatever force is
authorisation does authorised
not give us such
confidence, perhaps
because the state
itself is a party to the
dispute, or because
of past lawless acts
and abuses by the
state, then we are
back in a state of
nature.
The function of the legitimate civil government formed by

the society, and the one that carries on its task through the
majority consent is to preserve, as far as possible, the rights
of life, liberty, health, and property of its citizens, and to
prosecute and punish those of its citizens who violate the
rights of others and to pursue the public good even where this
may conflict with the rights of individuals. In doing this, it
provides something unavailable in the state of nature, an
impartial judge to determine the severity of the crime, and to
set a punishment proportionate to the crime. This is one of
the main reasons why civil society is an improvement on the
state of nature. Political power, derived as it is from the
transfer of the power of individuals to enforce the law of
nature, has with it the right to kill in the interest of preserving
the rights of the citizens or otherwise supporting the public
good. Despotic power, by contrast, implies the right to take
the life, liberty, health, and at least some of the property of
any person subject to such a power. The argument for
legitimate revolution follows from making the distinction
between legitimate and _ illegitimate civil government. A
legitimate civil government seeks to preserve the life, health,
liberty, and property of its subjects, in so far as this is
compatible with the public good. Because it does this, it
deserves obedience. An illegitimate civil government seeks to
systematically violate the natural rights of its subjects. The
magistrate or king of such a state violates the law of nature
and so makes himself into a dangerous beast of prey who
operates on the principle that might makes right, or that the
strongest carries it. In such circumstances, rebellion is
legitimate as is the killing of such a dangerous beast of prey.
Thus, Locke justifies rebellion and regicide under certain
circumstances.
Ill (b) (vi) Locke s Theory of State

The Lockean state that emerges after the social contract has
certain features which can be summed up as under:
First, the Lockean state is a state proper, and as such
covers only the political aspect of man’s life. It does not cover,
for example, man’s other aspects. In this sense, Locke is able
to make a distribution between state and society. Third
paragraph of the Second Treatise, while defining political
power, gives to the state what is only state’s.
Second, the Lockean state is based on consent and as
such is a consent state. Para 15 says, “. all men are naturally
in that state (the state of nature) and remain so till by their
consents they make themselves members of some politic
society;“. (Emphasis added). Similarly in para 95, Locke says,
“Men being, ., by nature all free, equal, and independent, no
one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political
power of another without his own consent. The only way
whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty and
puts on the bonds of civil society is by agreeing with other
men to join and unite into a community”.
Third, the Lockean state has government which is limited in
terms of functions. In other words, the Lockean government is
a limited government. The government is formed for doing a
specific job. Locke repeatedly refers to this job as the
preservation of property, property which, in its broader sense,
includes “lives, liberties and estates” and in its narrower
sense, includes only “estates”, “possessions” or “goods”. The
Lockean government has a clear mandate from its political
society to do the job of preserving property and in this sense,
his government acts on a trust posed in it by the people who,
by their consent, become a political body.
Fourth, the government of Locke’s imagination is not only a
trustee in so far as it performs a set job; it is also limited in its
powers. The Lockean government has to work under certain
limitations. Para 142 sets such “bounds” on the legislative
organs as are put by the political society and the law of God.
It reads: “First, they are to govern by promulgated established
law. to have one rule for rich and poor, for the favourite at
court and the countryman at plough. Secondly, these laws
also ought to be designed for no other end ultimately but the
good of the people. Thirdly, they must not raise taxes on the
property of the people without the consent of the people, ...
Fourthly, the legislature neither must nor can transfer the
power of making laws to anybody else, .”.
Fifth, Macpherson’s description of the Lockean state as “a
joint stock company” model seems a very apt description.
Locke’s state consists of both property owners and the whole
population. There are shareholders, /.e., men of property, the
proprietors who run a company that has several employees,
the labouring class. The state as a joint stock company is
necessary both for the property owners who seek from it their
profit and increase their capital and for men in the labouring
class who seek from it their livelihood by selling labour. Once
the two classes — the property owners and the labouring
class — agree to run the company, and they agree because it
is in their interests to agree, the company is wholly managed
and controlled by the shareholders who elect a board of
directors from amongst themselves through a majority vote
and with a mandate that the directors would promote the
interests of the shareholders.
Sixth, the Lockean government is a trustee government
and as and when it violates the trust, Locke’s individual has
not only a right but also a duty to change or rebel against the
government. This is a right against the government and not
against the political society; or say the whole citizen-body.
The dissolution of society and the dissolution of the
government are two different dissolutions.
It goes to the merit of Locke that he builds the foundation of
his whole system as stable as possible. There is the
individual and his rights as the very basis of the system; there
is the community, the custodian of the individual rights and
the authority standing behind the government; there is the
government or the “legislative” which is constitutionally the
“supreme power”; there is the “executive” or the king who
enjoys independent status with certain discretionary powers.
Ill (c) Locke: Conclusion

Locke’s political ideas make no secrets of his position as the
harbinger of liberal theory. He makes a distinction between
various aspects of man’s life, political aspect being one
among so many others. He bases his state on the will of the
individual who possesses natural rights prior to the formation
of the state. His government is a government with specific
functions and since the functions are limited, the powers of
the government are also limited. He is a great believer of the
majority principle and above all, he allows the individual to
build a government if the latter fails to honour its commitment
for which it was built. There is, thus, in Locke, more of
individual and less of state, i.e., of government.
Locke not only builds the tenets of liberalism, he also builds
the ambiguities which liberalism has not been able to set
aside till this day. Liberalism takes a small view of the
government and yet it wants the government in any case; it
wants a limited government and yet it insists on making it
powerful; it demands the government to be based on men’s
wills and yet it regards the majority principle as the only way
to run the government; it considers men to be equal as
citizens and yet it allows them to flourish on unequal
economic rights; it values obedience and yet it permits men to
act in the name of individual conscience when necessary.
These are Liberalism’s, and also Locke’s ambiguities.
Like any other thinker, Locke represents his own age, the
age of the bourgeois triumphs. Laski sums up in a lengthy
passage Locke’s position in the most apt manner when he
says, “The friend of Sydenham, Boyle, and Newton, the
administrator of commercial empire, the man who had
experienced exile and confiscation of property for the sake of
his beliefs, he (Locke) summarises in himself the outcome of
an age. Rationalism, toleration, constitutional government,
without excess in any, these are his watchwords...” His
emphasis upon the “natural right of life, liberty and property”
is his century’s insistence that a man’s efforts shall not be
without its reward. His atomic view of society as a body of
individuals living together for mutual convenience leads easily
to a state the functions of which are limited by the powers
they confer upon it. “...de is, in short, constructing the
foundations of a society in which the landowner and the
farmer, the merchant, and the shopkeeper, have the right to
confidence. His security is security for them, his liberty, the
kind of liberty they could, with their property, expect to
achieve; and the kind of governmental machine he
constructed for their control is one that, . they may expect to
operate in their own way.”
IV. JOHN STUART MILL: 1806-73
IV(a) Mill: The Man, His Times and His Works

The “democratic” element in the liberal theory was first
introduced in all earnestness by John Stuart Mill. Jonn was
born in London, of a scholarly family and was the son of
James Mill, himself an author in his own right. “John would be
a successor worthy of both of us”, James once told Bentham
who was his friend. With this in view, John’s education was
directed by James who acted both as John’s teacher and as
his companion. John studied Greek at the age of three and
Latin at the age seven, in addition to studying Arithmetic and
History. At the age of 12, John could read Plato, Herodotus,
Xenophon, and Aristotle in their original language. With these
classical theorists, he added the study of recent theorists like
Hobbes, while showing equal interest in Algebra, Geometry,
Experimental Sciences, and Logic. He had his instructions on
Political Economy from his father during their regular morning
walks, studying thus economists like Adam Smith and David
Ricardo. At the age of fourteen, John visited France and
stayed there with General Sir Samuel Bentham, Jeremy
Bentham’s brother. At Montpellier in France, John studied
Chemistry, Zoology, Philosophy of Science, and
Mathematics. The following year when he returned home, he
did his reading of Locke, Condillac, and Helvetius. His study
of Roman law and jurisprudence was completed by his
father’s friend and an eminent jurist, John Austin. It was all at
a tender age of 15. So heavy was the dose in education for
John that he became prematurely an old man, causing even a
phase of depression when he was just 20. At the age of 17,
he joined the East India Company and served it for a long
period of thirty-five years until 1858 when the company was
closed.
John Stuart Mill was 16 when he founded a utilitarian
society to discuss the ideas of Jeremy Bentham. He used to
contribute articles to the Westminster Review, Bentham’s and
the Philosophical Radicalists’ official organ. He also joined the
Speculative Society for having discussions on logic and
psychology, and for economics, he became a member of the
Political Economy Club.
John Stuart Mill, hereinafter as Mill, married at a very late
age with one Harriet Taylor who was Mill’s intellectual
associate after his father’s death, for about thirty years and
his wife for eight. After their marriage in 1851, the Mills spent
most of the time in seclusion, and after Harriet’s death in
1859, Mill was left almost alone, living mostly in his villa near
Avignon where he died in 1873. Between 1865 and 1868, Mill
was a member of the House of Commons, where he
advocated various measures like proportional representation,
woman suffrage, and the reduction of the national debt.
For a man like Mill, so well read and so well educated, the
situation, as he found himself in the second half of the
nineteenth century, was really bewildering. Having himself
brought up in the strict discipline of Benthamite philosophical
radicalism, he soon found it wanting in many respects.
Himself a follower once of Bentham, he soon found
Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Carlyle more inspiring. Realising
fully well the role of the state that it can play in the life of the
individual, he soon found the Hegelian and Burkean theses of
the state too towering. A modest critic of capitalism and the
one who would recommend regulatory measures on private
property, as Mill was, he soon found the working class
unequal to the tasks of a rapidly growing society. A great
believer of democracy as Mill was, he found “one-man one-
vote” system as damaging and an instance of false
democracy. An enthusiastic advocate of man’s freedom as
Mill was, he soon found the /aissez-faire policy too harmful for
the greater part of mankind. Amidst these bewildering ideas
around, Mill was no follower of either Hegel or Burke in giving
the state what is not state’s; he was no follower of Marx in
giving to the proletariat exclusive rights of governing the
society; he was no follower of either Adam Smith or Ricardo
in giving unhindered freedom to the propertied classes; he
was no follower of Bentham in raising all the time cries of
utility. His was, what Hacker calls, “a careful and painstaking”
approach’. When he (Mill) speaks,” Hacker continues, “of
democracy, he gives close attention to the concrete political
institutions which may hopefully make that form of
government a reality. When he discusses human freedom, he
lists the explicit consequences which may be expected if men
are allowed to express themselves without hindrance.” Mill
came to introduce, in the liberal theory, the humanistic and
democratic values for the first time, and this precisely was his
distinctive contribution to liberalism and also to political
theory. But his tragedy was that he could not abandon
completely his bourgeois assumptions on which his whole
political theory rested. George H. Sabine points out very
rightly when he says, “His (Mill’s) expressly stated theories ...
of human nature, of morals, of society, and of the part to be
played by government in a liberal society ...were always
inadequate to the load that he made them carry.”
Mill’s principal wlorks include the System of Logic (1843),
the Principles of Political Economy (1848), On Liberty (1859),
Considerations on Representative Government (1861),
Utilitarianism (1863), and The Subjection of Women (1869).
Three of his works were published after his death
—Autobiography (1873), Three Essays on Religion (1874)
and Chapters on Socialism (1879). These were brought out
by his step daughter, Helen Taylor.
The System of Logic revitalised the study of logic, and
provided a definitive account of the philosophy of science and
social science. The Principles of Political Economy defined
the orthodox form of liberal principles. On Liberty and
Utilitarianism were Mill's best known works in moral
philosophy, which were, indeed, of continuing significance.
His Considerations on Representative Government is a work
on democracy, where as The Subjection of Women
highlighted his arguments favouring the franchise rights for
women. His Autobiography gave insight of a scholar of Mill’s
calibre. Three Essays on Religion emphasises the role of
religion in inculcating a moral code which guides people.
Chapters on Socialism provides an Englishman’s view of
socialism which attracted the later English socialists more
than Marx.
(- '
John Stuart Mill Quotes
e “If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then

mankind is no more justified in silencing the one than
the one — if he had the power - would be justified in
silencing mankind.”
e “Every great movement must experience three
stages: ridicule, discussion, adoption.”
e “Whatever crushes individuality is despotism, by
whatever name it may be called and whether it
professes to be enforcing the will of God or the
injunctions of men.”
e “What distinguishes the majority of men from the few
is their inability to act according to their beliefs.”
e “The only freedom which deserves the name is that of
pursuing our own good, in our own way, so long as
we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or
impede their efforts to obtain it.”
e “We have a right, also, in various ways, to act upon
our unfavourable opinion of anyone, not the
oppression of his individuality, but in the exercise of
ours.”
e “The worth of a state, in the long run, is the worth of
the individuals composing it.”
e “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the
individual is sovereign.”
“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully
exercised over any mem ber of a civilised community,
against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own
good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient
warrant.”
“Ask yourself whether you are happy and you cease
to be so.”
“One person with a belief is equal to a force of ninety-
nine who have only interests.”
“Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most
stupid people are conservative.”
“| have learned to seek my happiness by limiting my
desires rather than in attempting to satisfy them.”
“He who knows only his own side of the case, knows
little of that.”
“That which seems the height of absurdity in one
generation often becomes the height of wisdom in the
next.”
IV(b) Mills Political Ideas
IV(b) (i) Mill’s Scientific Method

Mill's System of Logic makes him an empiricist in so far as he
attributes to experiences all states of consciousness. This
leads to what may be called Mill’s scientific method as well.
He argues that the rules of scientific method evolve out of the
spontaneous inductions about the world that we make as
embodied creatures. As we investigate the world to find the
best means to satisfy our natural needs and aims, we find
that some maintain themselves while others turn out to be
false. The former guide us, and they become our laws — a
law is a regularity that we accept for purposes of prediction
and _ contrary-to-fact inference. Out of these ways of
experiencing and coming to understand the world grows our
account of explanation—to explain a fact is to locate a law
under which it can be subsumed. As we proceed to
understand and explain the world, the generalisations began
to accumulate and interweave. With these, there are patterns
— a pattern about patterns; a law about laws which includes
all sorts of laws, about all sorts of events. This is the universal
causation, ensuring that for every sort of event, there are
laws.
In his scientific method, Mill does include a range of
hypotheses. The researcher reaches for data and
experiments and eliminates hypotheses which are not true.
This is what Mill calls the Principle of Determinism, the
scientific method at which a researcher reaches.
IV(b) (ii) Mill s Modifications of Benthamite Utilitarianism

Though the origins of utilitarianism can be traced to Epicurus
(341-270 BC), its advocacy has come through the writings of
Hume (1711-76), Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill
(180673). It is a consequentialist theory of ethics; much a
theory that judges the rightness (or wrongness) of an action
of what occurs as a result of doing something. Judging action
to be right or wrong on the basis of their effects seemed to
allow Bentham and Mill to objectify morality. This utilitarianism
or consequentialism is different from the deontological
theories which lay emphasis on the “ought” to part of one’s
doing; the deontologicists are interested only in the act, how
to do and not in their effects — good or bad.
Although Mill's account is primarily influenced by Jeremy
Bentham and Mill’s father James Mill, his conception of
utilitarianism is so different from Bentham’s, however, that
some modern thinkers have argued that he demonstrated
libertarian ideals and that he was not as much a
consequentialist as was Bentham, although he did not reject
a consequentialism as Kant did. Bentham’s famous
formulation of utilitarianism is known as the “greatest-
happiness principle”. It holds that one must always act so as
to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of
people, within reason. One of Mill’s major contributions to
utilitarianism is his argument for the qualitative separation of
pleasures. Bentham treats all forms of happiness as equal,
whereas Mill argues that intellectual and moral pleasures are
superior to more physical forms of pleasure. Mill distinguishes
between happiness and contentment, claiming that the former
is of higher value than the latter, a belief wittily encapsulated
in the statement that “it is better to be a human being
dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be a Socrates
dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are
of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own
side of the question.” Thus, distinguishing between quality
and quantity of pleasure, Mill, in his utilitarianism,
distinguishes between physical pleasures (eating, drinking,
and having intimate relationships with others, etc.), and
intellectual pleasures (philosophical debate, reading, listening
to an opera, etc.). Being a highly educated man (and a little
sexually expressed) Mill naturally favoured the “higher”
pleasures over the lower ones.
Mill was critical of those who believed that the principle of
utility was nothing more than a justification for gratifying one’s
physical appetites. In fact, given the choice Mill believed
people would always seek the “higher” pleasures over the
“lower” ones. In fact, he considered this to be the natural thing
for humans to do — “A beast’s pleasure does not satisfy a
human being’s conception of happiness.” Mill's argument is
that the “simple pleasures” tend to be preferred by people
who have no experience with high art, and are, therefore, not
in a proper position to judge. Mill supported legislation that
would have granted extra voting power to university
graduates on the grounds that they were in a better position
to judge what would be best for society. This does not mean
that Mill devalued those who were uneducated. However, the
qualitative account of happiness that Mill advocates thus
sheds light on his account presented in On Liberty. As Mill
suggests in that text, utility is to be conceived in relation to
mankind “as a progressive being,” which includes the
development and exercise of his rational capacities as he
strives to achieve a “higher mode of existence.”
In chapter two of Utilitarianism, Mill spends some time
answering various objections he felt could be raised against
Bentham’s version of the principle of utility. One of the biggest
objections that he felt needed to be countered, was that the
principle of utility is based on an ideal which is unattainable;
that people cannot be happy al! the time. Mill’s response was
to suggest that if we have in mind a life of complete and total
unending happiness, then, of course, this is unobtainable. No
one can be that happy all the time, and nor should they be!
However, we can aspire to live a life which is generally more
happy than not, and as such this should be our goal.
Mill also felt that some people might ask why they should
be concerned about other people’s happiness, especially if
this involved some loss of pleasure on their own part. Mill’s
response to this objection was to show that in order for
someone to be “happy,” there must be some trade-off
between people. We cannot think it is feasible to live a purely
selfish existence and expect to give nothing back to others
around us, for we will soon become very unhappy at how
other people begin to treat us in due course. We can also find
happiness in helping other people.
Probably one of the biggest objections Mill considers is the
charge that there is often no time to calculate and weigh-up
the different effects our actions might have. Sometimes we
are called to make decisions “in the heat of the moment”, and
as such do not have the luxury of deliberating the various
outcomes of our actions before doing something.
Mill also objects to Bentham’s assertion that “utility” was
itself an end. He argues that utility is only a means to an end.
He also says that one does not seek utility as such; utility was
the object, effect of which was either a pleasure or pain.
Thus, as Mill argues, people seek effects of the utility (which
is pleasure or pain) and not the utility—fan is an object,
cooling is the effect; we obtain cooling through the fan; it is
cooling which is the end and not the fan which is a means.
Mill’s charge against Bentham was that he made a confusion
between the end and the means. So considered, unlike
Bentham, Mill would want the development of human
personality rather than “utility’—to be a happy man is different
from being a rich man. Mill objects to Bentham’s views that all
the people seek pleasures and avoid pains. He argues that
since people prefer higher pleasures to lower ones and since
people vary from place to place, condition to condition, time to
time, one man’s pleasure may not be the pleasure of another
man, and the same man’s pleasure at one point of time may
not be a pleasure for him at another time.
Mill, indeed, is a utilitarian like Bentham but what he is not
is that he is not a Benthamite.
IV(b) (iii) Mill On Liberty

What forced Mill to write on liberty was not as much the
advocacy of liberal principles as was the detailed and
sustained argument for maximising personal freedom which
was the need of hour during his times. According to Mill,
personal freedom was threatened by
(a) the excessive power of the government and its
written laws through the majority rule (de
Tocqueville’s phrase “the tyranny of the majority”)
and
(b) the excessive power of public opinion and its
unwritten laws.
His aim was, as he tells, to allow the individuals to say and
do whatever they want without inflicting harm on other people.
By arguing as such, he was giving expression to the utilitarian
cause; such freedom would bring direct social benefit for
everyone, i.e., development for each one and for all; in all
sectors — and ideas, education, and business: “Over himself,
over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” The
basis of Mill’s faith was that liberty would breed competition
and variety, and these, in turn, would foster excellence. Only
by competing with each other in the realm of ideas, practical
experiments for living, and trade would our society improve.
For example, in the realm of ideas, free speech, Mill says,
was essential for a number of reasons. Without it, one may
stifle some ideas which may be true. Or, if the minority ideas
are not true, then one loses the opportunity to have our ideas
challenged and to think through how one could defend them.
Any attempt to stifle the expression of any idea for whatever
reason was an assumption of infallibility and would run the
risk of making people complacent about their beliefs and thus
would prevent them from improving their ideas or even
understanding them as fully as they could.
Mill was not only in favour of free ideas, he was also in
favour of free expression of ideas: “even a cynic is free to
have his own ideas.” “None, not even the whole mankind has
the right to suppress the ideas of one person who holds
different opinion.” By doing so the whole mankind would
commit two wrongs:
i. by suppressing the ideas of one person who might be

right and the whole mankind wrong;
ii. by doing so, the whole mankind would lose the
opportunity of having a second thought of what it held.
Mill was a passionate advocate of individual’s personal

liberty, though Professor Barker might describe him as the
prophet of empty liberty and abstract individual. Mill gave all
freedoms to the individual in his self-regarding activities,
though in his other-regarding activities, the individual was to
go by the rule or law. He did speak about two exceptions with
regard to the expression of personal freedom: no one had the
right to express his views over a matter under the
consideration of the court, and no one had the right to harm
himself or harm others.
Mill was convinced that an individual’s development (i.e.,
development of his character) was related not as much to the
concept of “utility” as Bentham would think as to the concept
of liberty — the development of the character depends on the
exercise of character. He was of the opinion that liberty, more
than the utility, was helpful in the development of human
personality which, in return, helped make the government
more democratic, representative, and responsive.
IV(b) (iv) Mill’s Structure of Government

An individualist as Mill was, the development of human
personality is the only thing that was important for him.
Institutions exist for individuals and not the individuals for the
institutions. Similarly, there are men who exist not for their
bread or for their bread and butter but for their develooment—
development of their character, of their personality, and for
the promotion of higher values. Thus, institutions seek man’s
development, state including. This is Mill's argument for
representative government. He says in his Considerations on
Representative Government, hereinafter Representative
Government, “. that the ideally best form of government is
that in which the sovereignty, or supreme controlling power in
the last resort, is vested in the entire aggregate of the
community, every citizen not only having a voice in the
exercise of that ultimate sovereignty, but being, at least
occasionally, called on to take an actual part in the
government, by the personal discharge of some _ public
functions, local or general.” The representative government is
ideal because it rests on two principles. “The first is,” Mill
says, “that the rights and interests of every or any person are
only secure from being disregarded, when the person
interested in himself is able, and habitually disposed, to stand
up for them. The second is that the general prosperity attains
a greater height and is more widely diffused in proportion to
the amount and variety of the personal energies enlisted in
promoting it.”
With a belief that the development of character depends on
the exercise of character, Mill is a great advocate of
participation. He says in Representative Government, “...that
the only government which can fully satisfy all exigencies of
the social state, is one in which the whole people participate;
that any participation, even in the smallest public function is
useful; that the participation should everywhere be as great
as the general degree of improvement of the community will
allow; and that nothing less can be ultimately desirable than
the admission of all to a share in the sovereign power of the
state.” How the people participate? Mill's answer is that it is in
the representative government that the whole people have
the opportunities of participation. “The meaning of
representative government,” Mill says, “is, that the whole
people, or some numerous portion of them, exercise through
deputies periodically elected by themselves, the ultimate
controlling power,...” But careful as Mill is always, he cautions
about the dangers of representative government being turned
into a false form of democracy. He, thus recommends, what is
based on Hare’s proposals, proportional representation to
allay the tyranny of any majority—political, social, or
economic—and also favours plural voting so as to keep a
balance of weight between the vote of an ordinary person and
that of any person doing some socially useful work. Mill writes
about these in the Representative Government: “In a really
equal democracy, every or any section would be represented,
not disproportionately, but proportionately. A majority of the
electors would always have a majority of the representatives;
but a minority of the electors would always have a minority of
the representatives. Man for man they would be as fully
represented as the majority. Unless they are, there is no
equality, but a government, of inequality and privilege: one
part of the people rule over the rest; there is a part whose fair
and equal share of influence in the representation is withheld
from them; contrary to all just government, but above all,
contrary to the principle of democracy, ....” Or at another
place, he says: “Democracy is not the ideally best form of
government...; unless it can be so organised that no class,
not even the most numerous, shall be able to reduce all but
itself to political insignificance, and direct the course of
legislation and administration by its exclusive class interest.”
This is what is Mill's | argument for proportional
representation. For plural voting, Mill's argument runs as
under, also in his Representative Government:
“In all human affairs, every person directly interested and
not under positive tutelage, has an admitted claim to a voice,
and when his exercise of it is not inconsistent with the safety
of the whole, cannot justly be excluded from it. But though
one ought to have a voice—that everyone should have an
equal voice is a totally different proposition . . If with equal
virtue, one is superior to the other in knowledge and
intelligence — or if with equal intelligence, one excels the
other in virtue—the opinion, the judgment, of the higher moral
or intellectual being, is worth more than that of the inferior .
One of the two, as the wiser or better man, has a claim to
superior weight”. “.. Two or more votes might be allowed to
every person who exercises any of these (say, socially useful)
superior functions..., in this direction (of plurality of votes) lies
the true ideal of representative government.”
“The plurality of votes must on no account be carried so far,
that those who are privileged by it, or the class... to which
they mainly belong, shall “outweigh by means of it all the rest
of community.”
The object of the government in Mill's views being the
attainment of values and virtues in men and their self-
development, it is essential that the government should be of
those whose self-development is being sought. This is
possible only when the people participate in the making and
working of their government or when the government is truly
representative. True political education cannot be imposed on
the people as Plato had suggested. Nor it means the habit of
obedience as Burke had recommended. Political education is
the participation of the people in the process of self-
government. Trials and errors, omissions and commissions
can teach an individual a lot. Hacker writes for Mill wnen he
says, “...Political education can only be meaningful if every
citizen is encouraged to participate in the process of self-
government. An individual learns best in the course of making
and correcting his own mistakes. Virtue and _ intelligence
should become genuine attributes of character in a citizen
and not simply a catalogue of catch phrases he has
memorised.” And then, through participation, people, at large,
would be able to control their rulers by influencing the
character and direction of public policy. This would also help
the people to exercise their pressure in pushing their own
demands as against the rulers’ selfish demands, for in the
absence of the right of participation, the realisation of the
peoples’ interests cannot be imagined. Participation based on
proportional representation and plural voting as Mill suggests,
can be of immense help in furthering the interests of the
people as it is in strengthening the foundations of
representative government.
So, all of Mill’s hopes lay on the individual. He, therefore,
insists that the individual should exercise his ballot in a
responsible manner, casting his vote in the right manner, and
should be able to know for himself as to who has to be his
representative. He has to be, as Mill suggests, “active, self-
helping,” character. Mill’s views about representatives are not
appreciative. He thinks that the representative is no better
than an average voter. The representatives only check and
supervise those who make the nation’s crucial decisions i.e.
cabinet. “It (the representative assembly) should ... control the
operations of government,” Mill says. “That alone,” he
continues,” “which it can do well, it ought to take personally
upon itself. With regard to the rest, its province is not to do it,
but to take means for having it well done by others.”
“Parliament, accordingly,” Mill would say, “is not expected,
nor even permitted, to originate directly either taxation or
expenditure. All it is asked for is its consent, and the sole
power it possesses is that of refusal.” “But a popular
assembly,” Mill continues, “is still less fitted to administer, or
to dictate in detail to those who have the charge of
administration. Even when honestly meant, the interference is
almost always injurious.” With regard to matters like the
legislation, Mill says, “... a numerous assembly is as little
fitted for the direct business of legislation as for that of
administration.” If this is all which a representative assembly
is not supposed to do in Mill’s opinion, which and for what,
then, it actually exists? Mill has a heavy agenda for the
representative assembly. “Instead of the function of governing
for which it is radically unfit, the proper office of a
representative assembly is to watch and control the
government: to throw the light of publicity on its acts: to
compel a full exposition and justification of all of them which
anyone considers questionable, to censure them if found
condemnable, and, if the men who compose the government
abuse their trust, or fulfill it in a manner which conflicts with
the deliberate sense of the nation, to expel them from office,
and either expressly or virtually appoint their successors .. In
addition to this, the Parliament has ... to be at once the
nation’s Committee of Grievances and its Congress of
Opinions; With such functions, the representative
assembly, in Mill’s opinions, can usefully employ itself only if it
“talks.” The actual administration is carried on by the Cabinet,
chosen from the parliament, with the help of the permanent
public services appointed through the competitive
examinations.
This, in short, is the framework of Mill's structure of
representative government. Wherever Mill holds the view, the
representative government is practicable, it is the best
government and wherever it is impracticable, it is the worst.
Western Political Thought II: Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke,
Mill 13.39 V(b) (v) Mill as a Reluctant Democrat
That Mill is a democrat is something which cannot be
ignored. He is so because at the heart of the whole
philosophy lies his passion for human personality. He strongly
feels, and none before him had felt so strongly, that
democracy alone helps individual attain his interest, his
prosperity. This Bentham also felt. But whereas Bentham was
interested in a happier man, Mill, on the other hand, is
interested in a better man too. Mill is a democrat because he
feels, and here again he has no parallel amongst all the
earlier liberal thinkers that man’s participation in the process
of government generates in man a process of development
as well, for it is he who believes that the development of
character depends upon the exercise of character. Mill is a
democrat because he is so well aware of democracy’s
shortcomings — peoples’ illiteracy, their apathy, their
ignorance, their passiveness — that inspite of all these
weaknesses, he is ready to give democracy a chance. He is a
democrat because he is able to make a distinction between
false and true democracy, between the rule of either ignorant
or of elite and the rule of the competent, between the rule of
quantity and that of the quality. He is a democrat because he
wants to give franchise to each and all, male and female,
aristocrat (one who gives to life more than he takes out of it
as Mill thinks) and manual labourer. But in giving this right,
Mill recommends his concept of plural voting, i.e. one vote
each to every citizen but more than one vote to those citizens
who are doing socially useful functions. He is a democrat
because he neither wants the tyranny of majority nor the
attack on minorities. His answer to these evils is the
proportional representation. But one must note that Mill is a
democrat only from the standards of the nineteenth century
point of view. His own country, after having tried plural voting
particularly, abandoned his recommendations. His speeches
favouring proportional representation and woman suffrage, in
the House of Commons when he was its member, went
without any particular heed.
If Mill is a democrat, he is also a liberal. It will be well to call
him a liberal-democrat rather than a democratic-liberal. Such
a proposition means that he is first a liberal and only
afterwards, a democrat. He builds “democratic” elements on
the already assumed liberal foundations. What it means is
that he accepts all the liberal ethos — assumptions of the
capitalistic society, its class interests, private property system,
limited state and autonomous individual. On _ these
assumptions, he builds the democrat model, the model of
representative government, one vote to each and several
votes to some. Honest as Mill is in creating the democratic
model, he does not throw away his bourgeois assumptions.
He remains, among the liberals, a rebel liberal and among the
democrats, a “reluctant” democrat as C.L. Wayper (Political
Thought) feels.
IV(c) Mill:Conclusion
Mill is an individualist in so far as he gives minimum functions
to the state. In this regard he refers to three propositions:
i. when a thing could be done better by the individual, it

should not be done by the government;
ii. though individuals may not do particular things so well
as the government officials do, it would be desirable that
they be done by the individuals;
iii. increase in the functions of the government would add
unnecessarily to its powers.
But it should be concluded that Mill has no role for the

state. His references with regard to the functions of the state
are given in his Principles of Political Economy. These
functions are many, especially, ‘preservation of peace and
order; laying down laws of inheritance; definitions of property;
laws about contracts; setting up civil tribunals to settle
disputes; . registry of births, marriages, deaths and general
statistical data; monopoly of money; prescribing standards of
weights and measures; paving, lighting, and cleaning streets;
making and improving harbours, lighthouses, surveys, maps,
etc.; fostering exploration, colonisation, culture, research, and
universities. “The list is, indeed, lengthy. But it brings Mill
nowhere close to socialism. True that Mill is aware of the evils
of capitalism; true also that he wants to regulate it but equally
true is his respect for private property. Mill only hopes that
Capitalism’s injustices would decrease and the nature of
private property would undergo a drastic change—all this
would happen, Mill hopefully hopes, with the emergence and
growth of cooperative bodies.
Mill proceeds, one may conclude, with bourgeois
presumptions, adjusts these presumptions with his moralistic
values, criticises its certain institutions but holding fast to its
basic foundations of private property, and on these, he
constructs his democratic model by creating the structure of
representative government, and when he feels that the
structure is too weak as against the foundations, he
accommodates structure to the demands of the foundations.
And this is what he actually does. His “liberalism,” nay his
bourgeois base, outweighs his “democracy.” Macpherson
rightly positions Mill when he says, “He (John Stuart Mill) may
be regarded as the first serious liberal-democratic theorist, in
that he was the first liberal to take seriously, . the claims of
the nascent democracy. He had some reservations, indeed,
about a fully democratic franchise. Yet in the end, Mill found
himself helpless, unable to reconcile his notion of values with
the political economy which he still believed in. . His only way
out was the hope that a network of copartnerships ., might
turn every worker into his own capitalist..”
Mill was honest in what he had said or preached. Indeed,
he aimed at the improvement of humankind. For this end, he
was active in many causes. He denounced the takeover by
the British government of the East India Company, correctly
anticipating the evils consequent upon the scramble for spoils
by second rate English officials. He supported reforms of the
Irish land tenure system in order to relieve the peasants of
their poverty . During his period in Parliament, he denounced
English methods in Ireland, a move which was unfortunately
denounced as support for the Fenians. In 1866 and 1867, he
was active along with Herbert Spencer and many other
liberals in the committee for the prosecution of Governor Eyre
for his atrocities on the blacks in Jamaica. In his own days,
Mill was immensely influential. He was never one to
compromise his principles and his efforts to pursue those
principles were steady and often successful. He inspired
many with ideas, and in action wanted to make the world a
better place.
Practice
Questions
1. “Machiavelli's philosophy was_ both

narrowly local and narrowly dated”.
Explain. (200-250 words)
2. In what ways does Machiavelli's works
reflect his times? (200-250 words)
or
Explain how Machiavelli’s application

of empirical method to human affairs
marks an important stage in the
evolution of political sciences. (2014)
(700-800 words)
3. Evaluate Machiavelli's views on
statecraft. (700-800 words)
4. “Hobbes begins with the individual and
ends up with the state”. Explain. (200-
250 words)
5. “Hobbes was a theorist of absolutism”.
Substantiate. (700-800 words)
or
“Covenants without swords are but words

and no strength to secure a man at all.”
(Hobbes) (2013) (200 words)
6. Discuss John Locke as the forerunner
of liberalism. (700-800 words)
7. “Locke is an individualist out and out.”
Substantiate (2013) (700-800 words)
8. Comment on the assertion of Laslett
that Filmer and not Hobbes was the
main antagonist of Locke. (2013) (200
words)
9. “All-silencing of discussion is an
assumption of _ infallibility.” J.S.Mill
(2014) (200 words)
10. Evaluate Mill’s views either on liberty
or on representative government.
or
Describe J.S. Mill as a- reluctant
UV
fA
democrat.”
Western Political Thought III:
Marx, Gramsci, Arendt
I. KARL MARX: 1818-83
I. (a) Karl Marx: The Man, His Times and His Works
arl Marx was born at Trier (a place in the Rhineland
K area of Germany) on May 5, 1818, where he finished
his secondary education in 1835. His father, a middle
class Jew (later converted to Protestantism) lawyer, sent him
to the Universities of Bonn and Berlin. At Berlin, he obtained
his Ph.D from the University of Jena in 1841 on the thesis
entitled “The Difference between Democritus’ and Epicurus’
Philosophy of Nature’. By this time, Marx had started shaping
his view of the world outlook. He was a young Hegelian with
leftist leanings. It was because of this that he could not get a
university job, and thus turned to journalism and started
editing Rheinische Zei-tung. In 1843, he had to leave the
journal following its closure for his criticism against the then
German government. This year, he married Jenny and was
now a socialist. He came to Paris in 1843, and got acquainted
with French materialism. Hence, he added the French
materialism with German philosophical background. Thus, he
wrote his /ntroduction to a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of
Right in 1844 (first published in 1927) in which he condemned
Hegel’s idea that the state was, in its origin, quite
independent of the empirical individuals who composed it.
Rejecting the Hegelian thesis that the state was the
embodiment of men’s general interests, he held that the
purpose of the true state was not that each citizen should
devote himself to the general cause but that the general
cause should be truly general, i.e., the cause of every citizen.
Marx also did not agree with Hegel that the state was a
mediator between particular interests and held, on the
contrary, that it was itself a tool in the hands of the particular
interests. In this book, he also disclosed the historic role of
the proletariat and explained the inevitability of revolution as a
fulfillment of history’s innate tendency. In the year 1844, Marx
also wrote Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts (first
published in 1932), a work in which Marx expounded
socialism as a general world view and not merely a
programme of social reform, and also related economic
categories to a philosophical interpretation of man’s position
in nature, i.e., his theory of alienation. Now in Paris, he came
under the influence of communist theory, particularly the role
of the working class in history. His meeting with Friedrich
Engels in Paris turned into a life long association between the
two. After 1845, Marx spent sometime in Brussels and
studied economics and economic theory. Marx and Engels
wrote together The Holy Family (1845), Theses on Feuerbach
(1845), and The German Ideology (1845-46). The Holy
Family was a polemic against the Bauer brothers who looked
down upon the proletariat as an uncritical mass. While
rejecting the idealism of Hegel and those of the young
Hegelians, Marx and Engels attempted to show the idea of
the social relations of production and the view that the
struggle of the working class against their exploiters was the
central feature of all history. Theses on Feuerbach, a polemic
against Feuerbach, was a work in which Marx and Engles
expounded the ideas
(a) that the social life is mainly practical;
(b) that man is the product of his own labour;
(c) that he is essentially social by nature; and
(d) that the ideological phenomena depend on the
conditions of society’s existence and de-velopment.
The German Ideology (1845-46) was a work written against
the views expressed by the young Hegelians and those of
Feuerbach and also of the anarchist Stirner. In this book
(which appeared in 1932), Marx and Engels developed the
ideas they had expressed in The Holy Family and Theses on
Feuerbach, especially the view that idealism as a theory had
to be associated with clashes against the proletariat and that
the establishment of the communistic system was to be
inevitable consequences of the operation of the economic
laws which worked independent of man’s will. In 1847, Marx
wrote The Poverty of Philosophy, a polemic against
Proudhon’s The Philosophy of Poverty, and indeed, a work of
mature Marxism. In 1848, Marx and Engels both wrote for the
Communist League The Communist Manifesto, the first
programmatic document of scientific communism, the one
that expounded the foundations of Marxism. In February
1848, the troubles arose and Marx participated in the struggle
in Rhineland (Germany). On failure of these events, he
returned to Paris only to be expelled from France. He came to
London in 1849 and lived there until his death in 1883. Thick
in the proletarian movement, Marx was active in fighting for
the workers. After the dissolution of the Communist League in
1852, Marx founded the First International (The International
Workingmen, Association) in 1864. This gave him the
opportunity to follow closely the progress of the revolutionary
movements in all the countries. In 1850, he wrote The Class
Struggles in France, a work in which he emphasised on the
alliance between the workers and the peasants. In his The
Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852), he predicted
that the bourgeois state machinery would be destroyed
ultimately. In 1871, he wrote The Civil War in France, the
experiences of the Paris Commune, a work in which Marx
expounded his views on the state form of the dictatorship of
the proletariat. In the Critique of the Gotha Programme
(1875), he developed further the theory of scientific
communism. Marx’s works on economics are _ highly
exhaustive. The Grundrisse (1857-58), published in 1941,
was his wide-ranging work with special reference to the study
of economics. In his The Critique of Political Economy (1859)
he set forth the essence of the materialistic understanding of
history. This theme and the working of the capitalistic society
were worked out later in his Capital Vol. | (1867) and Vol. Il
(1885) which were published by Engels after the death of
Marx and Vol. Ill in 1894. In his Theories of Surplus Value
(1862-63), he discussed mainly the theories of Adam Smith
and Ricardo. Marx died on March 14, 1883.
Marx’s political ideas are scattered over a long period of his
writing since 1843, when he started expressing himself. As he
advanced in age, his ideas began evolving with the changing
times. He wrote not only on economics and politics, but also
on sociology, philosophy, and art. He wrote certain works on
his own while others, he co-authored with Friedrich Engels
(1820-95). Engels also wrote separately as well. What is
known as classical Marxism includes the writings of both
Marx and Engels. V.I. Lenin (1870-1924) describes three
components of classical Marxist writings:
i. the dialectical philosophy with German imprint,

especially the ideas of Hegel (17701831) from which we
have (a) theory of dialectical materialism, and (b) theory
of historical materialism, i.e., the materialistic
interpretation of history;
ii. the economic ideas with the English imprint, especially
the ideas of Adam Smith (17231790) and David Ricardo
from which we have (a) theory of surplus value, and (b)
analysis and critique of capitalism;
iii. views on the state and revolution, the French imprint,
especially the ideas of Proudhon (1809-1865) from
which we have (a) theory of class, and of class struggle,
(b) theory of revolution, (c) theory of freedom and of
alienation, (d) the theory of the dictatorship of the
proletariat, (e) the eventual emergence of the classless
and the stateless society.
Most of the classical Marxist writings came as polemics ;

Marx learnt a lot from Hegelian dialectic philosophy but
condemned it for being mythical; he is said to have put the
Hegelian dialectical philosophy stand on its feet. He learnt a
lot from Adam Smith on economics but is said to have built
his whole socialist theory as a reaction to Smith’s capitalism.
He learnt a lot from Proudhon and said to have admired his
What is Property? (1840) but had written Poverty of
Philosophy against Proudhon’s Philosophy of Poverty. The
classical Marxist philosophy is the amalgamation of the three
major philosophical strands of his times — German, English,
and French.
Marx: Dialectical Materialism

Dialectical materialism, as numerous followers of Marx think,
is the philosophical basis of Marx’s whole ideas. The term
dialectical materialism was coined by Joseph Dietzgen, a
socialist, in 1887, although the casual mention of the term is
found in Kautsky’s Frederick Engels. Marx himself had talked
about the materialist conception of history which was later
referred to as “historical materialism” by Engels.
Dialectical materialism is one principal idea of Marx which
he formulated by taking the dialectic of Hegel and joining it to
the materialism of Feuerbach—through both extracting a
concept of progress in terms of the contradictory, and
interacting forces called the thesis — and _ anti-thesis,
culminating at a critical nodal point, giving rise to the
synthesis and applying it to the history of social development.
For Marx, everything in existence is a unity of opposites —
every phenomenon, the thesis, gives birth to its anti-thesis —
there is, thus, the law of negation of negation; these
opposites must interpenetrate with each other, and then
begins the law of transformation from quantity to quality. The
new mode of production is the synthesis which, with the
passage of time, becomes thesis in relation of production.
Thus, the process of social development keeps marching
ahead.
I(b)(ii) Marx:Historical Materialism

The application of dialectial materialism to history is what may
be called Marx’s another principal idea: historical materialism.
For Marx, the concept of materialism is the study of the real
economics on the social life of man and the influence of
man’s actual way of life on his thinking and feeling. He is of
the opinion that human beings in history are real and creative
ones, who “enter into definite, necessary relations which are
independent of their will” He makes it clear that the real basis
of society is the material base—it is a way of living, a life
process. Human beings’ thinking and ideology—politics, law,
religion, art, science, etc., are reflected in their life activities.
That is why Marx emphasises that “life is not determined by
consciousness, but consciousness, by life.” Marx explains
that as men are social beings, they tend to interact with one
another and with nature — their mode of production is
combined with their mode of cooperation (or conflict), thus
relating the mode of production to productive forces. These
material relations, Marx says, constitute the social relations
on which is built the superstructure.
Based on the material life, human beings develop and
process consciousness which is at first conscious and with
the passage of time becomes social. Through relationships
within the society in which they live, they create more needs
and increase productivity. Thus is developed the division of
labour. Starting thus, Marx explains, the division of labour
creates contradiction and antagonism within two polar sides
— wife (as slave) and husband (as master) in the family,
individuals and state, ruling class and the ruled class. Human
beings thus become alienated. For Marx, the history is neither
a collection of dead facts nor an imagined world; rather, it is
the active and real life-process of human individuals. They
live in the actual, empirically perceivable world under specific
social conditions. Marx says that history is nothing but the
succession of separate generations, each of which exploits
the materials, the forms of capital, the productive forces
handed down to it by all preceding ones, and thus, on the one
hand, continues the traditional activity in completely changed
circumstances and, on the other, modifies the old
circumstances with a completely changed activity.
The activity in which human beings engage sustains their
lives. The formation of human beings’ ideas is interwoven
with the material activity and the material relationship with
others. Such activities then generate means of production
and social relationships. “In the social production of their
means of existence, men enter into definite, necessary
relations which are independent of their will, productive
relationships which correspond to a definite state of
development of their material productive forces.” The
productive forces grow within the context of increasingly
outdated relations of production. The contradiction between
productive forces and the existing production relationship
causes social revolution. A new established production
relation replaces an outdated form. This is the development of
history of human beings in a dialectic process.
Marx’s clear formulation of his materialist conception of
history is found in the preface of his book A Contribution to
the Critique of Political Economy (1859). He says: “In the
social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into
definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely
relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the
development of their material forces of production. The totality
of these relations of production constitutes the economic
structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a
legal and political superstructure and to which correspond
definite forms of consciousness. The mode of production of
material life conditions the general process of social, political
and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that
determines their existence, but their social existence that
determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of
development, the material productive forces of society come
into conflict with the existing relations of production or—this
merely expresses the same thing in legal terms — with the
property relations within the framework of which they have
operated hith erto. From forms of development of the
productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then
begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the
economic foundation lead sooner or later to the
transformation of the whole immense superstructure. In
studying such transformations it is always necessary to
distinguish between the material transformation of the
economic conditions of production, which can be determined
with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political,
religious, artistic or philosophic—in short, ideological forms in
which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out.
Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks
about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of
transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this
consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of
material life, from the conflict existing between the social
forces of production and the relations of production.”
(- »'
Karl Marx Quotes
e “The first requisite for the happiness of the people is

the abolition of religion.”
e “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as
false.”
e “The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the
ideas of its ruling class.”
e “All | Know is I’m not a Marxist.”
e “The philosophers have only interpreted the world in
various ways; the point, however, is to change it.”
“The history of all hitherto existing society is the
history of class struggles.”
“Religion is the opium of the masses.”
e “Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist
revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose, but
their chains. Workers of the world, unite!”
“Men’s ideas are the most direct emanations of their
material state.”
“Without doubt, machinery had greatly increased the
number of well-to-do idlers.”
“Revolutions are the locomotives of history.”
e “Sell aman a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man how
to fish, you ruin a wonderful business opportunity.”
“For the bureaucrat, the world is a mere object to be
manipulated by him.”
“Nothing can have value without being an object of
utility.”
“Reason has always existed, but not always in a
reasonable form.”
“A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of
communism.”
“Democracy is the road to socialism’.
e Landlords love to reap what they had never sowed.”
While the miser is merely a capitalist gone mad, the
capitalist is a rational miser.”
The rich will do anything for the poor but get off their
backs.”
The theory of communism may be summed up in one
sentence:
Abolish all private property.”
Thus, historical materialism is the methodological approach
to the study of society and history. As an explanatory system,
historical materialism is the history of the development of
productive forces from one socio economic formation to
another— the primitive community society in which man, as a
food-gatnerer, lived a tribal life, largely matriarchal; as he
began domesticating animals instead of killing them; and
mixed farming as he became the food producer who lived in a
more developed tribal settled life, transforming the society
into the patriarchical one. Thereafter, man started the
production—surplus production led to the growth of numerous
other economic activities on which emerged the slaving-owing
society. More production meant more exchange and more
distribution so as to have more consumption. Private
ownership started and with it started the class of the masters
on the one hand, and the class of the slaves on the other.
With the class, society (opposing classes began splitting into
two irrconciliable interests) gave birth to the institution of the
state and the state power. The numerous class societies
were, Marx says, witnessed in history — from slave owning
class society (masters-slaves) to feudal class society (feudal
lords and the serfs) and then to the capitalist class society
(the capitalists and the workers). The capitalist society,
through revolution as with other class societies, would give
place to the socialist class society which, with the dictatorship
of the proletariat, would establish socialism (from each
according of his abilities to each according to his work) and
finally would lead to the communist classless and stateless
society where the state would wither away (from each
according to his work to each according to his needs) and
from where would begin the real history and freedom of man.
I(b) (iii) Marx on Theory of Surplus Value

The theory of surplus value is another tenet of Marx’s ideas.
The surplus value is the difference between the exchange
value of the labour and the exchange value of the product.
The exchange value of the labour is the value a labourer gets
whereas the exchange—value of the product is the value a
capitalist gets by selling the product in the market. What the
labourer gets is much less than what the capitalist gets. The
surplus value is the difference between what the labourer
gets and what he produces. Marx makes the surplus value
explain himself in this way: A worker works with the capitalist
for, say eight hours a day on say rupees one hundred; in the
first five hours the worker produces the value of rupees one
hundred; the remaining three hours’ value which the worker
produces does not go to him. This is the surplus value
produced by the workers that remains unpaid and goes to the
capitalist and increases the capitalist accumulation. Through
surplus value, the capitalist becomes rich day after day and
the worker gets poorer and poorer: the worker becomes the
instrument of the capitalist’s exploitation. This economic
category influences the capitalist positively and the worker,
both adversely and negatively. So considered, Marx’s surplus
value theory is essentially an accumulation-of-capital theory,
which helps step up continuously and constantly the rate of
capital accumulation.
I(b)(iv) Marx on the Critique of Capitalism
In broad outlines, Marx understands capitalism as the buying
and selling of commodities for profit. Such a meaning of
capitalism hardly explains its real connotation. Marx,
therefore, proceeds to distinguish between _ different
economies. He says that there is a substantial difference
between the capitalist economy and economies of the earlier
societies. In the early societies, say in the medieval times,
emphasis was on the use—production, i.e., production for
consumption and service—while in the capitalist economy,
production is for profit, limitless profit. In the earlier societies,
say slave owning or feudal, the relationship between (slaves-
masters or serfs —feudal lords) was both personal, informal
and intimate but in the capitalist society (workers and the
capitalist) the relationship remains impersonal, formal and
complex. In the earlier societies, the circulation of
commodities was expressed in the form of C-M-C
(commodity-money-commodity) while in the capitalist society,
the pattern becomes M-C-M (money-commodity-money). In
the first case, the latter commodity becomes qualitatively
better commodity because of its use-value while in the
Capitalist society, the latter money remains only quantitatively
better. As Marx says, “In the circulation of C-M-C, the money
is in the end converted into a commodity, that serves as a
usevalue; in the inverted form, M-C-M, on the contrary, .... By
the purchase of commodity, the capitalist throws money into
the circulation, in order to withdraw it again by the sale of the
same commodity. He lets the money go, but only with the sly
intention of getting it back again. The money, therefore, is not
spent, it is merely advanced.” Capitalism, thus, is not
interested in the use-value of the commodities; it is interested
only in the more money that it wants to increase.
Marx’s main contribution in the field of political economy is
his analysis and critique of capitalism. It is, therefore, natural
that he should have studied economists like Adam Smith
(Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations)
and David Ricardo (Principles of Political Economy). These
classical economists, Smith and Ricardo, who sought to
advocate free economy and free trade, were criticising, thus,
the mercantilist; or the semi-capitalist economy of the
eighteenth century. The message of the classical economists
was:
e sweep away all the rules and regulations restricting

trade,
e allow the manufacturers to employ labour on any terms
on which they could secure it,
e allow them to sell their commodities in any market they
could reach and at any price they could get.
Everything would go better, they argued, if laissez faire and

laissez aller are freely allowed. Thus, the classical
economists made a case for the capitalist economy by
condemning the semi capitalist or the mercantilist system.
Marx on the other hand, made a case for the socialist
economy by condemning the capitalist system of production.
The classical economists demonstrated as to how capitalism
would flourish if it is let free. Marx, on the other hand,
demonstrated as to where capitalism would take if it were not
stopped. Thus, Marx began from where the classical
economists ended. He devoted much of his time analysing
the working of capitalism, in forecasting its collapse, and in
giving the outlines of the socialist picture.
For Marx, the starting point is material production.
Individuals producing in society, the socially determined
production of individuals, naturally constitute the beginning of
every society. Production by isolated individuals is, for Marx,
an absurdity. But production by itself is production of a
particular time, i.e., production at a certain stage of
development. Each stage of production has its own
characteristic features, although various stages may have
some common features as well. Production in the slave-
owning society has its own features, so has the feudal system
of production, so also has the capitalism mode of production.
And yet all these stages have something in common. In all
these stages of production, there exists the institution of
private property, there exists private ownership of the means
of production, and therefore, there exists exploitation of man
by man. So political economy should start with production.
But Marx does not regard, as the classical economists do,
production having the same significance as _ distribution,
exchange and consumption. He regards them “not identical”
but as “members of one entity, different aspects of one unit’.
He says, “Production predominates not only over production
itself but over the other elements as well. With production, the
process constantly starts over again. That exchange and
consumption cannot be the predominating elements is self-
evident. The same is true of distribution; it is itself but a factor
of production. A definite form of production thus determines
the forms of consumption, distribution, exchange, and also
the mutual relations between these various elements. Of
course, production in its one-sided form is, in its turn,
influenced by other elements...”.
Social development is nothing but the development of the
productive forces from one type of society to the other. Each
new type of society is an improvement over the earlier society
in terms of the development of the productive forces. The
term “productive forces” refers to man’s relations with nature
while the production relations refers to the relations among
people.
For Marx, the process of production, functions and
proceeds through the contradictory unity of two aspects—the
productive forces (signifying the relations of men with nature)
and the relations of production (signifying the relations among
men when they act on nature). Man acts on nature through
the means of production. The means of production include
i. the objects of labour, i.e., the natural substances on

which man uses his conscious and purposeful labour to
satisfy his needs by modifying and adapting them,
ii. the instruments of labour, i.e., the things through the
help of which men exert their labour on the natural
substances.
The means of production take the shape of productive

forces when the labour power of the people set the process of
production in motion. As productive forces reflect the relation
of man with nature, the level of their development
characterises man’s control over the forces of nature. The
relations of production are those relations which men enter
into when they engage themselves in the process of
production. In order to produce, men must have the means of
production, i.e., the objects and instruments of labour. These
means of production, when they belong to the individuals or
groups of individuals characterise a class society and, when
they belong to the whole society, characterise a socialist
society. To whomsoever the means of production belong, to
him belong the products as well. If the means of production is
owned by the particular individual(s), the products belong to
him or them, and if they belong to the whole society, the
belong to the are society.
Capitalism, as against the earlier modes of production
characterises the further development of private property, its
greater concentration in the hands of a minority of capitalists
and the deprivation of the mass of workers of ownership of
the means of production and their transformation into a kind
of people compelled to sell their labour power to the
capitalists. Marx began his study of capitalism with an
analysis of commodity production. A commodity is, the
Marxists say, a product of labour produced for sale in the
market and for exchange. The commodity production is not
any new thing in the capitalist system. Its mass production
produces capitalists on the one hand, and on the other hand,
the workers. It creates capitalism, transforming the earlier
formula C-M-C into M-C-M. In the formula C-M-C, there is the
circulation of commodities, but the commodities exist as use-
value. In the formula M-C-M, there is the circulation of money,
and the commodities exist as exchange value. In the former
case, money creates values; in latter case, money creates
surplus value. Capitalism is thus a system where the owner of
money has a definite aim, the appropriation of surplus value
and where the labour power becomes a commodity itself.
Thus, under the system of capitalistic production, the
capitalists exist to exploit the workers. The capitalist society,
therefore, characterises the relations between labour and
capital, between the workers and the capitalists, and from
those relations spring all other relations of the capitalist
society.
Surplus value which the capitalists appropriate results in:
i. the law of capitalist accumulation which means that the

competition among the capitalists would force them to
accumulate constant capital in the form of machinery or
rawmaterial:;
ii. the law of the concentration of capital which means that
as competition grows, it ends up in monopoly, for as
Marx once said, “one capitalist kills many,”
iii. the law of increasing misery which means that the
number of the unemployed workers would increase
along with their misery.
I(b)(v) Marx: Theory of Class Struggle

The theory of class struggle is yet another tenet of Marx’s
political ideas. Class struggle is the characteristic of class
society and not of the classless society. Accordingly, there
was no Class struggle in the primitive communist society and
there would be no class struggle in either the socialist society
that follows the capitalist society or the communist one that
would follow the socialist society. The primitive communist,
the socialist and the communist societies are examples of
classless societies whereas the slave-owning, feudal, and the
capitalist societies are examples of class societies. It is in the
class societies where we have the class struggle because in
each such class society, there exist antagonistic (i.e.
opposing) classes (slaves and masters in the slave-owning
society, serfs and the feudal lords in the feudal society, and
the workers and the capitalists in the capitalist society) and
there alone exists class struggle.
With regard to the meaning of class, Lenin says, “Classes
are large groups of people differing from each other by the
place they occupy in a historically determined system of
social production, by their relation to the means of production,
by their role in the social organisation of labour, and by the
dimensions of the share of the social wealth of which they
dispose and the mode of acquiring it.” From this definition,
there appear four indicators of a class:
(a) what is the place a class occupies in the system of
social production?
(b) what is the relation of the class to the means of
production?
(c) what role does the class play in the social
production?
(d) what is the share of the social wealth a class
receives?
On the basis of it, there is a class of owners (masters,
feudal lords, capitalists) and of non-owners (slaves, serfs and
the workers). and the one that does not own has no means of
production. The class that owns is the owner of the means of
production and the one that does not own has no means of
production. The class that owns the means of production
plays the role of the organiser/manager, which manages the
social production, and the class that does not own the means
of production plays the role of producing the social
production. The class that owns and manages the social
production acquires all the social profit and the class that
does not own but produces the social production through its
labour gets only the wages. The class struggle prevails
between such opposing classes—between the masters and
the slaves, between the feudal lords and the serfs and
between the capitalists and the workers — in short, between
the haves and the have-nots, between the possessing class
and the non-possessing class. The possessing class is the
exploiting class, and the non-possessing class is the
exploited class. Since the days of class society, there has
been a class struggle. The class struggle continues till the
time such class society exists.
Marx referred to two main classes in the class society,
though he was well aware of the non-main classes in each
such class society. He was of the opinion that the non-main
classes, say the middle class in the capitalist society, always
played the villain’s role, discouraging the sharpening of the
conflict between the two main classes, for as Marx said, such
a middle class live likes the poor and dreams like the rich.
Marx was of the opinion that the middle class’s future is
always certain—few of them would join the rich while many of
them, the poor.
The class struggle in the class society has _ three
dimensions — economic, political, and ideological. There is
the economic struggle between the possessing class and the
non-possessing class — the latter, for example in the
capitalist society, would seek higher wages, shorter working
hours, better living facilities, and the former resisting such
concessions. There is the political struggle between the
possessing class and the non-possessing class — the former
controlling the state power and use for its own promotion, and
the latter fighting to acquire the power of the state. There is
the ideological struggle between the possessing class and
non-possessing class, the former controlling all channels of
media together with the supporting intellectual classes and
the latter, submitting to the dictates of the exploiting ones.
I(b)(vi) Marx Theory of Revolution

Marx’s theory of revolution stands opposite to Aristotle’s. For
Aristotle, revolution means replacement of one set of rulers
by another; for Marx, they are significant in so far as they
affect every individual. For Aristotle, the nature of revolution is
political, while for Marx, its nature is social. For Aristotle,
revolutions are always sudden, violent and, in effect
catastrophic while for Marx, revolutions may or may not be
violent—violence is only the attending characteristic of
revolutions. For Aristotle, revolutions need to be probed,
causes found and to be avoided and curbed whereas for
Marx revolutions are welcome steps, locomotives of history
and hence relieve society of its stagnation. For Aristotle,
revolutions are negative while for Marx, they are always
positive.
For Marx, revolutions are social, inherent in the womb of
the class society. Accordingly, they are the ongoing process
in which causes and effects are dialectically related — the old
social order includes in its womb elements which contradict
its dominant features. Marx writes: “In the social production of
their life, men enter into definite relations that are
indispensable and independent of their will, relations of
production which correspond to a definite stage of
development of their material productive forces.. At a certain
stage of their development the material productive forces of
society come into conflict with the existing relations of
production. which they have been at work hitherto. From
forms of development of productive forces, these relations
turn into their fetters. Then, begins an epoch of social
revolution.”
Marx identifies all past political revolutions as partial and
social. The transition from thefeudal relations of production,
for example, to bourgeois relations of production represented
a partial-political revolution. Marx thus writes: “What is the
basis of a partial purely political revolution? It is that a part of
civil society emancipates itself and attains universal
domination, that a particular class undertakes the general
emancipation of society from its particular situation. This class
frees the whole society, but only under the presupposition
that the whole of society is in the same situation as this class,
that it possesses or can easily acquire, for example, money
and education.” The capitalist revolution, following the earlier
feudal revolution was partial because it did not impact the
whole society; it was political because the state came into the
hands of one class, the capitalists, who like the feudal lords,
established the bourgeois-class society.
The Marxian notion of revolution highlights the following:
(a) Revolutions are social and not merely political.
(b) They are whole sort of things, and not partial.
(c) They occur when the productive forces clash with
the relations of production at a certain stage of
development of the society.
(d) They are class when the opposing class relations of
the society remain untouched, and they are
classless when the opposing classes are abolished
; public property system replaces the private
property system and while the exploiting classes
are abolished, there remains only one class — the
proletariat, the working class.
(e) They do not occur for the sake of violence; they
occur to bring the changes, violence and bloodshed
are the attending features; revolutions act as
midwives, helping the birth of a new life.
(f) They are the culminating point after which begins
the revolutionary era of the transformation of
society.
I(b)(vii) Marx on Alienation and Freedom

Marx’s concept of alienation is based on his analysis of
alienated labour. Through political economy, he sees that the
worker is degraded to the most miserable commodity, i.e., the
misery of the workers increases with the power and size of
their production. Marx depicts political economy as the
following:
The worker becomes poorer the more wealth he produces.
He becomes an ever-cheaper commodity the more goods he
creates. The devaluation of the human world increases in
direct relations with the increase in value of the world of
things. Labour does not only create goods; it also produces
itself and the worker as a commodity and indeed in the same
proportion as it produces goods. Accordingly, where there is
more commodity production, as it is in capitalism, more does
the worker get alienated there.
Consequently, the workers relate to the product of their
labour as to an alien object. For it is clear on this
presupposition that “the more the worker expends himself in
work the more powerful becomes the world of objects which
he creates in face of himself, the poorer he becomes in his
inner life, and the less he belongs to himself’. Under the laws
of political economy, the more the workers produce, the less
they have to consume, thus the more values they create the
more valueless and worthless they become. It is
understandable that labour produces works of wonder for the
rich, but nakedness for the worker. It produces palaces, but
only hovels for the worker; it produces beauty, but cripples
the worker.
Marx explains four forms of alienated labour:
1. Workers are alienated from their productive activity, in
that they no longer labour to satisfy their own needs.
2. Workers are alienated from the product of their labour,
which now belongs to the capitalist. Instead of finding
expression in producing, workers turn to consuming to
express themselves.
3. The cooperative nature of work is destroyed through the
organisation of the labour process, alienating workers
from their fellow workers. Additionally, workers often
must compete against one another for work and pay.
4. Workers are alienated from their human potential, as the
transformative potential of labour is lost under capitalism.
Alienation, caused by the capitalist system, frustrates our
nature, i.e., human nature, the possibilities for realising the
human potential. According to Marx: “A direct consequence of
the alienation of the man from the product of his labour, from
his life activity, and from his species life is that man is
alienated from other men. When man confronts himself, he
also confronts other men. What is true of man’s relationship
to his work, to the product of his work and to himself, is also
true of his relationship to other men, to their labour and to the
objects of their labour.” To Marx, the ultimate goal of human
beings is to pursue real freedom. Marx believes that human
beings are creators of history; and also they have the ability
to emancipate themselves from being alienated. For Marx,
human beings should be freely associated people as a whole.
He writes in the German Ideology: “Where nobody has one
exclusive sphere of activity but each can become
accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the
general production and thus makes it possible for men to do
one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning,
fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after
dinner, just as | have a mind, without ever becoming hunter,
fisherman, shepherd or critic.”
Marx’s view of freedom, though oftenly figures in the
background of his writings, plays a central role in his thought.
James Rourke (The Problem of Freedom in Marxist Thought)
says: “. . the theme of the freedom of men has a
pervasiveness of the forms of alienation in the long
development of his (Marx’s) thought which marks it as one of
those basic themes providing continuity in his work.”
Marx rejects the liberal conception of freedom as it consists
in the maximum absence of restraints on the activities of
atomised individuals. For him, such a view of freedom (say,
liberty) mistook the negative tendencies of man, his
selfishness for his true essence. His view of freedom puts
emphasis on man’s positive relations (i.e., human relations) to
each other; men are related to men as human beings, as
species being. Accordingly, freedom, for Marx, consists in the
ability to follow the inborn laws of one’s own nature, rather
than to be determined by external factors. Since man is
essentially a social being, he achieves his freedom by
positively developing his capacities in the society of which he
is amember. Freedom consists in man’s understanding of the
objective laws and using them for human benefits: he must
know the objective laws, change them through his efforts and
for benefits of humanity: philosophers have only interpreted
the world, the point, however, is to change it. For Marx,
revolutionary activity itself constitutes freedom. As Cornforth
puts it: “A passive slave is simply a slave but a slave in revolt
is acting as a freeman even though he still wears his chains.
Such people are pioneers of human freedom.”
I(b)(viii) Marx on Theory of State

Marx’s views on the theory of state, scattered as they are
over a period of almost four decades in his numerous
writings, can be summed up as under:
(a) Society and state for Marx are two distinct realities,
the type of society explains the type of state, the
society thus furnishes the basis over which is
constructed the superstructure of the state.
(b) The state is not independent of society and those
who make it, as Marx thinks that Hegel has so
made, independent, make the state only a fiction,
an illusion and thus, Marx believes, impose it on the
society.
(c) The state is, for Marx, a means for the fulfillment of
the ends of those who control the society. Thus, the
slave-owning society serves the masters; the feudal
state serves the feudal lords and the capitalist state
serves the capitalists, the bourgeoisie.
(d) The class society produces a state that serves the
economically dominant class and becomes, in the
process, an instrument of exploitation which
exploits the economically weak one, _ such
antagonistic classes originating because of the
institutions of private property and of division of
labour.
(e) The state, for Marx is, thus an engine of class-rule.
The seizure of power by the proletariat from the
capitalist signifies the dictatorship of proletariat,
which dictatorship abolishes the roots of class
antagonism, i.e., private property in the means of
production and division of labour and in the process
establishes socialism through public ownership of
the means of production.
(f) The dictatorship of proletariat is not the abolition of
the state as is the existence of the state. The
proletarian state, like any state of the class society,
is also a means, a means that serves the workers,
and a means that leads to its own abolition, its own
“withering away” as Engels uses the words.
(g) Regarding the state as a “parasite feeding upon
and clogging the free movement of society,” Marx
observes its destiny is its own abolition. “The first
step is the overthrow of the existing state, the
bourgeois state, by revolution of the proletarian
class. The next task is the establishment of a
transitional state, the proletarian dictatorship. This
new state, however, is to be abolished not by the
revolution, or by force, but through its own withering
away.’
l(c) Conclusion
Marx has been criticised on numerous grounds. It is argued
that his communism has failed to fulfil its promise; his theory
did not reflect its practice. It is also argued that the workers
have never been in the vanguard of revolutionary
movements. Marx failed to consider adequately the gender
factor, and devoted all his energy on the “class” concept. He
is also accused of focussing far too much on “production”
without giving enough attention to “consumption”. Bernstein,
the evolutionary socialist had questioned all his presumptions.
And yet Marx was no sympathizer of a class society, a
society that creates antagonistic classes, a society that
thrives on individual and private laurels, a society in which
private property reigns and a society in which the possessing
class enslaves the non-possessing class. He was no admirer
of the state that coerces, a state that superimposes itself, a
state that becomes independent in itself, a state that is
bureaucratic and a state that is of the few, by the few and for
the few. His concept of man was not the unfree man, an
alienated one, but a man who, as an employer, exploits below
him and who, as a worker, finds no satisfaction in what he
does. What he wanted was a community where men have
their social self prior to their individual self, a community
where power of an individual is replaced by the power of the
individuals, the social power of all, now, directed to the
exploitation of all the resources that a community has, and a
community where there are no class divisions and where man
labours not under any compulsion but does his job as a
matter of habit.
ll ANTONIO GRAMSCI:1891-1937
Antonio Gramsci, was an Italian philosopher, a journalist, a
socialist politician, an activist of the communist party of Italy,
a political theorist, who lived at the beginning of the twentieth
century, and in Mussolini’s fascist Italy. His writings are
concerned with the analysis of culture and political leadership.
He has been a highly original thinker within the Marxist
tradition. He is well-known for his concept of hegemony as a
means of maintaining the state in a capitalist system.
Il (a) Gramsci: The Man, His Times and His Works

Gramsci’s early life and youth coincided with the industrial
and economic development of Italy. Despite the peculiarities
of the Italian society (for example, the significant differences
between North and South, the variety of regions, dialectics
and traditions, the domination of the foreign powers, and the
domination of the Catholic church) at the beginning of the
twentieth century, efforts were made to modernise the Italian
society on the model of the central European states —
positivistic approach to science, technology and education,
scientific organisation of work (i.e., taylorism for industrial
production), scientific organisation of culture and education.
Consequently, Italy did enjoy a period of social peace during
the last years of the nineteenth century.
Gramsci was born on January 22, 1891 in Ales in the
province of Cagliari in Sardinia, one of the poorest regions of
Italy, which had maintained its own strong cultural identity. It
had its own language, history, and culture, which differ
considerably from those of the “Piemontese” who ruled the
Sardinian Kingdom from Turin in the northern part of the
mainland. It was in Turin that Antonio Gramsci went to study
at university, but which he eventually had to abandon due to
lack of money and severe health problems. Turin, was, at that
time, the centre of Italian industrialisation and the focus of the
first organisation of the Italian working class.
Gramsci started his political and educational life during the
First World War as a journalist and theatre reporter,
attending, frequently in the evening, the meetings of the
Confederazione Generale del Lavoro trade union and
socialist party. After the war, within the core of “red” socialist
Turin, he created two journals, Ordine Nuovo and Unita, with
an object to educate the new working class created by
industry and the war.
The most prevalent theme of the Ordine Nuovo was the
relationship between the “scientific management of work”
(taylorism) and the scientific management of education and
training, i.e., between the organisation of work and the
organisation of culture. Gramsci’s approach was both radical
and revolutionary and he kept publishing leftist material
during the following five years till 1926.
Things had already become difficult in Italy, with Mussolini
capturing power in Italy in the early 1920s. With the massive
series of arrests that followed Mussolini’s special legislation of
1926, Gramsci was arrested and jailed. He was then 35 years
old, a member of parliament and had been, from 1925,
general secretary of the Italian Communist Party. At his trial in
1928, the official prosecutor ended his peroration with the
following statement to the judge: “We must stop this brain
working for twenty years!”
Gramsci’s brain did not stop working in prison. On the
contrary, soon after his arrest he began to make plans to
conduct research on what is now considered as the most
important analysis on “hegemony”, i.e. on the links between
politics and education. In a letter to his sister-in-law, Tatiana,
dated March 9, 1927, he spoke about a project to write
something fur ewig (for ever), something which would also
serve to absorb him and “give a focus to [his] inner life”. The
first point of the plan referred to a history of Italian
intellectuals; then he spoke of studies on linguistics, on the
theatre of Pirandello, and on serial novels and popular literary
taste. He defines the history of intellectuals as the process of
“formation of the public spirit” and, finally, he writes that the
different topics of his plan have in common “the creative
popular spirit”, i.e., the way the hegemony of a certain social
group grows up, from the soul of the group, toward its political
organisation.
In fact, in another letter to Tatiana he says: “thinking
‘disinterestedly’ or study for its own sake are difficult for me ...
| do not like throwing stones in the dark; | like to have a
concrete interlocutor or adversary’, and he speaks of the
“polemical nature” of his entire intellectual formation.
Gramsci died in 1937 without having had the possibility of
completing his work. His thirty-three prison notebooks were
saved by his sister-in-law, Tatiana, and smuggled out of Italy.
He had written a good deal before his imprisonment, but his
reputation as one of the major Italian thinkers and educators
rests on the Letters from Prison and the Prison Notebooks.
Gramsci has been described as one of the most influential
Marxist thinkers of the twentieth century, a key thinker in the
development of Western Marxism. It is said that he wrote
more than 30 notebooks and about 300 pages of history
during his imprisonment. These writings, known as the Prison
Notebooks, contain his views on the Italian history, critical
theory and educational theory — cultural hegemony which
helps maintain the capitalist state, the need for popular’s
education to encourage development of intellectuals so as to
guide the workers, the distinction between political society
which dominates directly and coercively, and civil society
where leadership is constituted through ideology or by means
of consent, absolute historicism, the critique of economic
determinism, and the critique of philosophical materialism.
Il(b)(i) Gramsci:On Hegemony

Gramsci honours Lenin for introducing the concept of
hegemony. He says, “the greatest modern theoretician of the
philosophy of practice (i.e., Lenin) has in opposition to the
various tendencies of economism ... constructed the doctrine
of hegemony as a complement of the theory of the state-as-
force.” Lenin had used the term to indicate the political
leadership of the working class in a democratic revolution.
Gramsci used the concept of “hegemony” as an analysis to
explain why the socialist revolution as predicted by Marx had
not occurred by the early twentieth century. He, in his own
times, had found capitalism more entrenched than ever.
Explaining the whole situation, Gramsci held the view that
capitalism had maintained control not just through violence
and politico-economic coercion, but also ideologically through
hegemonic culture in which the values of the capitalists had
become the values of all; that the consensus culture which
had thus developed was one in which the working class had
begun identifying their good with the good of the capitalists;
and that the working class, now being the part of the system,
wished to maintain the status quo rather than launch
revolution.
4 D'
Gramsci Quotes
| turn and turn in my cell like a fly that does not know
where to die.”
e |ama pessimist because of intelligence, but an
optimist because of will.”
e In the life of children there are two very clear phases,
before and after puberty. Before puberty, the child’s
personality has not yet formed and it is easier to guidi
his life and make it acquire specific habits of order,
discipline and work; after puberty the personality
develops impetuously and all extraneous intervention
becomes odious tyrannical, insufferable.. “
e My practicality consists in this, in the knowledge that if
you beat your head against the wall it is your head
which breaks and not the wall - that is my strength,
my only strength.”
e The challenge of modernity is to live without illusions
and without becoming disillusioned.” ,
e To tell the truth is revolutionary.”
e In history, in social life, nothing is fixed, rigid and
definitive. And nothing ever will be.”
e A given socio-historical moment is never
homogeneous; on the contrary, it is rich in
contradictions.”
e | give culture this meaning: exercise of thought,
acquisition of general ideas, habit of connecting
causes and effects... | believe that it means thinking
well, whatever one thinks and, therefore, acting well,
whatever one does.”
\ J
Gramsci is of the opinion that hegemony is born from the

basic idea that government and state cannot enforce control
over people unless more methods are entailed. The state, for
him, therefore, is coercion combined with hegemony.
Hegemony, according to him, is political power that flows from
intellectual and moral leadership, authority or consensus as
distinguished from armed force. A ruling class forms and
maintains its hegemony in civil society by creating culture and
political consensus through unions, political parties, schools,
media, the church and other voluntary associations. Gramsci
holds the view that if any class wishes to dominate in modern
conditions, it has to move beyond its own narrow “economic -
corporate” interests, so to cover the exerting of intellectual
and moral leadership, and to make alliances and
compromises with a variety of forces, calling it a union of
social forces, a “historic bloc” — a bloc that forms the basis of
consent to a certain social order which produces and
reproduces the hegemony of the dominant class—through a
host of institutions, social relations and ideas. So understood,
he regards the role of superstructure—in both maintaining
and fracturing relations of the base, as of paramount
importance, a thinking that was not of Marx’s view.
Gramsci’s theory of hegemony, as it appears in Prison
Notebooks, refers to three dimensions of hegemony: (a)
intellectual, (b) moral, (c) political. The first two (a) and (b)
constitute leadership and consent respectively while (c)
constitutes domination, subjugation, force, and coercion.
Hegemony is the “spontaneous” consent given by the people
to the general direction imposed on social life by the dominant
fundamental group, “historically” caused by the prestige which
the dominant fundamental group enjoys because of its
position and function in the world of production. The function
of the intellectuals is to organise the consent of the masses in
support of the dominant fundamental group.
Gramsci’s theory of hegemony implies (a) a dominant
group and (b) a dominated group—(a) controlling; (b). Within
the dominated group, there are the enemies who are
eliminated or subordinated by force while there are the others
from whom the active or passive consent is sought.
Hegemony though, involves, both attaining consent among
allies and using force against enemies. The dominant group,
consisting of leaders, exercises leadership before attaining
power and after attaining state power, exercises both
leadership and domination. Hegemony, thus, helps attain and
maintain dominance more than force.
Gramsci’s hegemony is the dominance of the dominant
group over the dominated group not merely through force; it
has to have the consent of the dominated group, the latter
willingly accepting the dominance. Hegemony is merely
consent; it has to have the domination, i.e., force as well. It is
the combination of both consent and force, domination
extracted through the supportive willingness and through the
use of force on the part of authorities. Hegemony is consent
plus force — consent attained willingly, spontaneously that is
the social hegemony, while force as ‘political’ hegemony
attained through coercion when necessary.
The consent of the dominated group does not come from
the group through fear of the force dominant group
possesses. It comes through the efforts of the intellectuals
who, acting as the agents of the dominant group (this historic
bloc), help to gain consent from the group which is
dominated.
Il(b) (ii) Gramsci: Role of the Intellectuals in Hegemony

Gramsci regards the role of the intellectuals as an important
one, fusing moral dimension with practical activities of the
dominant group so as to enable it to exercise hegemony.
According to him, the special function of the intellectuals,
besides organising domination for the capitalists in the
capitalist society, is to organise the consent of the masses in
support of the dominant class. Such a consent, Gramsci says,
comes easily, given the “prestige” of the dominant class.
Though Gramsci regards everyone a philosopher, thinking
in his own way or unconsciously, yet all are not capable of
performing the social functions of the intellectuals. The
intellectual is one, Gramsci believes, who is able to relate
himself with the world in which he lives — “there is no place
for the intellectual other than in relation to a fundamental
class.” The intellectual, for Gramsci, is not merely an orator or
talker, he is a director and the organiser who helps build
society and produce hegemony by means of ideological
apparatuses such as education and the media. Gramsci
classifies intellectuals into two types—organic and traditional.
An organic intellectual is one who holds a close relation to the
world or lived experience of the class which he represents.
Such an intellectual elaborates a vision of emancipation,
embedded in a class experience which entails first to
discovering and then elaborating “the formulation of public
spirit”. The organic intellectuals are those who share class
experience with those they represent, articulate that
experience in political terms. They mobilise subordinate
classes. The traditional intellectuals find themselves as a
class apart from society and live in their own world of fancies.
The job of the organic intellectuals, is to organise and
manage the “spontaneous” consent for the dominant class for
whom they act as their agents, though some devise
strategies. Some intellectuals are visionaries (organise
intellectuals) while others are divulgators (traditional
intellectuals).
Gramsci is of the opinion that although all tasks require a
degree of intellectual and creative Cability, some individuals
are required to perform tasks which are overtly intellectual.
Initially, such intellectuals are associated with particular
technical requirements of the economic _ system.
Subsequently, they get associated with the more general,
administrative, or organisational institutions of the whole
society. In the political sphere, such intellectuals represent
the interests of the dominant economic group and develop its
ideational understanding of the world. In the bourgeois
society, the bourgeois intellectuals serve their dominant class
while in the socialist society, the socialist intellectuals serve
dominant proletarian class.
Through hegemony, the educative pressure, emanating
from the intellectuals, is applied so as to obtain peoples’
consent and their collaboration, turning necessity and
coercion into freedom. The dominant group, once in power,
implements its educative projects to obtain consent ... “the
school as a positive educative function and the courts as a
repressive and negative educative function.”
II(b) (iii) Gramsci:On State and Civil Society

Gramsci’s theory of hegemony is closely associated with his
conception of the capitalist state which he believes rules
through consent plus force. The state, Gramsci feels, should
not be understood in the narrow sense of the government, but
should cover the whole arena of “political society”. Building on
the Marxian notion of the state, Gramsci makes a distinction
between the state as a political organisation (the integral
state, the visible political constitution of civil society) and the
state as merely a government.
Gramsci develops his own view of what Marx thought of
superstructure. He refers about two major levels of
superstructure which he describes as “civil society” and
“political society”. Civil society is composed of all those
“private organisms’— schools, churches, clubs, journals, and
parties—which contribute in molecular fashion to the
formation of social and political conscious-ness. Political
society, on the other hand, is composed of those public
institutions — the government, courts, police and army—
which exercise “direct dominion’. It is synonymous with the
“state”. The ruling class exerts its power over society on both
of these “levels” of action, but by very different methods. civil
society is the market place of ideas, where intellectuals enter
as “salesmen” of contending cultures. The _ intellectuals
succeed in creating hegemony to the extent that they extend
the world view of the rulers to the ruled, and thereby secure
the “free” consent of the masses to the law and order of the
land. To the extent that the intellectuals fail to create
hegemony, the ruling class falls back on the state’s coercive
apparatus which disciplines those who do not “consent”, and
which is “constructed for all society in anticipation of moments
of crisis of command ... when spontaneous consensus
declines.” There is, thus, the narrower use of the word ‘state’
in Gramsci, which includes “government-coercive apparatus”
together with “the general notion of state” or “integral state”
which includes “social hegemony and political government”.
Gramsci provides an insight about civil society and state in
the changing circumstances of his times of 1920s, 1930s, and
early 1940s of Mussolini’s totalitarian and authoritarian
regime. What was “base” in Marx becomes “civil society”,
much larger than the “economy” base and includes in it the
ensemble of organisms commonly called “private” (church,
school, political parties, market etc.). What was
superstructure in Marx becomes “state”, much narrower than
that of Marx, and includes in it the “political society”
(government, political power, power-domination arena).
Marx’s superstructure included the social, political, religious,
cultural, and educational aspects of social life. Gramsci’s
treatment of “civil society’ and “political society” stemmed and
was tied with his theory of hegemony, explaining the power
which leadership possessed before attaining state power, and
with state power and domination after capturing state power
through the supportive class of intellectuals managing and
organising “consent” for the ruling class. Marx’s “su-
perstructure” is the reflection of the “base” whereas Gramsci’s
superstructure extorts dominance “consent” from civil society
and exercises “force” when necessary. Marx was replying to
the dilemma of his own times and Gramsci, of his times,
interpreting it from his own perspective.
Il(B) (iv) Gramsci’s Strategy of Revolutionary Change

Gramsci, like Marx, thought of a politically-strategic activity as
one which alone has some_ impor-tance. To_ his
disappointment, Gramsci found depoliticisation and passivity
of the Second International (1889), an example of political
quietism, giving a vulgar materialistic understanding of social
change ... a simplistic materialism epistemology which is only
a form of idealism in reverse. Gramsci, on the other, sought to
have a dialectical and reciprocal unity of theory and practice,
thought and action, subject and object. He aspired to build an
open, unorthodox theory relevant to the masses, able to
stimulate and awake its creative potential — “capitalism does
not explore itself, it will have to be seized.” His theory of
praxis, depended as it was on the working classes and their
councils, saw in them, formation of socialist grassroots
democracies, empowering, dignifying, rejuvenating everyday.
Inadequate to the tasks, as these revolutionary working class
and its councils were, they need to be guided by the
revolutionary party, “the modern prince” a tightly-organised
mass-combat organisation, a compact “vanguard party
embedded in the masses”, the galvaniser of struggles and a
central bearer of critical and active consciousness that is to
inflame the masses whose role is to instruct and coordinate, a
pedagogy of praxis. His view of the party was a broad-based
mass socialist one, “rooted in everyday social reality and
linked to a broad network of popular workers’ organisations,
seeking to avoid inner-party obstruction and demonstrating a
disciplined unity in action.” Gramsci’s revolutionary party was
an organisation of the most advanced, the most
consciousness and coherent elements, of trained and
prepared members — organisers. From the organisational
point of view, the Gramscian party was to function
“organically,” and not bureaucratically, on the basis of
democratic centralism and mutual interaction of different
decision-making levels.
In Gramsci’s revolutionary theory of party, there has to be
its own group of “organic” intellectuals who, with combative
democratic tribunes, are engaged with the life of the masses
and committed to the ideas of freedom, equality, and human
solidarity. These intellectuals, seeking to create an organic,
egalitarian unity with the lower classes and all the oppressed,
are to serve the revolutionary cause as the harbingers of
hope and progress, demystifiers of the dominant ideology,
organisers of counter-hegemony helping to empower the
masses and lead them, as well as the entire human kind
crippled by the capitalist order, “to a higher conception of life’.
As they are the organic part of the community, intellectuals
must articulate new values within the shared language and
symbols of the larger culture. Hoare and Nowell-Smith write,
in this connection, for Gramsci:
“The mode of being the new intellectuals can no longer
consist in eloquence, which is an exterior and momentary
mover of feeling and passions, but in active participation in
practical life, as constructor, organiser, ‘permanent
persuader’, and not just a simple orator. As such, the new
intellectuals, as an internalised rather than a superimposed
force, have to engage the masses in their liberatory
philosophy, avoiding an elitist, obscure, and alienating mode
of communication which breeds anti-intellectual passivity in
the wider population. The new liberatory consciousness has
to be organically connected, integrated within the very fabric
of social and cultural life of the working class, expressed in
the words that belong to the historical moment.”
Gramsci does not ignore the role of the revolutionary party
in the testing times and wants it to become a school of
democracy and free thinking, educating the cadre and also
the wide segments of the working class and the labour and
social movements. The party has to place itself at the helm of
the many non-class social movements and social currents,
united front around the working-class power, a historic bloc, a
unity in multiplicity, with the leading role of the working class
against the capitalist class.
Gramsci is well aware of the role of ideology and its
struggle which, according to him, is a double one:
i. to free the working class from ideas that bind it to the

existing exploitative order, and
ii. to bind other “subaltern” classes into a “bloc” with the
working class. Hence, he gives ideology a more active
role in politics and history, i.e., the role of influencing the
terms of consciousness, exerting influence through its
own cultural institutions. Public education as one of the
party’s numerous fronts is used to teach, at the most
fundamental levels, the ways of cultural Marxism’s ideas
of social justice and general worldview. Eventually, the
conventional wisdom of the culture is changed and the
natural order of the culture’s thinking reflects the new
ideology, all without firing a shot! As the cultural
memory of the targetted culture is replaced by Marxist
thinking as the conventional wisdom, a new cultural
hegemony is in place.
In order to implement his ideas of achieving cultural

hegemony, Gramsci developed the ideas of using the
culture’s functional intellectuals. These are the people who
run the culture’s schools, media, churches, and _ social
programmes of various sorts. They are tasked with
maintaining the drumbeat of cultural Marxism. They are the
frontline advance troops in the culture war, spreading the
cultural hegemony over the capitalist one. Thus, through the
“war of position’, the strategy works towards “the war of
maneuver”. The “war of position” is a culture war in which
anticapitalist elements seek to gain a dominant voice in mass
media, mass organisations and educational institutions to
heighten class consciousness, teach revolutionary analysis
and theory, and inspire revolutionary organisation. Following
the success of the war of position, communist leadership
proceeds to begin “the war of maneuver’, the actual
insurrection against capitalism, with mass support.
Il(c) Gramsci: Concluding Remarks

Gramsci’s respect for Marx was unparallel. He was, at one
point of time, a great advocate of Marx’s concept of historical
materialism. In Gramscian view, all meaning is derived from
the relation between human practical activity (i.e. praxis) and
the “objective” historical and social and historical context. The
concepts by which we organise our knowledge of the world
do not derive primarily from our relation to things but rather
from the social relations between the users of these concepts.
Gramsci was a true historicist in the sense that he, like any
Marxist, believed that truth was truth when and wherever it is.
And yet, he did not fully endorse Marx’s materialism,
regarding it economism while, on the other hand, ignoring
factors such as culture. Nor did Gramsci subscribe to the
Marxist materialistic views entirely. However, he remained
Marxist in his own right, though certain analysists from the
centre and the right have found something new in his
concepts i.e., in hegemony especially. His contribution to
Marxism relates to his theory of hegemony, the role of “idea”
and, in particular the role of intellectuals, and the concepts of
civil society, to include more than “economism”, his analysis
of culture studies and of political leadership. One may
conclude Gramscian contribution in the words of Dan
Jakopvich (“Revolution and the Party in Gramsci’s Thought”).
Gramsci’s monumental work rightly earned him the reputation
of one of the great dialecticians of the twentieth century. One
of the most definite lessons it could teach us lies in the
general lucidity of his methodological example. The
construction of material and ideological counter-hegemony, of
material dual power and a “revolution of consciousness” —
the transformation of — socialism—will require an
unprecedented level of historical creativity. Despite certain
ambiguities and mistakes, as well as numerous
misappropriations, he enriched the tradition of socialism from
below, committed to the creation of a democratic Republic of
workers’ and citizens’ councils, an association of self-
governing producers. Throughout his life which was full of
suffering, the early battles and disappointments, the terrible
anguish and uncertain work in a fascist dungeon, with an
unbeatable optimism of will, Gramsci has always stood
behind that red banner on which the motto “Never Slaves,
Never Masters” has been inscribed, ushering a new
democratic socialist civilisation.”
lll! HANNAH ARENDT:1906-75

Hannah Arendt can well be described as one of the influential
political philosophers of the twentieth century. Though a
prominent American intellectual, she did not accept Anglo-
American philosophical tendencies of pragmatism, empiricism
and liberalism. Her writings had enormous impact on political
theory. In 1975, the year of her death, she got the Sonning
Prize by the Danish government for her contribution to
European civilisation, an award never received by an
American or a woman till then.
Ill(a) Arendt:Her Times and Her Works
Hannah was born on October 14, 1906 in Hanover,
Wilhelmine (Germany). Raised in Konigsberg, she was the
only child of Paul and Martha, both prodigy of entrepreneurs
from Russian-Jewish families. She was seven when her
father died and her mother married Martin Beerwald in 1920,
bringing two older step-sisters, Eva and Clara, into Hanna’s
home. Hannah was an avid reader and by her sixteenth year
she had interest in reading Kant and Goethe. After her
graduation, she demonstrated her love for theology and that
was one reason that she studied theology at the University of
Marburg with Rudolf Bultmann. At Marburg, Hannah began
her long relationship with Heidegger who was then lecturing
at the university. His writing became what was later known as
Being and Time. Her brief and passionate affair with
Heidegger ended when she learnt of his involvement in the
Nationalist Socialist Party. Though, their friendship, despite
strained relationship, continued for years to come, Hannah
Arendt (now referred to as Arendt), was influenced by
Heidegger’s phenomenological methods, which she studied
with Husserl at the University of Heidelberg. She wrote her
dissertation on St. Augustine’s concept of Love under the
supervision of Karl Jaspers.
Arendt earned her doctorate in September 1929. In 1929,
she married Gunther Stern. AntiSemitism was, then, on the
rise in Germany. She undertook a project that would help her
understand the conflict between German Nationalism and
Minority status. Her book, The Life of a Jewish Woman, a
biography of a Jewish salon hostess in Berlin who was
converted to Christianity in early 1800s, remained
unpublished until 1958. With the rise of National Socialism
(The Nazi Party of Hitler), Arendt carried her political activity
in association with the German Zionist Organisation. Arrested
by the Gestapo, Arendt escaped prison sentence and fled to
Paris in 1933 where she met Walter Benjamin and Raymond
Aron, gaining, thus, their friendship. In 1939, she divorced
Stern and remarried Heinrich Blucher, a German political
refugee in 1940 whom she had met in 1936. Both Arendt and
Blucher came to the USA in 1941. During World War Il,
Arendt wrote The Origins of Totalitarianism, and the same
was published in 1951. The book was well-received and she
became, now, an intellectual celebrity. In 1951, she assumed
American citizenship.
In 1952, Arendt received a Guggenheim Foundation Grant
for the study of Marxism and totalitarianism. Her next three
books—The Human Condition (1958); Between Past and
Future (1961); and On Revolution (1968) — come from this
work. In these texts, her desire to reconstruct political
philosophy in phenomenological terms came to the fore. The
controversial text Reflections on Little Rock (1959) studied
the emerging Black civil rights movement. She wrote articles
for the New York Review of Books in the 1960s and early
1970s criticising the abuse of executive power and what she
calls the “imperial presidency” associated with military
intervention in Vietnam. She became the first woman to hold
a full professorship at Princeton University and she went on to
teach at the University of Chicago, Wesleyan University, and
the New School for Social Research in New York.
Arendt wrote the most controversial work of her career,
Eichmann in Jerusalem in 1963. She covered Eichmann’s
trial which led to a series of her lectures, neo-Kantian in
nature, leading to her work, The Life of the Mind, published in
1978. During her lectures at Aberdeen (Scotland), she
survived a heart attack, the second and fatal attack occurred
in her New York apartment on December 4, 1975. The Life of
the Mind had three themes — Thinking, Willing and Judging
—but she managed to complete the first two parts, which
were published posthumously.
Arendt’s life became the inspiration for the novel, An
Admirable Woman (1983), by Arthur A. Cohen, possibly
because her personal struggles and romantic life were so
intriguing. Her romantic interests included Leo Strauss, Hans
J. Morgenthau, and W.H. Auden. During her life she fiercely
guarded her privacy.
Arendt’s major works’ included: The Origins’ of
Totalitarianism (1951), The Human Condition (1958),
Between Past and Future (1961), On Revolution (1962),
Eichmann in Jerusalem, a report on the banality of evil
(1963), On Violence (1970), Men in Dark Times (1968), Crisis
of the Republic (1972), The Life of the Mind, 2 Vols. (1978),
Lectures on Kant’s Political Philosophy (1982), Love and St.
Augustine (1996).
A brief discussion of Arendt’s major writings and the
essence contained in them is not out of context:
On Totalitarianism also known as The Origins’ of
Totalitarianism (1951), she spoke about the nature of Hitler’s
Nazism and the Soviet Stalinism. The two systems exhibited
completely “novel form of government”; both were built on
terror and ideological fiction: in both regimes, terrorism was
not only a means to the some political end but was an end in
itself. The Human Condition (1958) was a work in which she
undertook a thorough historical-philosophical inquiry that
returned to the origins of both democracy and _ political
philosophy in the ancient Greek world and its bearing in the
modern era. Her specific role was to prepare a
phenomenological reconstruction of different aspects of
human activity so as to better discern the type of action and
engagement. In this work, she sought to assert that politics
was a valuable realm of human action, praxis and the world of
appearances, devaluing the human action and subordinating
it to the life of contemplation. Regarding Plato as the prime
culprit, theory was made above praxis, episteme over mere
doxa. In The Human Condition, Arendt set herself to save
action and appearance from the depredations of the
philosophers. She argued, in this work, for the tripartite
division of human activities into labour, work and action, and
their ascending hierarchy important for freedom. On
Revolution was her commentary on the French and American
revolutions. Disputing the liberal and the Marxist interpretation
of these revolutions, Arendt claimed that these revolutions
demonstrated the exercise of individuals’ fundamental
political capacities to establish a tangible public space of
freedom, though the two revolutions failed to establish
freedom in the long run. Eichmann in Jerusalem, a report on
the banality of evil, was the characterisation of Eichmann’s
actions as the chief architect and the executioner of Hitler's
genocidal “final solution” for the “Jewish problem’. Arendt
concluded that Eichmann operated unthinkingly, following
orders, efficiently carrying them out without any consideration
of their effects on those she targe ted. Eichmann, Arendt
thought, failed to exercise his capacity of thinking (the first
volume of The Life of the Mind) and also failed to use self-
reflection as a basis for judgement. Thinking is different than
knowing: it is reasoning which derives us_ beyond
understanding (knowledge). Judging is interconnected with
thinking.
Arendt can be rightly described as an original thinker. Her
power of originality is evident in her On Totalitarianism (The
Origins of Totalitarianism), The Human Condition, On
Revolution and The Life of the Mind. In these works, she not
only tossed with the most crucial political events of her times
lout also interpreted them as specific categories in political
thinking. Indeed, she wrote prolifically, and yet it is difficult to
classify her in terms of her being a conservative, a liberal, a
socialist, or a communitarian. And yet her political ideas were
of much importance. Her critique of representative
democracy, her emphasis on civil engagement and
participation and deliberative activities; her insistence on
separating morality from politics; her admiration of
revolutionary tradition; her defence of constitutionalism and
the rule of law; her advocacy of human rights; her critique of
all forms of _ traditionalism—her identification with
republicanism all these reveal the essence of her political
philosophy.
f Ds '
Hanna Arendt Quotes
e “There is a strange interdependence between

thoughtlessness and evil.”
e “Ideas, as distinguished from events are never
unprecedented.”
e “Man cannot be free if he does not know that he is
subject to necessity; (he has) to liberate himself from
necessity.”
e “Opinions are formed in a process of open discussion
and public debate, and where no opportunity for the
forming of opinions exists, there may be moods-
moods of the masses and moods of the individuals,
the latter no less fickle and unreliable than the former
- but no opinion.”
e “Only the mob and the elite can be attracted by the
momentum of totalitarianism itself. The masses have
to be won by propaganda.”
e “The most radical revolutionary will become a
conservative the day after the revolution.”
e “Story-telling reveals meaning without committing the
error of defining it.”
IIl(b)(i) Arendt on Conception of Modernity

In her works, The Human Condition and Between Past and
Future, Arendt articulated a negative conception of modernity,
describing modernity as the age of mass society in which
there has been the rise of socia/ out of the previous distinction
between the public and the private, and the victory of animal
laborns over homo fabor; as the age of bureaucratic
administration in which there is the elite domination and
manipulation of public opinion; the age of totalitarian forms of
government in which Nazism and Stalinism rule terror and
violence; as the age where history as a “natural process” has
replaced history as “a fabric of actions and events’,
homogeneity and conformity have replaced plurality and
freedom and where isolation and loneliness have eroded all
spontaneous forms of living together; as the age where the
past no longer carries any certainty of evaluation. It may be
noted that her negative appraisal of modernity was shaped
largely by her experience of totalitarianism of the twentieth
century. She, therefore, deplores the wrongs found in
modernity, though she insists on retaining the values of past
rather of tradition: only on the reappropriation of the past, one
can hope to give the present its meaning. For her efforts to
re-establish link with the past, Arendt is indebted to Walter
Benjamin and Martin Heidegger. From Benjamin, she took the
idea of a fragmentary historiography, one that seeks to
identify the moments of rupture, displacement and dislocation
in history on the one hand, and on the other, enables one to
recover the lost potentials of the past. From Heidegger, she
took the idea of a deconstructive reading of the Western
philosophical tradition one that seeks to uncover the original
meaning of our categories and to liberate them from the
distorting incrustations of tradition. What has to be preserved
in the past is not traditionalism but what was genuine and
fresh in the past and one that can make the past meaningful
and illuminate the present.
According to Arendt, modernity has certain features—world
alienation, earth alienation, the rise of social, and the victory
of animal laborans. World alienation refers to the loss of world
of experience and action by means of which we establish our
self-identity and our adequate sense of reality. Earth
alienation refers to the attempt to escape from the confines of
the Earth and to recreate life, thanks to science and
technology, under laboratory conditions. The rise of the social
refers to the expansion of market economy and the ever-
increasing accumulation of capital where life becomes an
object of production and consumption, of acquisition and
exchange. The victory of animal laborans refers to the victory
of the values of labour over those of homo fabor in which
values such as freedom, plurality, solidarity are sacrificed in
favour of productivity and a bundance.
Arendt tells us that the world alienation and the rise of the
social emerged from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century
while the Earth alienation and the victory of animal laborans,
from beginning of the twentieth century. She also identifies a
number of causes — the discovery of America and the
corresponding shrinking of the Earth, the waves of
expropriation started during the Reformation, the invention of
the telescope challenging the adequacy of the senses, the
rise of modern science and philosophy, and the expansion of
the realm of the economy, of the production and accumulation
of social wealth.
III(b) (ii) Arendt’s Theory of Praxis

Arendt’s theory of praxis is her most original contribution to
the twentieth century political thought. Praxis or action is
different from fabrication, it is, rather, linked to freedom and
plurality through speech and remembrance. Action, being a
mode of human togetherness, helps develop a conception of
participatory democracy which is opposed to bureaucratised
and elitist forms of politics.
For Arendt, action is one of the fundamental categories of
the human condition and constitutes the highest realisation of
the vita activa — the three categories which correspond to the
three fun-damental activities of our being-in-the-world —
labour, work, and action. Labour is the activity which is linked
to the human condition of life, work is the activity which is tied
to the condition of worldliness, and action is the activity tied to
the condition of plurality. For Arendt, each activity is
autonomous in the sense of having its own distinctive
principles. Labour is judged by its ability to sustain human life,
to cater to our biological needs of consumption and
reproduction, work is judged by its ability to build and
maintain a world fit for human use, and action is judged by its
ability to disclose the identity of the agent, to affirm the reality
of the world, and to actualise our capacity for freedom.
Labour, work, and action are characteristics which make
human life complete it is these, Arendt argues, which
distinguish humans from animals and gods. Of the three,
action alone has two central features; (a) freedom and (b)
plurality. By freedom, Arendt means, the capacity to begin, to
start something new, to do the unexpected, with which all
human beings are endowed by virtue of being born. Action as
the attainment of freedom, Arendt says, is rooted in the fact
that each birth indicates a new beginning and the introduction
of something novel in the world. Plurality as the other feature
of action stems from the fact that any action is never done in
isolation from others. Action needs plurality in the sense that
performing artists need an audience. Without the presence of
others, Arendt argues, action would cease to be meaningful
activity. Action, to the extent that it requires appearing in
public, making oneself Known through words and deeds, and
eliciting the consent of others, can only exist in a context
defined by plurality.
It is by virtue of plurality that each of us is capable of acting
and relating to others in ways that are unique and distinctive,
and in so doing, contributing to a complex network of actions
and relationships. This network of actions is what makes up
the realm of human affairs, that space where individuals
relate directly without the intermediary of things or matter—
that is, through language. Speech, through language, entails
action; the two go together and bring people in relation to one
another. Arendt’s characterisation of power as acting in
concert is an example of plurality as a feature of action. “In
concert” means a situation where word and deed have not
parted company, “where words are not empty”, as Arendt
says, “and deeds not brutal, where words are used to veil
intentions but to disclose realities, and deeds are not used to
violate and destroy but to establish relations and create new
realities. “
The polis (Greek word for community) stands, for Arendt,
more than just a place or location; it is a soace of appearance
whose primary function is to preserve the words and deeds of
its citizens from the oblivion and the ravages of time, and
thereby leave a testament for future generation. The polis by
establishing a framework where action and speech would
record and transform stories, where every citizen would be a
witness and thereby a potential narrator. What the polis
established, then, was a space where organised
remembrance could take place, and where, as a result, the
mortality of actors and the fragility of human deeds could be
partially overcome.
For Arendt, therefore, the polis stands for the space of
appearance, for that space “where | appear to others as
others appear to me, where men exist not merely like other
living or inanimate things, but to make their appearance
explicitly.” Such public space of appearance can always be
recreated anew wherever individuals gather together
politically, that is, “wherever men are together in the manner
of speech and action.”
The space of appearance must be continually recreated by
action; its existence is secured whenever actors gather
together for the purpose of discussing and deliberating about
matters of public concern, and it appears the moment these
activities cease. It is always a potential space that finds its
actualisation in the actions and speeches of individuals who
have come together to undertake some common project.
III(b)(iii)(2) Arendt’s Theory of Judgement

Arendt’s writings, as against those on the theory of action, do
not present a unified theory of judgement. They represent,
two distinct models, one, based on the standpoint of the
actor, the other, on the standpoint of the spectator, both at
odds with each other—judgement as the facility of the political
actors acting in the political realm, and judgement as the
privilege of the nonparticipating spectators; the actors’ model
—judging in order to act, and the spectator’s model—judging
in order to call the meaning from the past.
The judgement as the faculty of the political actors, acting
in the political realm is what may be called, as Arendt says,
political ability, the ability to see things not only from one’s
point of view but from the perspective of all those who happen
to be present: “one of the fundamental abilities of man as a
political being, in so far as it enables him to orient himself in
the political realm, in the common world” (see her Better Past
and Future). This ability is one’s insight having its roots in the
common sense, disclosing to us the nature of the world in so
far as it is a common world. It is judging through which
sharing the world with others is possible. For Arendt, the
validity of political judgement depends on our ability to think
‘representatively’, i.e., from the standpoint of everyone else
so that we are able to look at the world from a number of
different perspective. And this ability, in turn, can only be
acquired and tested in a public forum where individuals have
the opportunity to exchange their opinions on_ particular
matters and see whether they accord with the opinions of
others. In this respect, the process of opinion formation is
never a solitary activity; rather, it requires a genuine
encounter with different opinions so that a particular issue
may be examined from every possible standpoint until, as she
puts it, “it is flooded and made transparent by the full light of
human comprehension.” Validity goes with the representative
character of judgement and valid opinions while truth,
however rational it may be, leaves the mind little freedom of
movement; it rather eliminates the diversity of views and
reduces the richness of human discourse. Arendt’s defense of
judgement as a_ well-grounded opinion needs to be
understood as a defence of political deliberation.
For Arendt, it is the spectators who have the privilege of
judging impartially and disinterestedly, and in doing so they
exercise two crucial faculties, imagination and common
sense. Imagination is the faculty of representing in one’s mind
that which has already appeared to one’s senses. Through
the imagination one can represent objects that are no longer
present and thus establish the distance necessary for an
impartial judgement.
The other faculty that spectators have to apply is common
sense of sensus communis, since without it they could not
share their judgements or overcome their individual
idiosyncrasies. Kant believed that for our judgements to be
valid we must transcend our private or subjective conditions
in favor of public and intersubjective ones, and we are able to
do this by appealing to our community sense, our sense
communis.
The criterion for judgement, then, is communicability, and
the standard for deciding whether our judgements are indeed
communicable is to see whether they could fit with the sensus
communis of others. Arendt points out that the emphasis on
the communicability of judgement of taste, and the correlative
notion of an enlarged mentality, link up effortlessly with Kant’s
idea of a united mankind living in eternal peace. She argues
that “it is by virtue of this idea of mankind, present in every
single man, that men are human, and they can be called
civilised or humane to the extent that this idea becomes the
principle not only of their judgements but of their actions. It is
at this point that actor and spectator become united; the
maxim of the actor and the maxim, the “standard”, according
to which the spectator judges the spectacles of the world,
become one”.
III(b)(iv) Arendt:Her Other Political Ideas

For highlighting Arendt’s contribution to the conception of
citizenship, it should be important to discuss it through two
themes:
1. the public sphere, and
2. public agency and public identity
So far as the theme of public sphere is concerned. Arendt
refers to
(a) The space of appearance —a space of political
freedom and equality. This space comes into being
when citizens act in concert through speech and
persuasion;
(b) The command world is the shared and public world
of human artifacts, institutions and settings which
separate us from nature.
Both the dimensions are essential to the practice of
citizenship, the former providing the spaces where it can
flourish, the latter providing the stable background from which
public spaces of action and deliberation can arise. For Arendt
the reactivation of citizenship in the modern world depends
upon both the recovery of a common, shared world and the
creation of numerous spaces of appearance in which
individuals can disclose their identities and establish relations
of reciprocity and solidarity.
As regards the first feature, Arendt always stressed the
artificiality of public life and of political activities in general, the
fact that they are man-made and constructed rather than
natural or given. She regarded this artificiality as something to
be celebrated rather than deplored. Politics for her was not
the result of some natural predisposition, or the realisation of
the inherent traits of human nature. Rather, it was a cultural
achievement of the first order to enable individuals to
transcend the necessities of life and to fashion a world within
which free political action and discourse could flourish.
Equality does not rest in some natural condition, but it is a
natural attribute, which individuals obtain, in the public realm.
Rejecting neo-romantic appeals to the vo/k and to ethnic
identity as the basis for political community, Arendt
maintained that one’s ethnic, religious, or racial identity was
irrelevant to one’s identity as a citizen, and that it should
never be made the basis of membership in a_ political
community. Political participation, itself, is important, Arendt
says, for it helps to establish relations of civility, and solidarity.
She rejects intimacy and warmth helping to build something
“political”: only civic friendship and solidarity make and
preserve what may be called “political”.
The second feature stressed by Arendt has to do with the
spatial quality of public life, with the fact that political activities
are located in a public space where citizens are able to meet
one another, exchange their opinions and debate their
differences, and search for some collective solution to their
problems. Politics, for Arendt, is a matter of people sharing a
common world and a common space of appearance so that
public concerns can emerge and be articulated from different
perspectives. In her view, it is not enough to have a collection
of private individuals voting separately and anonymously
according to their private opinions. Rather, these individuals
must be able to see and talk to one another in public, to meet
in a public-political space, so that their differences as well as
their commonalities can emerge and become the subject of
democratic debate.
A further implication of Arendt’s conception of the spatial
quality of politics is that since politics is a public activity, one
cannot be part of it without in some sense being present in a
public space. To be engaged in politics means actively
participating in the various public forums where the decisions
affecting one’s community are taken. Arendt’s insistence on
the importance of direct participation in politics is thus based
on the idea that, since politics is something that needs a
worldly location and can only happen in a public space, then if
one is not present in such a space, one is simply not engaged
in politics.
This public or world-centred conception of politics lies also
at the basis of the third feature stressed by Arendt, the
distinction between public and private interests. According to
Arendt, political activity is not a means to an end, but an end
in itself; one does not engage in political action to promote
one’s welfare, but to realise the principle intrinsic to political
life, such as freedom, equality, justice, and solidarity. In a late
essay entitled “Public Rights and Private Interests” (PRPI),
Arendt discusses the difference between one’s life as an
individual and one’s life as a citizen, between the life spent on
one’s own and the life spent in common with others. She
argues that our public interest as citizens is quite distinct from
our private interest as individuals. The public interest is not
the sum of private interests, not their highest common
denominator, or even the total of enlightened self-interests.
The public interest refers to the interests of a public world
which we share as citizens and which we can pursue and
enjoy only by going beyond our private self-interest.
With respect to the second claim concerning the question
of political agency, it is important to stress the connection that
Arendt establishes between political action, understood as the
active engagement of citizens in the public realm, and the
exercise of effective political agency. This connection
between action and agency is one of the central contributions
of Arendt’s participatory conception of citizenship. According
to Arendt, the active engagement of citizens in the
determination of the affairs of their community provides them
not only with the experience of public freedom and public
happiness, but also with a sense of political agency and
efficacy.
Arendt’s views on power are, indeed, instructive. It is not
strength. Unlike strength, it is not the property of an individual
but of a plurality of actors joining together for common
political purpose. It is not force. Unlike force, power is not a
natural phenomenon, but a human creation, the outcome of
collective engagement. It is not violence. Unlike violence,
Arendt says, it is based not on coercion but on consent and
rational persuasion.
For Arendt, power is a sui generis phenomenon since it is a
product of action and rests entirely on persuasion. It is a
product of action because it arises out of the concerted
activities of a plurality of agents, and it rests on persuasion
because it consists in the ability to secure the consent of
others through unconstrained discussion and debate.
Arendt maintains that the legitimacy is always continuing
and derived from the initial getting together of people, that is,
from the original pact of association that establishes a political
community, and is reaffirmed whenever individuals act in
concert through the medium of speech and persuasion. For
her “power needs no justification, being inherent in the very
existence of political communities; what it does need is
legitimacy.. Power springs up whenever people get together
and act in concert, but it derives its legitimacy from the initial
getting together rather than from any action that then may
follow.”
Indeed, for Arendt, “power is what keeps the public realm,
the political space of appearance between acting and
speaking men, in existence.” Like the space of appearance,
power is always “a power potential and not an unchangeable,
measurable, and reliable entry like force or strength. (it)
springs up between men when they act together and
vanishes the moment they disperse.”
Power, then, lies at the basis of every political community
and is the expression of a potential that is always available to
actors. It is also the source of legitimacy of political and
governmental institutions, the means whereby they are
transformed and adapted to new circumstances and made to
respond to the opinions and needs of the citizens. “It is the
people’s support that lends power to the institutions of a
country, and this support is but the continuation of the
consent that brought the laws into existence to begin with. .
All political institutions are manifestations and materialisations
of power; they petrify and decay as soon as the living power
of the people ceases to uphold them.”
Arendt’s views on politics and democracy are not less
significant. According to her, power is not the right of the
rulers but it is only that they exercise it. The rulers exercise
power as is conferred on them through people’s support. As
the people’s support empowers them to exercise power, the
rulers are entitled to exercise power so long as they are able
to obtain and sustain power. Likewise, the power of the law is
not the command of the ruler, it is the reward/return the rulers
receive after having performed their responsibilities — they
have powers to command because they have to perform
duties and obligations. The government, Arendt insists, is the
product of people’s consent: power stems from the consent
and remains until the consent remains.
IIl(c) Arendt: Evaluation

Arendt remains the most original, challenging, and, indeed,
influential thinkers of the twentieth century. Her works had an
impact on the development of modern political theory. In
numerous conferences, her work had become the source of
scholarly seminars. A host of political thinkers with varying
divergent positions made use of her thought, especially
participatory democrats such as Benjamin Barber, and
Sheldon Wolin, communitarians such as Taylor and
Macintyre, and neo-Kantians such as Habermas, Wellmer,
Richard Bernstein and Seyla Benhabib. She had well-devoted
her writings to the nature of politics and political life in a
manner called phenomenological in character.
Arendt wrote for about two decades on topics which
covered all possible issues relating to her times, and yet she
produced no major work on feminism. She was a born Jew,
and fought furiously for the Jewish people, for her own life,
and yet wrote dissertation on a Christian saint. The Hallenic
and German influence on her thought was quite clear, and yet
her emphasis on direct citizen deliberation, admiring political
freedom, excluded all that one finds in representative model.
Her analysis of the political events of her times and her
interpretation of political concepts were without any specific
flaws, and yet she could hardly escape criticism from the
feminists and Marxists. She lived the life of a refugee in the
United States, and yet it is difficult to detect any American
influence on her. She shared, with pride, the classical
heritage which her political philosophy sought to elucidate,
and yet she could hardly find something good in modernism.
She kept tossing between the past and future.
Practice
Questions
1. What did Marx learn from Hegel, Smith,

and Proudhan? Examine. (700-800
words)
2. Elucidate Marx’s theory of “surplus
value”. (200-250 words)
3. “The history of all hitherto existing
classes is the history of class struggle.”
In the light of this statement, explain
Marx’s theory of class struggle. (700-
800 words)
4. Compare Marx’s views on Revolution
with those of Aristotle. (200-250 words)
5. Explain Gramscis concept of
hegemony. What was the _ rationale
behind his theory of hegemony? (700-
800 words)
6. What role does Gramsci assign to the
intellectual class in his theory of
hegemony? (200-250 words)
7. Explain’ Gramsci’s — strategy of
revolutionary change. (700-800 words)
8. Bring out the essence of Arendt’s
thought from her writings on The Origins
of Totalitarianism or The Human
Condition. (200-250 words)
9. Discuss clearly Arendt’s critique of
modernity. (700-800 words)
10. Write a brief essay on Arendt’s Theory
of Praxis. (200-250 words)
11. Comment on Hannah Arendt’s
conception of the ‘political’. (2012) (200
word)
12. Discuss in what sense Marx’s
understanding of state can be
considered as materialistic. (2013) (700-
800 words)j
13. ‘Power is never a property of an
individual, it belongs to a group and
remains in existence only so long as the
group keeps together — MHannah
Arendt. (2014) (200 words)
Indian Nationalism: Strategies
And Perspectives
| rater one may not agree with Einstein that

nationalism is an infantile disease, the measles of
mankind, yet we may not dispute Haywood’s comment
that it is at various times progressive and reactionary,
democratic and authoritarian, liberating and repressive, and
left-wing and right-wing. However it does not have a
characteristic in every form of nationalism—the central
political importance of the nation itself.
Nationalism and its growth do not emerge all of a sudden.
Numerous factors, some internal and some_ external,
contribute to the evolution of nationalist feelings in any
country over a period of time. This is true with regard to the
evolution and growth of nationalism in India. The exploitation
of Indian resources by the British East India Company before
1857 and that of the British Government after 1857 led to the
growing poverty of Indians. As a consequence of English
exploitation and the arrogance and oppressive behaviour of
the British, the racial antagonism coming as these were
through their ‘civilising mission’; the oppressive brutal rule of
the English; the imposition of the English way of life; including
their language and system of education; their desire to make
India their colony — all these went into preparing a ground on
which was built nationalistic consciousness among the
Indians though slowly and gradually. The introduction of
means of transport and communication played its indirect
role, while the rise of the Indian press a direct role in
generating nationalism in India. R.C. Majumdar (History of the
Freedom Movement in India) rightly says, “The strong current
of the nationalist ideas which passed over the whole of
Europe must have stimulated the growth of nationalism in
India. The ideas and events culminating in the American
independence and the French revolution in the latter part of
the eighteenth century and the glorious struggles in different
regions of Europe in 1830 and 1848 ... made a profound
impression on the English-educated Indians”. These English-
educated Indians led the Indian nationalism in its early years,
following the formation of the Indian National Congress in
1885.
The role of the social and religious renaissance movements
during the nineteenth century India made a ground for
political awakening in India. Raja Ram Mohan Roy (1772-
1833), aptly described as the prophet of the Indian
renaissance, was indeed, the father of modern India. His two
greatest contributions were:
i. founding of the Brahmo Samaj (1828), and

ii. seeking the abolition of Sati (1829).
Following the foundation of the Brahmo Samaj, there began

numerous other socio-religious reform movements in the
country. The Prarthana Samaj (1857, M.G. Ranade), the
Veda Samaj (1865, Madras), the Arya Samaj (1875, Swami
Dayananda Saraswati), the Ramakrishna Mission (1896-97,
Swami Vivekanand), the Theosophical Society (1875,
Blavastsky, Alcott) together with other social organisations
such as Satya Sodhak Samaj, Sri Narayana Dharma
Paripalana Sabha, the Ahmadiya and Aligarh movements and
the Singh Sabhas made the beginnings of the Indian
nationalism possible. Though these _ social-religious
movements were regional in scope, their general
perspectives were remarkably similar which, to a great extent,
gave way to a common consciousness.
Numerous historical researches by scholars such as Prince
Bothilingk, and the archaeologists like Alexander
Cunningham and Marshall, and men with literary interests like
Sir William Jones, Max Muller, Jacobi, Colebrook, Roth and
Keith gave to the Indians a history of the country which was
glorious enough to be proud of as it brought to light an India
which was once a culturally, socially and economically
developed nation. These historical findings developed among
the Indians a new sense of pride in their ancient civilisation.
The spread of western education and through it, western
civilisation and culture, made the Indians well aware of
political thinking emerging in the world, especially Europe —
relevant terms such as liberty, equality, fraternity, nationality,
nationalism, revolution went straight into the Indian heads.
The press, with dailies like the Amrit Bazar Patrika, the
Indian Mirror, the Hindu, the Kesari, the Bengali and the like
contributed a lot to the growth of Indian nationalism. The
English language, means of transport and communication
and the English rule did bring Indians closer. Thus was born a
modern India, largely during the closing years of the
nineteenth century.
Before the birth of the Indian National Congress, there had
emerged numerous provincial organisations in the country.
Mention may be made of the British Indian Society (Bengal:
Thompson, 1843); the British Indian Association (Bengal,
1851, Harish Chandra Mukherjee, Debendranath Tagore,
Rajendra Mittra), the Bombay Presidency Association
(Pheroz Shah Mehta, Jagannath, Badruddin Tyabji, 1852),
the East India Association (Bombay, Dadabhai Naoroji,
1866), the Sarvajanik Sabha (Bombay, 1870, M.G. Ranade),
the Indian Association (Bengal, 1876, S.N. Bannerji), and the
Mahajan Sabha (1884).
|. BIRTH OF THE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS

The Indian National Union was made the Indian National
Congress at the suggestion of Dadabhai Naoroji. The Indian
National Congress was founded in 1885 by A. O. Hume, a
retired official of the English East India Company. The first
session of the Indian National Congress began in Bombay
(now Mumbai) on December 28, 1885 with W.C. Bonnerjee.
Seventy two delegates from different parts of the country
attended the first session, 434 attended in 1886; 607 in 1887;
and 1200 in 1888. During the years 1889 and 1890, the
attendance went up to about two thousand. The four
objectives of the Indian National Congress as declared then
were:
i. Promotion of personal intimacy and friendship among

the workers of the country’s cause.
ii. Eradication of all possible race, creed or provincial
prejudices amongst all the lovers of the country, and the
fuller development of national unity.
iii. The authoritative record of the matured opinions of the
educated class in India.
iv. The determination of the lines upon which the next
twelve months would be devoted to labour for the
welfare for public interest.
The British Government in India welcomed the formation of

the Indian National Congress during the initial years,
suspected it later and finally ridiculed it thereafter.
The Indian National Congress spearheaded the liberation
struggle, though extremists, revolutionaries, the peasants,
and the workers too played their role. For about the first
twenty years, from 1885 to 1905, the Indian National
Congress sought reforms (social, economic, _ political,
military) in the Indian society through methods exclusively of
constitutionalism. Following the partition of Bengal proposal
(1905), mass movements such as Swadeshi and Boycott
began in the country, and there were launched extremist and
revolutionary activities in major parts of the country, openly at
some places and secretively at others, sometimes from the
India soil and sometimes from abroad. With the rise of Gandhi
on the Indian political scene from 1915-16 onwards,
especially since 1917, the era of mass satyagraha entered
the liberation struggle in India, though the peasants and the
workers’ too contributed to the freedom struggle. India
attained freedom on August 15, 1947.
ll. STRATEGY: CONSTITUTIONALISM

The Indian National Congress in the first twenty years was
known as the moderate Congress with moderate leaders
such as Hume, Bannerjee, Wedderburn, George Yule,
Dinshaw Wacha, Subramanyam Ayyar, Pherozeshah Mehta,
Dadabhai Naoroji, Surendranath Banerji, Budru-din-Tyabji,
Madanmohan Malvayia, M.G. Ranade, and Gopal Krishna
Gokhale. These leaders thought of the English rule in India as
a blessing and regarded India’s development as being
associated with the development of Great Britain. For these
leaders, the English were men of justice and their rule in India
was indeed just. They thought that the English rulers in India
and the English people in general were to be made familiar
with the problems which the Indians faced. As most of the
Indian leadership was an English-educated one, it found the
English friendly and sympathetic. The demands of the then
Indian National Congress were moderate, as were their
methods and strategies.
Regarding the British rule in India as being kind and
considerate, the moderate Congress thought that whatever
India had attained so far was the gift of the English. Through
their annual resolutions, the Indian National Congress during
1885-1905, sought reforms in the Indian Council, the highest
body in England composed mostly of the appointed English
Officials. That was why that the Congress, in its tenth annual
resolution, demanded the setting up of a committee to give
advice to the Secretary of State for India. The Congress also
demanded the reorganisation of the Indian legislative councils
and of the provincial legislative councils, seeking more
inclusion of the Indians in them. It was because of these
demands that the Indian Councils Act, 1892 increased the
number of additional members in these councils. The
Congress’s other demands during the period (1885-1905)
included:
i. the appointment of Indians to the high governmental

posts;
ii. increasing the age for competitive examination and their
being conducted in India as well (the age was
subsequently increased from 19 to 23);
iii, the expenditure on military operations be cut: foreign
wars should not be imposed on Indians;
iv. Indians be given high posts in the military services;
v. executive and judiciary be separated;
vi. land reforms be introduced, and Zamindari oppression
be removed;
vii. progress in trade, commerce and industry be made in
India’s favour and the use of swadeshi goods be
increased;
viii. local self government institutions be encouraged;
ix. educational and educational institutions be promoted,
university acts be relaxed; and
x. attempts be made to protect the civil rights of the
people.
Despite these repeated requests passed by the Indian

National used through annual sessions, nothing much was
done either by the British government in India or by the
government in England.
The strategy for seeking the redressal of the Congress’
demands during the first twenty years of its establishment
was constitutional and peaceful; mostly in the form of
resolutions, appeals and requests, with hands always folded,
and heads always bowed. The Congress leadership sought
audience of the English officials in order to present to them
their resolutions. Their major strategy was meeting the
Officials, convincing them about their demands and bringing
them round to their opinions.
Propaganda was the chief weapon which the moderate
Congress used. Leaders such as Dadabhai Naoroji,
Wedderburn, and Hume laid much emphasis on propaganda,
both in India as well as in England. They were of the opinion
that if the Englishmen in general, and the English Parliament
in particular, were properly informed and_ opinionated,
success would soon follow. Naoroji and Wedderburn
forcefully launched the Congress movement in England. In
1888, a paid Indian Agency was set up under the leadership
of William Digby. The following year, there was formed, in
England, the British Committee of the Indian National
Congress which was to supply authoritative and detailed
information about the national movement. In 1893, the British
Committee succeeded in forming the Indian Parliamentary
Committee. With the election of Naroroji and Wedderburn to
the House of Commons there started a more effective
propaganda of the Congress in England. The Indian National
Congress, it is said, spent about £ 3000 for carrying out its
work in England.
At the behest of the Congress leaders, numerous English
parliamentarians, while in the British Parliament, took keen
interest in Indian affairs. These included men such as John
Bright, Henry Fawcett, Charles Bradlaugh, Schwann,
MacNeill, Seymour, Keay and Samuel Smith. A magazine
called /ndia began publishing in England.
The moderate Congress made use of sending “delegations”
from time to time to England which would make its point in a
discussion with the English people. The first official
deputation consisted of Surendranath Bannerjee, W. C.
Bannerjee, Eardly Norton, and A. O. Hume in 1890. This
delegation delivered many lectures on Indian affairs. G. K.
Gokhale and Dinshaw Wacha and Subramaniya Ayyar also
went to England to give evidence before the Welby
Commission and in the process spoke about the Indian point
of view.
Though the moderates’ strategy of constitutionalism did not
yield much success, its loyalism towards the British rulers
stood more as an obstacle. That was one reason that the
nationalist leadership of 1885-1905 could not attract and
entertain much of the support for the Indian masses.
However, the moderates did lay the ground for the later
leadership to lead the liberation movement.
lll. STRATEGY: EXTREMIST-MILITANT,

REVOLUTIONARY
The rise of militant extremism in the early days of the
twentieth century may be traced to numerous factors: the
young Congressmen were not satisfied with either moderate
demands of the early Congressmen or their moderate
methods; the new socio-economic conditions throwing a vast
majority of the locally educated Indians out on the roads were
already a disappointed lot; the terrible natural calamities (18
famines in 1896 and a plague in 1897) with no or only
negligible relief coming from the government had already
exhibited the officials’ bankruptcy; the humiliation of the
Indians abroad, especially in South Africa where they were
treated nothing better than either slaves or criminals, made
them realise that they were regarded worse abroad because
they were not better at home; the victory of Ethiopia over
Italy, and of Japan over Russia in 1896, and 1905
respectively had already shown that European invincibility
was merely a matter on paper.
The partition of Bengal (proposed and effected in 1905),
though invoked in 1911, was the lone factor that changed the
course of our liberation struggle. From 1905 began the
extremist-militant movement which replaced the Congress’s
strategy of constitutionalism by Swadeshi and boycott. The
slogans such as “Swadeshi” and “boycott” set India ablaze
with sentiments, and ‘swaraj’ became our guiding mantra.
Though the 1906 Calcutta session of the Congress headed
by Dadabhai Naoroji, avoided the split in the Congress, yet,
the Surat split (1907) at the Surat Congress session gave the
leadership of the nationalist movement in India in the hands
of Lala Lajpat Rai, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal,
Aurobindo Ghosh and the like. These extremist leaders
presided over the nationalist feelings for about a decade
demanding “swaraj” (self government in the country) with
strategies relatively harsher than those of the moderate
Congress, of boycott, passive resistance and swadeshi.
These leaders were no admirers of the English rule in India,
nor did they have any faith in the English sense of justice.
Often describing the British rule as a curse on India, these
leaders were the sons-of-the-soil sorts and had found in the
Indian past, all pride and all glory. In themselves, they were
not revolutionaries, though Valentine Chirol had described
Tilak (Lokmanya, as he was respectfully referred to) as the
father of the Indian unrest, but they had all sympathised with
the revolutionary activities.
The problem of the partition of Bengal was more political
than administrative. S. Gopal (The British Policy in India -
1858-1905) quoted the then Home Secretary of India, saying
“Bengal united is power, Bengal divided, will pull in reversal
different ways. One of our main objects is to split up and
thereby weaken a solid body of opponents to our rule”.
Though the partition proposal was publicly known _ in
December 1903, the decision to partition Bengal was
announced on July 19, 1905 and was brought into effect on
October 16, 1905. Anti-partition movement was launched on
August 7, 1905: there was a hartal in Calcutta, people walked
barefeet and took bath in the Ganga. “Amar Sonar Bangla”
and “Bande Mataram” were sung in the streets. Bengal was
protesting, so was the whole of India.
The extremists, as opposed to the moderate Congressmen,
had a dominant influence over the people and over the on-
going movements in the country. They introduced several
new forms of mobilisation and techniques of struggle.
Mendicancy and petitioning of the moderates gave way to
hartals and passive resistance; reforms came to be replaced
by “swaraj”; “requests” were eclipsed by “right” (swaraj as a
birthright - Tilak)! Swadeshi became the order of the day:
extended boycott came to include boycott of foreign goods,
boycott of government schools and colleges, courts, and
government services. Moderates’ cooperation with the British
was replaced by the extremists’ methods of conflict.
Moderates had worked with the government, while the
extremists fought with it; the moderates conversed with the
Englishmen, while the extremists argued with them.
Obviously, the extremist politics was not to the liking of the
British officials in India. The British authorities did everything
to alienate the extremists; appeasing the moderates,
welcoming the Muslim deputation in October 1906 seeking
separate representation of the Muslims in the legislative
bodies, and blessing the founding of the All-India Muslim
League in December 1906. While the repressive policy of the
British Government in India went on curbing the extremists,
there had been the revolutionary movement already at work
to take on the British imperialists; some of its adherents
resorting to anarchical activities. Barindra Kumar Ghosh and
Bhupendra Nath Dutt in particular, building underground
societies. Gurmukh Nihal Singh writes, “Their secret societies
trained the young recruits in physical exercises, use of
weapons and religious practices of Shakti cult. The weapons
for them were obtained in different ways . by manufacturing
bombs, by stealing firearms, by purchasing them from foreign
lands, and smuggling them into the country.”
The revolutionary activities launched then, were as under:
An attempt was made in December 1907 to blow up the
train in which Lt. Governor of Bengal was traveling. Shortly
after, the district magistrate of Dacca was shot in the back,
though not fatally. These activities in the provinces of Bengal
were followed by attempts to kill Kingsford, though he
survived. Sir Andrew Frazer was murdered in November
1908. Besides Bengal, Maharashtra was another important
centre of revolutionary activities. Abhinava Bharat, the well-
known revolutionary association of Nasik, seriously took up
the revolutionary activities and tried to spread its branches all
over Maharashtra. According to R. C. Majumdar, “As a result
of its efforts, there was at that time a network of secret
societies all over the country”. Many colleges and educational
institutions in Poona and Bombay had at least one secret
society or branch of Abhinava Bharat. Some secret societies
set up factories at Nasik, Poona, Bombay, Kothura, Basai,
etc. for manufacturing bombs or explosive materials. Their
activities also included collection of and training in arms and
explosives wherever and whenever possible. Among the
revolutionary leaders of Maharashtra, Shyamji Krishna
Verma, the Chephekar brothers and the Savarkar brothers
were the most eminent. In December 1909, Jackson, the
District Magistrate of Nasik, who had committed Ganesh
Savarkar to trial, was shot dead.
Like Bengal and Maharashtra, the Punjab also witnessed
the outburst of revolutionary activities. Hardyal, Ajit Singh and
Sufi Amba Prasad spread the revolutionary spirit all over the
province. Lala Lajpat Rai helped them a great deal, though,
like Tilak, he concentrated his activities in Congress work. As
usual, secret arrangements were made for collecting arms
and manufacturing bombs. Ajit Singh along with Amba
Prasad distributed a number of revolutionary publications.
Taking advantage of the discontent caused by the
Colonisation Bill, Ajit Singh and Syed Hyder Riza formed the
‘Indian Patriots Association’ and addressed a meeting at
Lyallpur. The reactionary policy of Lieutenant Governor, Sir
Denzil Ibbeteson, also added fuel to the fire. In consequence,
there were riots in Lahore and Rawalpindi.
The revolutionary activities, though not of a very organised
character, also made appearances in Madras, Benaras and
in many other parts of the present Rajasthan. On March 13,
1908 a serious riot broke out in Tinnevelly. Many public
buildings were attacked and partially burnt. The furniture and
official records were set on fire. Revolutionary ideas were
preached in public meetings and some sort of secret
association was organised by Nilakanta Brahmachari. On
June 17, 1911 the District Magistrate of Tinnevelly was shot
in a railway carriage. The revolutionaries of Rajasthan carried
on their activities under the leadership of Arjun Lal Sethi,
Bharat Keshari Singh and Rao Gopal Singh. Benaras also
became a very big centre of revolutionary activities.
The revolutionary activities were also carried beyond the
borders of India. In London, an India House was opened by
Shyamji Krishna Verma who published a paper called the
Indian Sociologist. The India House soon became the centre
of revolutionary activities. In July 1909, one Madan Lal
Dhingra assassinated Col. Sir William Curzon Wyllie by way
of vengeance for the heavy sentences of transportation and
death passed by British courts on patriotic Indian youths. Dr.
Lalkaka was also murdered at the Imperial Institute, London.
In the meantime, the Government kept pursuing the
policies of repression, arresting some while dividing others.
World War | began in 1914; there was the union between the
moderates and the extremists on the one hand, and between
the Congress and the Muslim League in Lucknow in 1916 on
the other. The Lucknow Pact of 1916 between the Congress
and the Muslim League brought the two political parties
together in a temporary truce. Meanwhile, Tilak’s and Annie
Besant’s Home Rule Movements placed before the country a
concrete programme of _ selfgovernment. The August
Declaration of 1917 by then Secretary of State for India, Lord
Montagu promised a responsible government to the Indians
through successive stages of the Indians’ successful
association in the administration. World War | ended in 1918
and the British Government gave to the Indians the
Government of India Act 1919; enlarged councils with little
more powers, dyarchy in the form of partial responsible
government, and an increased communal representation.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) had already entered the Indian
political scene and had begun presiding over the proceedings
of the Indian National Congress.
IV. STRATEGY: NON-COOPERATION AND CIVIL

DISOBEDIENCE MOVEMENTS
With the techniques of non-violent satyagraha which Gandhi
had learnt in South Africa where he spent about 22 years, he
rose from local mass struggles at Champaran, Kheda and
Ahmedabad to the nation-wide mass satyagraha including
Non-cooperation Movement (1920-22) also called the Rowlatt
Satyagraha, the Civil Disobedience Movement (1930-34) also
called the Salt Satyagraha, the Individual Satyagraha (1940)
and to Quit India Movement (1942) from which he withdrew
soon after the movement went violent. Gandhi made the
Congress movement into a mass movement and with every
movement, Gandhi rose as a taller leader. His contribution to
the nationalist struggle was without any parallel; he fought a
non-violent battle against the mighty British Empire; he made
the people fearless, ready to embrace any sacrifice. He was a
political leader and a social reformer whose services touched
every heart and at whose call people were ready to lay down
their lives: he helped every Indian attain Swaraj; every poor
his care, every dalit his identity. Truth was his goal; non-
violence his means; and humanity his religion. Rabindranath
Tagore gave Gandhi the title of Mahatma, and the nation,
“Father”. Gandhis two great mass movements (Non-
cooperation and Civil Disobedience) are discussed as under.
The non-cooperation movement began as a protest
against the Rowlatt Acts and the Jallianwala Bagh massacre,
and with the utilisation of Home Rule League and the Khilafat
Movement (Shaukat Ali, Mohammed Ali). The special session
of the Congress at Calcutta in August 1920 could not
formulate its policy of non-cooperation, but within months, the
Congress authorised (at the Nagpur Congress Session, 1920)
Gandhi to launch the non-violent noncooperation movement.
The Gandhian programme of non-cooperation was simple
and seemingly negative in character. In essence, it consisted
of:
(a) boycott of the impending elections under the
Government of India Act 1919;
(b) boycott of Government schools and colleges;
(c) boycott of the law courts; and
(d) boycott of foreign goods.
Besides, the non-cooperation resolution also advised:
(a) surrender of titles and honorary offices and
resignation from nominated seats in local bodies;
(b) refusal to attend government levees, durbars and
other official and semi-official functions held by
government officials, or in their honour;
(c) refusal on the part of the military, clerical and
labouring classes to offer themselves as recruits for
service in Mesopotamia.
The constructive side of the programme embodied:
(a) the establishment of national schools and colleges
for education of children;
(b) the use of private arbitration courts in place of
Government courts for litigation etc.;
(c) the adoption of Swadeshi in piece-goods on a vast
scale; (4) the revival of hand-spinning and hand-
weaving; and
(d) the removal of untouchability.
The non-cooperation campaign was unfolded in the early
months of 1921 and the whole nation rose as one. Masses of
students left the government controlled educational
institutions. The lawyers of the eminence as of C.R. Das and
Motilal Nehru) gave up their practice, abjured their
accustomed luxury and plunged into the movement. Many
Muslim leaders like Ali Brothers, Dr. Ansari and Abul Kalam
Azad also came forward as non-co-operators. Seth Jamna
Lal Bajaj promised to pay an annual sum of Rs.1,00,000 for
the maintenance of non-pracitising lawyers. The Tak/la and
charkha appeared in every home. They became the symbols
of the movement, both in its political as well as its economic
aspect. The charkha appeared on the national flag and
dominated the political history of India throughout the
“Gandhian Era’.
In this potentially explosive situation, the British
Government arranged for the visit of the Prince of Wales to
India. Misreading the Indian mind, the authorities believed
that the Prince’s presence would excite the imagination of the
masses with their traditional reverence for royalty. Here, they
erred and erred grievously. The Congress, while emphasising
that it meant no disrespect to the British Crown, proclaimed a
boycott of all functions connected with the Prince’s visit on the
ground that the authorities were exploiting his presence for
political purposes. Consequently, a complete suspension of
public life, including the closing of business houses and
schools preceded the Prince wherever he went. Empty
streets greeted him and the functions held in his honour were
boycotted. The Government now struck, and struck hard. All
Congress and Khilafat Organisations were outlawed and a
policy of mass arrests was adopted. In the next five months,
30,000 nationalists were sent to prison with their eminent
leaders, viz. Mahatma Gandhi, the Ali brothers, Lala Lajpat
Rai, Motilal Nehru, Hussain Ahmad, Abul Kalam Azad and
others. In mid-February 1922, Gandhi withdrew the
movement owing to the outbreak of mass violence at Chauri-
Chaura in the Gorakhpur district of the United Provinces, now
Uttar Pradesh. Though the withdrawal of the movement was
criticised by numerous Congress leaders (C.R. Dass, Motilal
Nehru, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel, Subash Chandra
Bose), yet the movement demonstrated the willingness and
ability of Indians to make any sacrifice for the nation.
It almost took another eight years for Gandhi to launch the
Salt Satyagraha (the Civil Disobedi-ence Movement). In
between, the Swaraj Party successfully condemned the
Government of India Act, 1919, and forced the Simon
Commission (1928) to review the Act of 1919. The holding of
the All Parties Conference to prepare the Nehru Report
(1929); Jinnah’s Fourteen points, propagating the communal
virus; the historical Lahore session of the Congress (1929)
declaring the passage of the purna-swaraj resolution under
the leadership of the Congress President, Jawaharlal Nehru
— all happened in a row.
In accordance with the decision taken at the Lahore
Session, the Independence Day was celebrated with great
enthusiasm throughout the country. Meetings were held in
almost every town and village where the independence
pledge was read and taken by millions of people. The
independence pledge-taking ceremony on January 26, 1930
demonstrated the depth and strength of popular feeling which
only awaited a signal to launch on civil-disobedience. Even
then,
Gandhi did not make haste. On January 31, he suddenly
announced his “Eleven Points” expressing his willingness to
put off the civil disobedience.
When Gandhi's offer of cooperation on the basis of the
“Eleven Points” failed to yield any result, he had no other way
but to launch his campaign of civil disobedience. Hence, on
March 12, 1930, Mahatma Gandhi, accompanied by his
seventy-eight hand-picked followers, set out on his famous
march from his ashram at Sabarmati for the small village
Dandi on the seashore —a distance of 241 miles —to break
the Salt Law. Along the route, he preached the message of
non-violence; and as he marched, a fire of patriotic fervour
flared through the country. On the 24th day, Gandhi reached
the seashore. Early next morning, soon after the morning
prayers, he and his followers broke the Salt Law (for example,
C. Rajagopalachari, breaking the salt law, at the sea coast at
Tanjore) by picking up salt from the seashore. It was a signal
for the army of the non-violents to charge the citadel of British
Imperialism. The “General” had made his first attack and his
disciples followed the leader.
Gandhi's action was followed by a country-wide breaking of
the Salt Law. At places where Salt Law could not be violated
because of the absence of saline water, other laws were
violated. At Calcutta, the Sedition Law was broken by publicly
reading seditious literature. In the Central Provinces, forest
laws were violated. As a part of the campaign, boycott of
foreign goods and picketing of liquor shops were also started
on an extensive scale. Besides, ladies of respectable families
joined in hundreds and suffered imprisonment. Thus, the
Civil-disobedience Movement which started with the Dandi
March soon developed into a very strong movement.
According to Subhash Chandra Bose, “The Dandi March of
Mahatma Gandhi was very significant. It may be compared to
Napoleon’s march on Paris on his return from Elba and to
Mussolini's march on Rome with a view to the seizure of
political power. Never was the wave of patriotism so powerful
in the hearts of mankind as it was on this occasion which is
bound to go down in the chapters of history of India’s national
freedom as a great beginning of a great movement”.
A temporary suspension of the movement and the resultant
Gandhi-Irwin Pact (1931), the three Round Table conferences
of 1930, 1931 and 1932, and the communal award of early
1932 paved the way for the passage of the Government of
India Act, 1935. The Poona Pact of 1932 sought to neutralise
the communal award.
The results of the elections held under the Act of 1935 gave
majority to Congress in six provinces (Madras, Bombay,
Central Provinces, Orissa, Bihar and UP); the Congress-led
governments in North-West Frontier Provinces and Assam.
Only in three provinces (Punjab, Sindh and Bengal) was the
Muslim League in power. These ministries worked until
September 1939 when the Governor-General declared India
a belligerent country without consulting the elected leaders.
The Congress ministries resigned after having worked well for
about a year-and-half. With World War Il, the Indian
nationalist movement entered into its last stage of the
liberation struggle.
The war situation was fully utilised by the Congress which
offered to cooperate with the British, provided that:
i. the independence as the goal of India was declared,

and
ii. a provisional rational government was set up at the
centre.
The August 1940 Linlithgow’s offer could hardly change the

situation. The Individual Satyagraha (1940) launched by the
Congress did not move the British government, though about
thirty thousand satyagrahis (first satyagrahis was Vinoba
Bhave) got themselves arrested.
The ever-worsening position of the Allied powers during
World War II exerted a lot of pressures on the then British
Prime Minister, Churchill, by allied friends (Chiang Kai Shek—
China, and Franklin Roosevelt—USA). The Cripps Mission
of 1942, sent in March, went back without winning the Indian
support in the war, the Gandhian Quit India Movement (1942)
and “do or die” resolution was launched when Gandhi and
members of the Congress Working Committee were in jail.
The Quit India Movement came to be launched by the people
— violence in full swing. Gandhi had declared its
disassociation with the 1942 movement.
The end of war in 1945 brought victory for the Allies and
also the Labour Party, winning elections in England. The
Labour Party was committed to India for granting her
independence. The process began swiftly, the Cabinet
Mission of 1946 was dispatched. Its proposals were
accepted. However, the League’s insistence and Jinnah’s
stubborn attitude seeking separate land for the Muslims were
responsible for the Mountbattan Plan of June-July 1947. The
Indian Independence Act of 1947 gave India _ her
independence, albeit with the division of the country into two
dominions: India and Pakistan.
V. PEASANTS’ AND WORKERS’ MOVEMENTS IN

INDIA’S FREEDOM STRUGGLE
The peasants’ and the workers’ movements played a
significant role in India’s freedom struggle, though in their
initial stages these were mainly concerned with their own
problems. Emerging out of their discontent in most part of the
nineteenth century, these movements were deeply influenced
by, and in their turn had a significant impact, on the ongoing
struggle for national freedom.
The usual impression which prevailed about Indian
peasantry was that it was, by and large, passive during the
period before independence. The fact was to a great extent,
the opposite. The peasants had risen in protests, arms and
revolts against the oppression of the zamindars on the one
hand, and against the exploitative policies of the colonial
government on the other. The Sanyasi rebellion (1763-78) in
a number of districts in Bengal, and Champaran of Bihar, the
Wahabi rebellion (1830-31) at Baduria in Bengal, the Farizi
rebellion (1838-48) in Faridpur in East Bengal, the Santhal
rebellion (1855-56) in Bengal and Bihar, the Indigo rebellion
(1858-61) in Bengal, the Moplah rebellion (1836-49) in
Malabar and the Deccan riots (1875) are some examples of
the peasants’ outbursts. Some characteristic features of such
outbursts can easily be observed:
i. These outbursts largely had anti-zamindar or anti-British

content or both.
ii. Most of these were spontaneous, with hardly any formal
organisation, and mostly without any ideology or
leadership.
iii, Some of these uprisings were short-lived, but had, at
the same time, wide participation.
iv. In most cases, economic exploitation was the major
motivating factor, though they did raise certain political
challenges — some seeking land while others,
liberation.
v. Most of the uprisings were brutally suppressed, though
the administration did notice certain genuine peasants’
grievances.
It was with Gandhi that the peasants’ movement in India

got politicised. With his successful experiments of Satyagraha
in South Africa, Gandhi made village the primary focus for the
peasantry cause. Under his leadership, the Indian National
Congress formed peasant committees and organised some
local peasants movements seeking the redressal of their
grievances. More prominent among the Gandhian peasant
movements were the Champaran Satyagraha (1917) which
had abolished the Tinkathia system, the Kheda non-revenue
movement (1918), the peasant upsurge in Bardoli (1928)
against the revenue hike forcing the government to reduce
the increase from 22 per cent to 6.25 per cent, and the no-
rent and no-revenue campaign in Oudh during 1930-32.
Gandhi’s greatest contribution to the Indian National
Congress was to transform the English-educated elite class to
a mass organisation. He did so, among other things, by
incorporating the peasant masses. He raised the peasants’
issues at the all-India politics level, mobilising them in the all-
India movements of 1920 (Non-Cooperation Movement),
1930 (Civil Disobedience Movement) and 1942 (Quit India
Movement). However, all his campaigns were of “controlled
mass participation’, without drastically changing the rural
relations or/and injuring the interests of the zamindars.
There had begun, in the meantime, regional peasant
organisations in states like Bihar, and Andhra Pradesh. In
Bengal, the left-oriented peasant leaders formed a Bangiya
Krishak Sabha in March 1936. Later, the representatives of
different peasant organisations from different provinces held a
conference at Lucknow in 1936, presided over by Swami
Sahajananda of Bihar. This was the first session of the All
India Kisan Sabha (AIKS). During 1940s, AIKS orgnaised two
major peasant movements — theTebhagha Movement in
Bengal (1946-47) and the Telangana uprising in Andhra
Pradesh (1946-51), the tebhaga movement seeking two-third
share of the crop for the share-croppers on Jotedars’s land,
and the Telengana movement raising arms against feudal
exploitation.
However, the formation of AIKS was an important step in
itself. A Kisan manifesto of 1937 sought 50 per cent reduction
in land revenue and rent, a moratorium on debts, the abolition
of feudal levies, security of tenure for tenants, a living wage
for agricultural labourers and the recognition of peasant
unions. During the following years, peasants kept mobilising
in support of their demands on the one hand, and on the
other kept providing a helping hand to the nationalist
movement. The political leaders provided the peasants their
leaders from time to time, mobilising them through meetings,
rallies, demonstrations, and formation of kisan sabhas.
The relationship of the peasant movement with the national
movement continued to be one of a vital and integral nature:
the areas of the peasant movement were the areas of
national movement, especially those in the states of Punjab,
Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, UP and Bihar. There could hardly be
separation between a politicised and conscious peasantry on
the one hand, and the active political workers ready to
perform the task of organisation and leadership, on the other.
Ideologically, the peasant movement could not, and in fact, in
the later years of nationalist liberation, did not separate itself
from the ideology of nationalism. Bipin Chandra and others
(India’s Struggle for Independence) rightly point out, “Its
(nationalist leaders) cadres and leaders carried the message
of not only organisation of the peasantry on class lines but
also of national freedom, in most areas, Kisan activists
simultaneously enrolled Kisan Sabhas and Congress
members”. The peasant movement and the freedom
movement went together, though only occasionally, they
confronted each other when the left-wing activists took
extreme positions with regard to the cause of peasantry.
Though Narayan Meghjee Lokhanday is described as the
moving spirit of the labour movement in India, yet the
workers’ movement may be said to have a real beginning
with the formation of the 125 trade unions into an All India
Trade Union Congress (AITUC) in 1920, with Lala Lajpat Rai
assuming the office of its first president, and Dewan Chaman,
its general secretary. Lala Lajpat Rai made every effort to
bring the workers in line with the liberation struggle. In his
presidential address, he had emphasised, “.. Indian labour
should lose no time to organise itself on a national scale ...
the greatest need in this country is to organise, agitate and
educate. We must organise our workers, make them class
conscious.”. While aware that “for some time to come,” the
workers will need all the help, guidance and cooperation they
can get from among such individuals as are prepared to
espouse their cause, he maintained that “eventually labour
shall find its leaders from among its own ranks”. The AITUC
manifesto urged the workers not only to organise themselves,
but also to participate in nationalist politics: “Workers of India
... Your nation’s leaders ask for Swaraj, you must not let
them leave you out of the reckoning. Political freedom to you
is of no worth without economic freedom. You cannot,
therefore, afford to neglect the movement for national
freedom. You are part and parcel of that movement. You will
neglect it only at the peril of your liberty”. The manifesto, thus,
included:
i. workers to participate in nationalist politics;

ii. workers to realise the importance of organising
themselves into trade unions;
iii. Indian workers working abroad to unite with workers
working in the country;
iv. attempting to establish a socialist state in India;
v. socialisation of the means of production, distribution and
exchange;
vi. seeking improvement in the conditions of the workers,
especially in economic, social and political life;
vii. demand for civil and political rights for the workers; and
viii. seeking the right to organise, bargain and strike work.
Indeed, it took time for the workers’ movement to take a

concrete shape. In fact, the workers’ movement did not rise
up for numerous reasons: the workers’ unity was still a far cry
because factories and mills were not fully developed; the
moderate Congress did not consider the workers’ cause
worthy enough to take up, for it never thought of the British
regime and their institutions as inimical to the interests of
Indians. However, once organised, the workers’ movement
kept contributing its lot to the nationalist struggle. The
workers’ participated in the Gandhian non-cooperation
movement (1920). Within a year, the number of the trade
unions as members of AITUC rose to 183, though the number
of strikes went down in number. There were 376 strikes in
1921, but between 1924 and 1927, the workers’ strikes were
only 130.
The consolidation of various Left ideological trends as they
appeared in India, under the directives of the Comintern,
organised themselves into Workers’ and Peasants Parties
with S.A. Dange, Muzaffar Ahmed, P.C. Joshi, Sohan Singh
Josh ignoring AITUC initially, and dominating it thereafter.
The result was the boycott of Simon Commission in 1928,
numerous workers’ meetings organised on May Day, Lenin
Day and the anniversary of the Russian revolution and so on.
The government, worried and nervous at the growing
militancy of the workers, followed the enactment of repressive
laws (the Public Safety Act and the Trade Disputes Acts) on
the one hand, and began arresting the workers’ leaders, the
communist ones, on the other. There was, thus, the Meerut
Conspiracy Case (1929). The labour movement suffered a
major setback partially due to the repressive policy of the
government, and partially the communists’ reversal policy of
aligning themselves with the nationalist politics. The
communist leadership of the labour movement suffered when
the communists were thrown out of the AITUC in the 1931
split. However, the workers did participate in Gandhi's civil-
disobedience movement, striking work at Sholapur, Karachi,
Calcutta, and Madras. In Bombay, about 20,000 workers
struck work, declaring themselves “the hands and the feet of
the Congress.” The railwaymen’s union with about 5000
people took part in the hartal on July 6, 1930, downing their
tools.
The workers’ movement followed a leisurely pace between
1931 and 1936. Though the workers had begun rejoining
under the Congress leftists, the Congress socialists and the
communists after 1934 (the Congress Socialist Party had
been formed in 1934)—they all rallied with the AITUC in
1935. Accordingly, the number of trade unions increased from
271 to 562 during 1937-39. The workers’ membership
increased from 2,61,047 to 3,99,159, so increasing the
number of the workers’ strike considerably.
With the beginning of World War II (1939), there arose with
the Congress’s resolution of staying away from the war,
workers’ association in the nationalist liberation. Despite the
communists initially disassociating themselves from the war,
the workers staged demonstrations and had strikes in Delhi,
Lucknow, Kanpur, Bombay, Allahabad, Jamshedpur, Indore
and Bangalore for days together, thus strengthening the
nationalist movement.
VI. INDIAN NATIONAL MOVEMENT: DIFFERENT

PERSPECTIVES
The Indian national movement was, indeed, one of the
biggest mass movements modern society has ever seen,
though it began modestly with the English-educated middle
class. Its beginnings never sought a Swaraj, much less the
complete independence of India. A. O. Hume (1829-1912)
and his friends had never dreamt that they would ask for an
independent India. The movement, which began with the
formation of the Indian National Congress in 1885, was hardly
‘national’, though ‘Indian’ it was, and in a very much smaller
sense, a “movement”. The seventy-two members who
gathered in a building of Gokuldas Tajpal Sanskrit College
(Bombay) sought only to increase comradeship among “the
active workers” in order to “remove disparities” and “focus the
attention of the educated classes on socio-political problems’;
and to formulate a policy of national uplift’ for the following
years. There was neither any demand for self-rule, nor for any
responsive and responsible system duly elected by the
people. With full faith in the British re-gime and in its sense of
justice, there were “reforms” year after year until 1905-06
when the attainment of “swaraj’ was declared the official
objective of the Indian National Congress. During the first
twenty years of its formation, the tone of the Congress was
always conformist, loyalist, and liberal.
India was not a nation in the nineteenth century so much as
a European state during the last days of the century. It was
an amalgamation of regions with all sorts of diversities —
caste, religion, and region; economically backward and
socially segregated. Socio-economic reform movements
sought to modernise India first before it was made to walk on
the path of national consciousness. The national movement in
India which so arose was to have different perspectives.
The liberal perspective of the Indian national movement
was heralded by the Indian National Congress (INC) more as
a pressure group (through the moderate Congress until 1905)
and as a political party, especially with the arrival of Mahatma
Gandhi after 1915. Indeed, the socio-religious movements of
the nineteenth century, an amalgam of the old and the new
ideas, had to a great extent, nurtured the roots of national
consciousness. The modest demands of the moderate
Congress, mostly reforms (social, economic and political)
constituted what may be described as “liberal” through
moderate means (petitions and prayers) expressing loyalism
in most of Congress’s resolutions. The aim, then, was not to
overthrow colonial rule, but to wage a struggle against social
and economic backwardness, not to “demand” but to
“suggest” or “urge” the enactment of its annually passed
resolutions. The liberal perspective, then, meant expanding
the powers of the provincial and central councils, enhancing
the non-official members of the councils, holding the civil
service examination in India as well as England, separating
judicial and executive functions, and reducing the expenditure
on the Indian treasury. With a brief interval between 1906 and
1916 when extremist-militant leadership sought ‘swaraj’ and
some revolutionaries sought independence, the liberal
perspective of the Indian National Movement continued
during the Gandhian era of the movement. During the initial
period of his leadership, Gandhi did not raise his voice
beyond “swaraj’—until 1929 when the Purna Swaraj
resolution was passed in the Lahore session of the Congress.
Gandhi’s Non-cooperation Movement (1920-22) was more a
protest against the tyrannical laws than a resolution of the
country’s independence. His Civil Disobedience Movement
(1930-34) was a protest against the non-performance of the
promises made than the overthrow of the British colonial rule.
Gandhi’s Quit India Movement (1942), with which he
disassociated himself when the movement went violent, was
more an act of frustration against the British, not solving the
Indian political problem than the end of the British rule.
There was the other side of the Congress’s liberal
perspective in what it thought of independent India. The
Nehru Report (1928), for example, sought universal adult
franchise, equal rights for women, and dissociation of the
state from religion, besides seeking the dominion status. The
liberal perspective of the Congress was evident in the Karachi
resolution of the Congress in which the basic civil rights of
free speech, free press, free assembly, equality before law,
election on the basis of universal suffrage, provision for free
and compulsory education, better conditions for workers,
state ownership of key industries, cultural freedom of the
minorities — all these were made as the Congress's political
programme in later years. The objectives Resolution of
January 1947 summed up the whole liberal perspective for
which the Congress stood all the time in the history of
national movement —parliamentary democracy, civil and
political liberties, decentralised authority, the assured rights of
minorities and the liberal-socialist-Gandhian principles.
The Socialist perspective of the Indian National
movement developed in the late 1920s and 1930s, with
socialist ideas acquiring roots in the Indian soil. Socialism
became the accepted ideal among the Indian youth from
Bhagat Singh to Subhas Chandra Bose on the one hand and
from the Communist Party of India to the Congress Socialist
Party on the other. India was seen the victim of British
imperialism and the solution of all the economic and social ills
found favour in socialism; the Bolshevik Revolution (1917)
was hailed while the withdrawal of Gandhi's Noncooperation
Movement (1922) was criticised, giving rise to socialist
literature. Dange published a pamphlet Gandhi and Lenin,
and started the first socialist weekly, The Socialist. In Bengal,
Muzaffar Ahmed brought out Navayug; in Punjab, Ghulam
Hussain and others published /nquilab and in Madras, M.
Singaralu founded the Labour-Kisan Gazette. The
revolutionaries Chandra Shekar Azad and Bhagat Singh
turned to socialism; trade unions and peasant movements
grew rapidly throughout the 1920s. Jawaharlal Nehru and
Subhas Bose toured the country attacking imperialism,
capitalism, landlordism and preached the ideals of socialism.
Jawaharlal Nehru presided over the Indian National Congress
in 1936 and 1937, while Subhas Bose did so in 1938 and
1939. The Congress Socialist Party had already been formed
in 1934. By 1930s, it was made clear that political freedom
had no meaning without the socio-economic content.
Jawaharlal Nehru’s socialist ideas were well-known. His
biographer, S. Gopal, describes Nehru as “a self-conscious
revolutionary radical” on his return from the Soviet Union in
1927. At the Lahore Session of the Congress (1929), Nehru
had himself said, “| am a socialist and a republican”; “India
would have to adopt a full socialist programme if she was to
end her poverty and inequality’. In the presidential address of
the 1936 session of the Congress, Nehru had said, “Il am
convinced that the only key to the solution of the world’s
problems and of India’s problems lies in socialism, .1 see no
way of ending poverty, the vast unemployment, the
degradation and the subjection of the Indian people except
through socialism. This involves vast and revolutionary
changes in our political and social structure .”. Nehru
remained a socialist within the framework of the Congress,
finding the latter to be an agency for attaining political
freedom, and socialism as a means for attaining social and
economic freedom.
Disenchanted with the Gandhian strategy and leadership
and attracted by the socialist ideology, the formation of a
socialist party within the Congress was thought of by the
young
Congressmen in jails during 1930-31 and 1932-34. The
Congress Socialist Party (CSP) emerged at Bombay in
October 1934 under the leadership of Jayaprakash Narayan,
Acharya Narendra Dev and Minoo Masani. The CSP agreed
in the four basic propositions:
i. national struggle for freedom is the primary struggle in

India and nationalism was a necessary stage on the
way to socialism;
ii. the socialists must work inside the Congress;
iii. the socialists need to give the Congress and the
national movement a socialist direction; and
iv. the socialists need to organise the workers and the
peasants, wage struggles for their economic demands
and make them the social base of the national struggle.
The CSP, therefore, marched on the task of transforming

the Congress and of strengthening it. “Transformation” meant
the persuasion of the Congress to adopt the socialist vision in
independent India, and a relatively more radical pro-labour
and pro-peasant India. This, for the CSP, meant the
ideological transformation while the — organisational
transformation was meant to bring the socialist-Congressmen
in top positions of the Congress Party. However, Gandhi's
“larger than life’ image landed up, ultimately making the
liberal-democratic thought as the basic constituent of the CSP
leadership.
The Marxist perspective of India’s national movement
revolved around making socialism a strong current in Indian
politics. Ever since the formation of the Communist Party of
India in 1925, the Marxists sought to control the workers’ and
the peasants’ organisations. Ideologically, the Marxian
features were:
i. consistent and militant anti-imperialist, anti-landlordism;

ii. the acceptance of socialist vision of independent India;
iii, economic and social transformation of society; and
iv. anti-fascist, anti-colonial and anti-war foreign policy.
The Marxist cadres were, indeed, militant, courageous and

sacrificing, but they failed to establish the dominance of
socialist ideas over the national movement. And yet, the
impact of the Marxian ideas was quite evident on Indian
society. The organisation of the workers and the peasants
was one of the greatest achievements of the Marxists. Its
impact on the Congress was also important. Its commanding
influence over nearly one-third of the votes in the All-India
Congress Committee, during 1936 to 1939, was
organisationally important; the left orientation of the Congress
in late 1930s was due to the Marxists and the socialists. The
policy adopted in the Karachi session in 1931, the election
manifesto of the Congress in 1936, the setting up of the
National Planning Committee in 1938 had a leftist impact.
The Radical Humanist perspective is reflected in the
writings of M.N. Roy, one of the tallest political theorists of the
twentieth century India. He sought to incorporate Marxism in
Indian politics, though he abandoned it in his later life. As
against the liberals-moderates who believed in the capacity of
the British rulers and their reforms, and the extremists-
militarists nationalists who sought to do away with British
colonialism, Roy gave a Marxist interpretation to the nature of
Indian politics. He was of the opinion that the Indian people
were exploited by the foreign capital as well as by the Indian
capital, lending to the growth of the urban proletariat. He held
the view that the British and the Indian capitalists have joined
hands in damaging the cause of the workers and peasants in
India. He gave a programme to the Indian National Congress
on the eve of its 1922 Gaya session. The programme
included abolition of landlordism, reduction of land rent,
government needs to modernise agriculture, abolition of
indirect taxes, development of modern industries, eight hour
workday together with the fixation of the minimum wages, free
and compulsory education, and separation of state and
politics. In his Future of Indian Politics, Roy emphasised the
need of a mass political party to mobilise and strengthen the
workers and peasants for collective action. A socialist India
could not, Roy thought, be built overnight. There has to be
achievement of free Indian democracy, followed by the
transformation of the social order into a socialist democracy.
The roots of Roy’s radical humanism can well be traced to
his weekly journal /ndependent India which was_ later
renamed the Radical Humanist. His radical humanism was a
critique of spiritualism, nationalism and communism. It stood
for materialism which, according to Roy, represents
knowledge as it really exists. It, as Roy describes, had three
elements: rationality, morality and freedom. Rationality which
at the lowest level seeks the satisfaction of individual wants,
and at the higher level signifies struggle for freedom; freedom
signifying the progressive disappearance of all restrictions
and one that unfolds the potentialities of individuals as human
beings.
Reason, morality and freedom are not speculative, but are
the crystallisation of the experiences gained in historical
evolution. Roy thought of freedom as of supreme value. While
rationality, Roy says, provides dynamism to the individual, the
urge for freedom gives him a direction. The interaction of
reason and freedom leads to the expression of cooperation
as manifested in social relationship. Morality is, Roy says,
based on rationalism and through rationality, the individual
obtains freedom. To quote Roy, “... man is essentially
rational. The reason in man is an echo of the harmony of the
universe. Morality must be referred back to man’s innate
rationality. Only then, man can be moral, spontaneously and
voluntarily.. The innate rationality of man is the only
guarantee of a harmonious order, which will also be a moral
order .. “
Condemning Gandhi’s Congress as “spinners’ association”
and Gandhi as “a bundle of contradictions”, his philosophy,
only medievalism, Roy regarded individual as a sovereign
entity, the basis of the political order he had imagined. Roy
advocated a partyless democracy whose basic feature is that
the people have the ways and means to exercise sovereign
power effectively: power to be so distributed that the
maximum power could be vested with the local community
and minimum at the apex. Roy’s politics was humanist politics
while he thought of party politics as power politics.
The Dalit perspective of Indian National movement rose
as a reaction to the Brahminical he-gemony. It reflects the
anti-caste and anti-class phenomena. Segregated socially,
the Dalit movement dismissed the premise of the mainstream
nationalist movement that India was a nation. Dr. Ambedkar,
for example, condemned the notion of a nation in a caste
society and described each caste, a nation itself. Jyotiba
Phule used to say, “. unless all the people in the Balisthan
(Phule’s term used for India) including the Shudras, ati-
shudras, Bhil, koli became educated and are able to think,
and unite, they cannot constitute a nation’. Dr. Ambedkar
wrote, “Il am of the opinion that in believing that we are a
nation, we are cherishing a great delusion’. How could
people, he questioned, divided into several thousands of
castes be a nation? The Indian National Congress, Dr.
Ambedkar used to say, spearheading the national movement,
represented the Indian bourgeoisie’s drive to obtain overall
economic and political control. However, his entry into
Nehru’s cabinet in 1946 shifted his Dalit perspective in the
background. The Dalit movement, before 1947, did not
support the freedom movement. In fact, the Dalit leaders
found the colonial rule congenial to their interests. They
favoured the alien rule to the oppressive Brahmin supremacy,
though they soon realised that ultimately, the colonial rule
would go against the dalits.
The dalits, during pre-independence days, would seek
favours from the colonial British rule. It was with this view that
in 1919 Dr. Ambedkar demanded separate electorates,
seeking reservation seats. Dr. Ambedkar sought these
concessions at the first Round Table conference in January
1931 and got them confirmed in the second Round Table
conference in September 1931, though through the Poona
Pact, the provision for the joint electorate was offered so as to
neutralise the Dalits’ separate electorate demands. Dr.
Ambedkar’s Labour Party of India in 1933 helped the dalits to
elect twenty-two members to the Bombay Legislative Council.
In 1941, another political party, the Scheduled Castes
Federation (SCF) was launched by Ambedkar with the aim of
highlighting the grievances of the scheduled castes and
fighting for their rights. SCF remained active for nearly 16
years before it was abolished by Dr. Ambedkar. In 1956, he
had established the Republican Party of India (RPI). It may,
however, be noted that Gandhi, Periyar and others also did a
lot for improving the conditions of the dalits during the pre-
independence days.
It would be instructive to see the alternative perspectives
quite visible in the Indian Constitution. The liberal-
individualistic perspective dominates in the Constitution. One
may locate this perspective in Preamble, fundamental rights,
polity, form of government; parts of socialist and Gandhian
perspectives do find their place in the Directive Principles of
State Policies; there is the dalit perspective in the form of
numerous affirmative activities extended to the weaker
sections of the Indian society.
Practice
Questions
1. Describe the contribution of the

moderate Congress to the national
movement of India. (700-800 words)
2. With what objectives was the Indian
National Congress formed in 1885?
(200-300 words)
3. Explain the causes of the rise of
extremism. (200-300 words)
4. State briefly the aims of the extremist-
militants and the methods they adopted.
(700-800 words)
5. Describe, in brief, the role of the
revolutionaries in the national movement
of India. (700-800 words)
6. Write a brief note on ‘Non-Cooperation
Movement’. (200-300 words)
7. Why was the Civil Disobedience
Movement launched? State Gandhi's
role in the movement. (700-800 words)
8. Describe the liberal perspective of
India’s National Movement. (700-800
words)
9. Comment on the Marxist understanding
of India’s freedom movement. (2013)
(200-300 words) _
10. To what extent the Indian Constitution
fA
)\)
reflects the successful reonciliation of
alternative perspectives? (2012) (200-
300 words)
The Making of The Indian
Constitution
7 he Constitution of India, though adopted in November

1949 and enacted in January 1950, was not entirely new.
In order to understand the Constitution, it would be
appropriate to have a glance on the constitutional developments
during the British colonial rule in India, the legacy of its rule and
philosophy of the Constitution as founded by the Indian
Constituent Assembly.
I. CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
The British Government took over the administration of India from
the English East India Company following the first war of
independence (1857) in 1858. The British Government passed
acts for India from time to time. To know these Acts, it is
necessary to know the constitutional development of India. The
first such Act was the Government of India Act, 1858. The main
provisions of the Better Government of India Act, 1858 were:
i. The Secretary of State for India (a member of the British

Cabinet) with a Council (called the India Council) of 15
members came to substitute both the Board of Control and
the Court of Directors.
ii. The Secretary of State for India and the India Council were
to superintend, direct and control all the governmental
affairs of India.
iii. All the major appointments (the Governor General of India,
the Law Minister and other members of his Council, the
Governors, members of their Councils, etc.) were made by
the Crown on the advice of the Secretary of State for India.
iv. The military and naval forces of the English East India
Company were transferred to the Crown subject to the
same conditions of service under which they were enlisted.
v. All the treaties made by the Company were to be binding
on the Crown. All the contracts, liabilities and engagements
etc. entered into by the Company were to be handed by the
Secretary of State for India and his Council on behalf of the
Crown.
vi. The assumption of the Government of India by the Crown
was to be declared to the princes and the people of India
through the Queen’s Proclamation.
The Queen’s Proclamation was declared on November 1, 1958

at a Darbar held in Allahabad. The Proclamation held out
promises to respect the honour and dignity of the native princes
and to assure the people equal protection of law and respect for
their traditions and customs.
The British Government passed the Indian Councils Act of
1861, 1892, and 1909 through which changes were made in the
Indian Councils. The Indian Councils Act of 1861 expanded the
Governor-General’s Council by adding minimum six and
maximum twelve additional members for legislative purposes.
These additional members were to be nominated by the
Governor-General for a period of two years. The legislative
council was to make laws and regulations for all persons and
places in British India, with the Governor-General having the veto
power to disallow any such legislative measure. All legislative
measures passed by the Government of India were to be
communicated to the Secretary of State for India who could
disallow them with the approval of the Crown. The membership
of each provincial legislatures (Bombay, Bengal, Madras, North-
West Frontier Province, Punjab) enhanced with minimum four
and maximum eight additional members, each member
appointed for a period of two years. In each council, either at the
Centre or in the provinces, half of the additional members so
appointed were to be non-official. Each bill passed by the
provincial legislature was to have the assent of the Governor of
the province and the Governor General, and disallowance of the
Crown acting through the Secretary of State for India.
The Indian Councils Act of 1892 increased the number of
additional members of the Central Council between ten
(minimum) and sixteen (maximum). The provincial councils’
additional members were also increased between eight and
twenty. The functions of the legislative councils, both at the
Centre and in the provinces, were enlarged so as to include the
discussion of the financial statement, asking questions from the
executive councilors though which question could be disallowed
by the President of the legislative councils without assigning
reasons. The act of 1892 introduced the elective element in case
of the additional members. The total membership, for example, of
the legislative council at the Centre was sixteen, of which six
were officials and ten non-officials. Of ten non-officials, five
members were elected (one elected by the Calcutta Chamber of
Commerce and four from the four provincial legislatures) and the
other five were to be nominated non-officials. Likewise, the total
strength of the Madras legislative council was twenty with nine
Officials and eleven non-officials. Of the eleven non-officials,
seven were to be elected (four by municipalities, one by the
University, one by the Madras Corporation, and one by Madras
Chamber of Commerce.) The rest four non-officials were to be
nominated.
Separate communal representation was introduced following
the request made by the Muslim deputation in 1906 in the Indian
Councils Act of 1909, also called the Morley-Minto reforms. The
Indian Councils Act of 1909 expanded the members of the
legislative council (from sixteen to sixty-nine at the centre and of
the provincial legislatures; with fifty-two in Bengal, forty-seven
each in Madras, Bombay and United Provinces, forty-one in East
Bengal and Assam, twenty-five in Punjab and sixteen in Burma).
In the case of the central legislative council, out of sixty-nine,
thirty-seven were officials (twenty-seven nominated officials, and
nine ex-officio members of the Executive Council) and thirty-two
non-officials. Out of thirty-two, twenty-seven were elected non-
officials (thirteen General electorate, twelve class electorate with
six landholders and six Muslims, and two were to be from special
electorates).
The Act of 1909 enlarged the functions of the legislative
councils: right to discussion, asking questions and supplementary
questions; with the President of the Council disallowing any
question or any resolution without assigning any reason. The Act
of 1909 introduced separate electorate system; franchise was
introduced, but it was both restricted and discriminatory.
Candidates seeking elections were subject to qualifying certain
conditions.
Two relatively larger acts were passed in 1919 and 1935. They
were known as the Government of India Act, 1919 and the
Government of India Act, 1935. While the Government of India,
act, 1919 specified the British Government’s intention to grant
responsible government in India; the Government of India Acct,
1935 was the last comprehensive act passed by the British
Government for India, followed by the Indian Independence Act,
1947 granting freedom to India and partitioning the country into
two dominions—India and Pakistan.
The main provisions of the Government of India Act, 1919,
also known as the Montford reforms were:
The preamble of the Act of 1919, following the Montangu

declaration of 1917, stated that the responsible government
was to be the ultimate object of the British Government in
India, to be granted to the Indians in successive stages.
. The Council of the Secretary of State was to comprise eight
to twelve members. Half of them were to have spent at
least ten years in India.
. Part of the expenses of the office of the Secretary of State
was to be met by the British Government.
The Secretary of State was not allowed to interfere in
administrative matters of the provinces concerning the
‘Transferred subjects’ and also in matters on which
Governor General and his legislature were in agreement.
The Governor General had the power to nominate as many
members of his Executive Council as he wanted.
Vi. The Act of 1919 made the provision for appointment of a
High Commissioner in England to look after trade and
students’ interests.
Vii. The Central Legislature was to consist of two houses i.e.,
the Council of the States (Upper House) and Legislative
Assembly (Lower House).
viii. The Council of the States was to consist of 60 members,
out of which one was to be the President, 34 elected and
25 nominated.
The Legislative Assembly was to consist of 143 members,
out of which 103 were to be elected and 40 to be
nominated by the Governor General.
The franchise was limited, discriminatory, with communal
representation as before.
Xi. The tenure of the Upper House was five and the Lower
House three years.
xii. Both the Houses had equal legislative powers. In case of a
tie, the Governor General was to call a joint meeting where
the matter was to be decided by majority vote.
xiii. The Executive Council at the Centre was not responsible to
the Legislature and the Governor General had the right to
reject its advice.
xiv. Provincial legislatures were to be unicameral.
XV. Seventy per cent members of the Provincial Legislative
Councils were to be elected and thirty per cent were to be
nominated.
Xvi. The Governors were given ‘Instrument of Instructions’
which guided them in carrying out their administrative
affairs.
xvii. The system of dyarchy was introduced in the provinces.
XVviii. Besides Muslims, other minorities including Sikhs, Anglo-
Indians, Christians and Europeans were also given
separate representation in the legislatures.
xix.New reforms were to be examined after ten years.
XX. The central government had the power to make laws on 47
subjects and the provincial governments were to make laws
on 51 subjects.
Following the recommendations of the Simon Commission

(1928), the three Round Table Conferences (1930, 1931, and
1932) as also of the pressure of the national movement, the
Government of India Act, 1935 was passed. The main
features of the Act of 1935 were:
A Federation of India was promised, comprising both,

provinces and princely states. The provisions of the Act
establishing the federal central government were not to go
into operation until a specified number of rulers of states
had signed instruments of accession. Since this did not
happen, the Central Government continued to function in
accordance with the 1919 Act and only some parts of the
1935 Act dealing with the provincial governments went into
operation.
. The Governor General remained the head of the central
administration and enjoyed wide powers concerning
administration, legislation and finance.
. No money bill could be placed in the central legislature
without the consent of the Governor General.
The Federal Legislature was to consist of two Houses —
The Council of States (Upper House) and the Federal
Assembly (Lower House).
The Council of States was to consist of 260 members, out
of which 156 were to be elected from British India and 104
to be nominated by the rulers of princely states.
Vi. The Federal Assembly was to consist of 375 members; out
of which 250 were to be elected by the Legislative
Assemblies of the British India provinces, while 125 were to
be nominated by the rulers of princely states.
vii. The Central Legislature had the right to pass any bill, but
the bill required the approval of the Governor General
before it became law. On the other hand, the Governor
General had the power to issue ordinances.
Viii. The Indian Council was abolished. In its place, a few
advisers were nominated to help the Secretary of State for
India.
The Secretary of State was not to interfere in matters which
the Governors dealt with, with the help of Indian Ministers.
The provinces were given autonomy with respect to
subjects delegated to them.
Xi. Dyarchy which had been established in the provinces by
the Act of 1919 was established at the Centre. However, it
came to an end in the provinces.
xii. Two new provinces, Sindh and Orissa, were created.
xiii. Reforms were introduced in NWFP as also in the other
provinces.
Xiv. Separate electorates continued as before.
xv. One-third Muslim representation in the Central Legislature
was guaranteed.
xvi. Autonomous provincial governments in 11 provinces, under
ministries responsible to legislatures were set up.
xvii. Burma and Aden were separated from India.
xviii. The Federal Court was established at the Centre.
xix. The Reserve Bank of India was established.
xx. The three lists were — the Central List with 59 subjects; the
Provincial List with 54 subjects; and the Concurrent List
with 36 subjects. The residuary powers rested with the
Governor General.
The Act of 1935 was criticised by both, the Congress and the
Muslim League, yet when it was enacted in 1937, both the
political parties participated in the elections. Following the
declaration of India as a belligerent country, emergency was
imposed in 1939. It was after a great deal of discussions and
numerous mission plans (the Cripps Plan, 1942 and the 1946
Cabinet Mission Plan) that the British Government declared India
to be independent, but with partition of the country into two
dominions: India and Pakistan. The main features of the Indian
Independence Act, 1947, also called the Mountbatten Plan,
were:
(a) The Act provided for the creation of two independent
dominions — India and Pakistan.
(b) It provided for the partition of Punjab and Bengal with
separate boundary commissions to demarcate the
boundaries between them.
(c) Besides West Punjab and East Bengal, Pakistan was
to consist of territories of Sindh, North Western Frontier
Province, Syelhat division of Assam, Bhawalpur,
Khairpur, Baluchistan and eight other relatively minor
princely states in Baluchistan.
(d) The paramount authority of British Crown over the
princely states was to lapse and they were free to join
the dominion of India or Pakistan or remain
independent.
(e) Both the dominions of India and Pakistan were to have
Governor Generals appointed by the British King. The
act also provided for one common Governor General if
both the dominions so agreed.
(f) The Constituent Assemblies of both the dominions were
free to frame the constitutions for their respective
countries without any limitation whatsoever. They were
also free to withdraw from the British Commonwealth.
(g) For the time being, till the new constitutions were
framed, each of the dominions and all the provinces
were to be governed in accordance with the
Government of India Act, 1935 with such modifications,
omissions or additions as may be done by the
Governor General-in-Council.
The Constituent Assembly, as constituted under the Cabinet
Mission Plan of 1946, and later bifurcated after the partition, were
to frame their respective constitutions for India and Pakistan. The
Indian Constituent Assembly made its constitution, adopted it in
November 1949, and enacted it on January 26, 1950.
ll. LEGACY OF THE BRITISH RULE

The British rule in India was not without impact. Numerous basic
features of the colonial rule were clearly evident. Professor Bipin
Chandra and others (India After Independence: 1947-2000)
mention four such basic features of the British colonial era.
These were as follows:
i. Colonialism led to the complete, but complex integration of

India’s economy with the world capitalist system, though in
a subservient position. Since 1750s, India’s economic
interests were completely subordinated to those of Great
Britain.
ii. To suit the British industry, a peculiar structure of
production and international division of labour was forced
upon India. India produced and exported raw materials and
foodstuffs such as cotton, jute, oilseeds, and minerals, and
imported manufactured products of the British industry from
biscuits and shoes to machinery such as cars and railways
engines. The pattern of India’s foreign trade was an
indication of the economy’s colonial character. As late as
1935-39, food, drink, tobacco, and raw materials
constituted 68.5 per cent of India’s export, while
manufactured goods were 64.4 per cent of her imports.
Basic to the process of economic development is the size
and utilisation of the economic surplus or savings
generated in the economy for investment and, therefore,
expansion of the economy. The net savings in the Indian
economy from 1914 to 1946 were only 2.75 per cent of the
Gross National Product (GNP) (i.e. national income), while
this percentage was 12 per cent of GNP in 1971-1975. The
total capital formation was 6.75 per cent of GNP during
1914-46 as against 20.14 per cent of GNP during 1971-75.
Furthermore, a large amount of India’s savings were not
only appropriated by the colonial state, they were also
wastefully spent. An estimate says that 5 to 10 per cent of
India’s total national income was unilaterally exported out of
the country.
The colonial state spent a large sum of money in
constructing, determining and maintaining the colonial
structure. India’s policies were formulated in Great Britain in
the interest of the British imperialistic designs and the
British capitalist class, and against Indian agriculture and
industry. The British colonial state imposed free trade in
India and did not provide any tariff protection, though after
1918 the government did provide some inadequate relief.
Moreover, the currency policy of the British government
was so manipulated after 1880 that it served the colonial
interests. The government spent almost the entire income
in meeting the requirements of the British-Indian
administration and military expenditure. After 1890, military
expenditure, for example, was nearly 50 per cent of the
central government's income. In 1947, this figure stood at
nearly 47 per cent. Besides, the Indian tax structure was
highly inequitable: the peasants and the poor paid taxes,
while the bureaucrats, landlords, merchants and traders
paid hardly any.
The impact of colonialism on agricultural and _ industrial

development was, indeed, severely adverse. While agriculture
stagnated in most parts of the country, the industrial growth only
helped the British. There was a decline in per capita agricultural
production which fell by 14 per cent between 1901 and 1941,
while the fall in per capita food grains was even greater at over
24 per cent. The agrarian structure evolved then was determined
by landlords, moneylenders and merchants. By 1940s, over 70
per cent of land was_ controlled by the landlords.
Commercialisation of agriculture and tenancy legislation went
against the rural poor and landlessness was on the rise during
most parts of the colonial period. The landless agricultural labour
was 13 per cent of the agricultural population and this percentage
grew to 24 per cent in 1951. There was increase in tenant-
farming and share-cropping, leading to the division of land into
small-holdings and fragmentation. The colonial government did
nothing to improve agriculture as the Indian peasant continued to
use primitive implements. Rural backwardness was one aspect of
our rural life and industrial backwardness was another. The
nineteenth century witnessed the collapse of handicraft and
artisanal industries in the country, while the industrial
development was confined to those products which helped the
colonial interests. There was virtual absence of capital goods and
machine industries: over 90 per cent of our need with regard to
machine tools was met through imports. The industrial production
was negligible. Whatever industrial development occured, it was
mostly dominated by foreign capital, mostly the British, in fields
such as coal mining, the jute industry, shipping, banking,
insurance, tea and coffee plantation. Industrial development was
lop-sided and did nothing for the country: the industries were
concentrated only in a few regions, leading ultimately, to regional
disparities. The development in the growth of the means of
transport and communication, though helped the people in
bringing them close to one another, enabled the colonial interests
linking the raw-material-producing areas with the exporting-
importing centres. The needs of the Indian industries with regard
to their markets and sources of raw materials were neglected.
The freight rates were so fixed that they favoured the imports-
exports goods rather the internal movement of goods.
Development in small-scale and consumer industries during
the colonial rule was limited. There was no indication of any
industrial revolution occurring in the country. Such industrial
development assisted the colonial masters rather than opening
doors for any industrial growth. The economy did not take-off,
employment opportunities did not improve and per capita income
remained stagnated... All the so-called development which
occurred seemed to be only within the framework of a colonial
economy. Underdevelopment remained and_ pauperisation
continued as before.
On the health front, the situation was even worse. During
1941-50, the annual death rate was 25 per thousand persons,
while the infant mortality rate was between 175 and 190 per
thousand live births. Life expectancy was thirty-two years during
1940-51. Epidemics like smallpox, plague and cholera, and
diseases like dysentery, diarrhoea, and malaria took millions of
lives every year. There were only ten medical colleges turning
out about 700 graduates and 27 medical schools turning out
7000 licentiates every year in 1943. The number of hospitals was
1915 with 1,16,731 beds, while there were only 6589
dispensaries, with 7072 beds in the early years of independence.
In the vast majority of towns, there were no modern facilities of
sanitation available; modern water supply systems were
unknown in villages and were absent in a large number of towns
as well. There was no electricity in most of the towns; electricity
in rural areas was unthinkable.
Education, by the end of the nineteenth century, was also
almost unavailable. In 1951, 84 per cent Indians were illiterate,
while illiteracy was 92 per cent among women. There were at
that time 13,590 middle schools and 7288 high schools.
In short, poverty, backwardness, and impoverishment were the
lot of the Indians during the British colonial rule in India.
The colonial state itself was authoritarian and autocratic; the
laws were few, but were largely harsh; the administration was
oppressive and repressive; and the police and the civil servants
had a large measure of authority and power. The deputy
commissioner was the collector and the judge, combining the
powers of the executive and the judiciary. The colonial legal
system was, indeed, based on the concept of equality of all
before law, and yet the courts favoured the Europeans,
particularly the British against the Indians. Civil liberties like the
freedom of speech, association and of press were assured by the
colonial rulers, and yet they were abused by them in the name of
law and order when they resorted to mass arrests during the
period of national movement. The representative system came to
be introduced from 1909, and yet the franchise remained
restrictive, limited and discriminatory: only three per cent Indians
could vote after 1919, and about 15 per cent after 1935. The
unification of the regions under the British colonial rule was
achieved through the policy of “divide and rule”. The
constitutional development process was slow and inadequate;
the administrative policy remained divisive and discriminating;
bureaucracy was rule-bound, and yet confined, loyal to the
colonial rulers. Armed forces were professional, and yet fought to
protect the designs and interests of the alien masters, keeping
them away from the life and thinking of the rest of the population,
especially the national movement. Bipin Chandra and others
quote Rabindranath Tagore who had commented on the British
rule just three months before his death in 1941, “The wheel of
fate will some day compel the English to give up their Indian
Empire. But what kind of India will they leave behind, what stark
misery? When the stream of their centuries’ administration runs
dry at last, what a waste of mud and filth will they leave behind
them?”
lll, LEGACY OF THE NATIONAL MOVEMENT

While India inherited economic and administrative structures from
the colonial rule, the values, the ideals, the vision which inspired
India in her nation-building efforts were largely derived from the
national movement. In other words, the social and _ political
perspectives which formed the over-all philosophy of our
constitution and polity were, to a great extent, drawn from the
national movement.
The freedom struggle of India was one of the greatest mass
movements in world history. Gandhi’s chief contribution was his
efforts to make the Congress movement a mass movement. The
movements such as the non-cooperation movement (1920-22)
and the civil disobedience movement (1930-34) which Gandhi
led, drew people out of their homes, whether they were peasants
or workers, students or teachers, men or women, rich or poor.
Gandhi, in fact, moved and mobilised millions of people of all
castes, all creeds and all regions into politics. He made people
brave enough to make any sacrifice. He introduced satyagraha
and non-violence as the very mantras of all the movements he
had launched. He showed to the world that the liberation struggle
could be fought and won through non-violent methods.
The Indian national movement was fully committed to a polity
based on the ideals of representative democracy and this
perspective guided the framers of the Indian Constitution. Our
struggle against British colonialism was based on the principles
seeking civil liberties for the individual and this became the very
philosophy and goal of our polity. From the beginning, the
national movement sought democratic values for the individual,
and these formed the very foundation of our political system
which we established after independence. Throughout the period
of our movement, we fought for our rights, and this is what the
framers of our Constitution assured us through the fundamental
rights. Our struggle was represented through people of all faiths
and all regions, and this is what is reflected in every article of our
Constitution.
Democracy and its very ideals and ideas constituted the basis
of our national movement. All the policies and resolutions of the
Indian National Congress, the major political organ of India’s
national movement, were publicly discussed and debated, and
only thereafter were voted upon: rich and heated debate and
open voting had been the methods of the Congress. Gandhi's
resolution on the non-cooperative movement, for example, was
initially voted against Gandhi with 1336 votes against his
resolution and 884 votes in his favour. The election of Subhas
Chandra Bose as the President of the Indian National Congress
in 1938 was against the wishes of Gandhi, and yet Bose’s
acceptance of Gandhi’s leadership as the father of the nation
reflects the very political culture that was the bedrock of our
struggle against British colonialism. Consensus, to some extent,
was achieved and made the very basis of our democratic
functioning. The liberal-democratic tradition nurtured by the
Congress was made the goal of our Constitution after
independence. The national movement provided the alternative
culture of democracy and civil liberties, the majority rule and the
right of the minorities as against the colonial culture of
authoritarianism, bureaucratism and paternalism.
The Indian national movement offered a strong critique to the
economic policies of the British rulers and in the process evolved
a broad economic strategy to overcome India’s economic
backwardness and underdevelopment. This strategy became the
basis of India’s economic thinking after independence. Self-
reliance was thought to be the economic solution to India’s
economic problem during the days of national movement. The
leaders of the national movement were one with regard to the
objective of economic development, which was_ the
modernisation of India’s agriculture and industry through science
and technology based on indigenous efforts. The resolution on
Fundamental Rights and Economic Programme, as adopted in
the Karachi session of the Congress (1931), was the economic
manifesto of independent India. The resolution declared, “..the
state shall own or control key industries and services, mineral
resources, railways, waterways, shipping and other means of
public transport’. The 1938 National Planning Committee
favoured the promotion of planned economy as an instrument of
integrated and comprehensive development. The Nehruvian five-
year plans strategy after independence was clearly evident in the
Congress’ economic resolutions passed from time to time,
though not much to the liking of Gandhi.
From the beginning, the Indian national movement had a pro-
poor orientation. The poverty of the masses, for example, was
related to the British colonial rule in Naoroji’s writings (Poverty
and the Un-British Rule in India, especially). The rise of socialist
ideas in the 1920s and in the 1930s was an example of this
orientation. The removal of poverty became the most important
goal after the overthrow of colonialism: Nehru, Bose, the
Congress socialists, the communists and other socialist groups
sought to give the national movement a socialist vision in
independent India. The Indian Constitution, in its numerous
articles, reflects the socialist principles, though the Indian
National Congress advocated the creation of an egalitarian
society.
The national movement of India sought to favour equality
through its numerous resolutions. Its reform agenda included the
improvement of the social position of women, struggle against
caste inequality and caste oppression, abolition of untouchability,
and special facilities for the scheduled castes and scheduled
tribes. India’s Constitution is an attempt to bring about equality in
the Indian society.
From the beginning, the national movement of India was
committed to secularism. Secularism defined in the context of
the our freedom struggle meant separation of religion from
politics, regarding religion as a private matter of the individual,
state’s neutrality towards religion, equal respect for all religions
by the state, and active opposition to communalism. The Indian
National Congress, in its Karachi session of 1931, declared that
in independent India “every citizen shall enjoy freedom of
conscience and the right freely to profess” and practice his
religion’, that all citizens would be “equal before law, irrespective
of caste, creed or sex, that ‘no disability would attach to any
citizen because of caste, creed or sex in regard to public
employment, office of power or honour, and in the exercise of
any trade or calling”, and that “the state shall observe neutrality,
in regard to all religions’. Gandhi, in his political ideas, had
advocated close relationship between religion and _ politics,
though he thought of religion as morality or/and truth. But even
he, himself, moved a resolution in the Karachi session of the
Congress while disapproving the communalists’ designs, stating
religion as being a sectarian belief system to divide people. In
1942, he had said, “Religion is a personal matter which should
have no place in politics.” Again, in 1947, he said, “Religion is the
personal affair of each individual. It must not be mixed up with
politics or national affairs.” Nehru thought of communalism as the
Indian form of fascism. The nationalists fought the movement on
secular lines; they would not appeal or argue on religious
grounds. The framers of the Indian Constitution had imbibed a
secular orientation in their outlook which is emphatically evident
in the Constitution itself.
The national movement in India recognised the diversities as
they existed on the Indian soil. It, therefore, always advocated
“integration” or “unity in diversity” or “all-Indianness”. The
Congress’s cadres, its appeals, its audience and its leadership
were drawn from all over India, from numerous communities and
from every region. The national movement, from the beginning,
had emphasised the unity and integrity of India. Almost all the
groups, moderates oor extremists, Congressmen or
revolutionaries, argued on “unity” lines, notwithstanding the
communal organisations which confined themselves to the
people of their community.
The roots of foreign policy of independent India can be traced
to the days of national movement. In the 1930s and 1940s, the
national movement took a strong anti-fascist stand. Gandhi,
while condemning Hitler's genocide of the Jews, said in 1938, “If
there ever could be a justifiable war in the name of and for
humanity, a war against Germany to prevent the wanton
persecution of a whole race would be completely justified.” In the
1936 Lucknow session of the Congress, Nehru spoke of the
Congress policy against fascism. He said, “We see the world
divided up into two vast groups today—the imperialists on one
side and fascists on the other .... Inevitably, we take our stand
with the progressive forces of the world which are ranged against
fascism and imperialism.” The Indian national movement had
never advocated the chauvinistic design as an instrument of
national policy. Rather, it favoured world peace and security,
internationalism, and anti-imperialism.
The national movement of India gave to independent India the
political — tradition of |compromise, accommodation,
reconciliation, and consensual methods _ in_ resolving
differences on numerous issues. Nehru had largely worked within
this tradition, though politicking is emerging to make it thin. Our
nationalist leaders possessed moral integrity of the highest order,
many of them making sacrifices. The movement produced
harmony, unity of means and ends, and innovating ideals — all
these inspiring the framers of the Indian Constitution to evolve a
philosophy of humanity and a peaceful world order.
Professor Bipin Chandra and others sum up the legacy of the
Indian National movement, as “a commitment to political and
economic independence, modern economic development, the
ending of inequality, oppression and domination in all forms,
representative democracy and civil liberties, internationalism and
independent foreign policy, promotion of the process of nation-in-
the making on the basis of the joyous acceptance of the diversity,
and achievement of all these objectives through accommodative
politics, and with the support of a large majority of the people.”
IV. THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY

That the Indians should have a constituent assembly to frame a
constitution of India was initiated by Gandhi in 1922 and M.N.
Roy in 1927 though Nehru had articulated the idea later in 1933.
The Indian National Congress had officially demanded a
constituent assembly in 1935. The British Government of India
had accepted the demand for a constituent assembly in
Linlithgow’s August offer of 1940. The 1942 Cripps Plan
promised such an assembly after World War Il. It was only in
1946 that the Cabinet Mission Plan proposed the constituent
assembly of 389 members to frame the Constitution of India.
The members of the constituent assembly, 389 in number,
were to represent British India (296) and the princely states (93).
Out of 296 members, 292 were to be elected by the provincial
legislatures while 4 members were to represent the chief
commissioner’s provinces. Ninety-three members were to be
nominated by the rulers of the princely states. Following the
partition of the country, the constituent assembly was bifurcated.
As a result, the membership of the Indian constituent assembly
was reduced to 299: out of which 229 represented the British
Indian provinces and 70, the princely states.
Table 16.1(a) State-wise Membership of the Constituent

Assembly of India as on December 31, 1947 British
Provinces-299
S. States No. of S. States No. of

N. members N. members
1. Madras 49 7. C.P. and 17

Bihar
2. Bombay 21 8. Assam 8
3. West 19 9. Orissa 9
Bengal
4. United 55 10. Delhi 1

Provinces
5. East 12 11. Ajmer- 1

Punjab Merwara
6. Bihar 36 12. Coorg 1
Table 16.1(b) Princely States
S. States No. of S. States No. of

N. members N. members
Alwar 17. Udaipur
Baroda 18. Sikkim and

Cooch Bihar
Group
Bhopal 19. Tripura,

Manipur and
Khasi States
Groups
Bikaner 20. U.P. States

Group
Cochin 21. Eastern

Rajputana
States
Group
Gwalior 22. Central India

States
Group
(including
Bundelkhand
and Malwa)
Indore 23. Western

India States
Group
Jaipur 24. Gujarat

States
Group
9. Jodhpur 2 25. Deccanand 2
Madras
States
Group
10. Kolhapur 1 26. Punjab 3

States
Group
11. Kotah 1 27. Punjab 4

States
Group|
12. Mayurbhanj 1 28. Eastern 3

States
Group Il
13. Mysore 7 29. Residuary 4

States
Group
14. Patiala 2
15. Rewa 2
16. Travancore 6
Total Membership as recommended by the Cabinet Mission:

389
After partition: Indian Constituent Assembly: 229 + 70 = 299
Almost all sections of society were represented in the
Constituent Assembly—Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Parsees, the
scheduled castes, the scheduled tribes, lawyers, doctors, trade
union leaders, men of industries and women. Mahatma Gandhi
was not a member of the Constituent Assembly.
The Constituent Assembly worked through 22 committees. Of
these, 10 committees were on procedure affairs and 12 on
substantive affairs. Some of these committees with their
chairmen are as under:
Table 16.2 Committees of the Constituent Assembly
Name of the Committee Chairman
Committee on the Rules of Procedure Rajendra

Prasad
Steering Committee Rajendra

Prasad
Finance and Staff Committee Rajendra

Prasad
Credential Committee Alladi

Krishnaswami
Ayyar
House Committee B. Pattabhi

Sitaramayya
Order of Business Committee K.M. Munshi
Ad-hoc Committee on the National Flag Rajendra

Prasad
Committee on the Functions of the G.V.

Constituent Assembly Mavalankar
States Committee Jawaharlal
Nehru
Advisory Committee on Fundamental

Rights, Minorities and
Tribal and Excluded Areas Vallabhbhai

Patel
Minorities Sub-Committee H.C.

Mookherjee
Fundamental Rights Sub-Committee J.B. Kripalani
North-East Frontier Tribal Areas and

Assam, Excluded and
Partially Excluded Areas Sub-Committee Gopinath

Bardoloi
Excluded and Partially Excluded Areas

(Other than those in Assam)
Sub-Committee A.V. Thakkar
Union Powers Committee Jawaharlal

Nehru
Union Constitution Committee Jawaharlal

Nehru
Drafting Committee B.R. Ambedkar
The Constituent Assembly took almost three years (two years

eleven months and eighteen days to be precise) to complete its
historic task of drafting the Constitution for independent India.
During this period, it held eleven sessions covering a total of 165
days. Of these, 114 days were spent on the consideration of the
Draft Constitution. Dr. Sachidanand was the first President of the
Constituent Assembly when it met on December 9, 1946 while
later Dr. Rajendra Prasad was elected the President of the
Assembly.
The Draft Constitution had 315 articles and 13 schedules,
while the Constitution, when adopted on November 26, 1949,
had 395 articles, divided into 22 parts with 8 schedules. Over
7,000 proposals were made, but only 2,473 proposals were
considered. The Constitution was enacted on January 26, 1950.
V. THE CONSTITUTION: ITS MAKING

The Constitution-making committee began its task with the
Muslim League staying away. Nehru moved the eight-point
resolution on December 13, 1946 on which the Preamble and the
Constitution came to be based. The Objectives Resolution of
December 13, 1946, read as below:
1. The Constituent Assembly declares its firm and solemn
resolve to proclaim India as an Independent Sovereign
Republic and to draw up for her future governance a
Constitution;
2. WHEREIN the territories that now comprise British India, the
territories that now form the Indian States, and such other
parts of India as are outside British India and the States as
well as such other territories as are willing to be constituted
into the Independent Sovereign India, shall be a Union of
India; and
3. WHEREIN the said territories, whether with their present
boundaries or with such others as may be determined by the
Constituent Assembly and thereafter according to the law of
the Constitution, shall possess and retain the status of
autonomous Units, together with residuary powers and
exercise all powers and functions of government and
administration, save and except such powers and functions
as are vested in or assigned to the Union, or as are inherent
or implied in the Union or resulting therefrom; and
4. WHEREIN all power and authority of the Sovereign
Independent India, its constituent parts and organs of
government, are derived from the people; and
5. WHEREIN shall be guaranteed and secured to all the
people of India justice, social, economic and _ political:
equality of status, of opportunity, and before the law;
freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship,
vocation, association and action, subject to law and public
morality; and
6. WHEREIN adequate safeguard shall be provided for
minorities, backward and tribal area, and depressed and
other backward classes; and
7. WHEREBY shall be maintained the integrity of the territory
of the Republic and its sovereign rights on land, sea and air
according to justice and the law of civilised nations; and
8. This ancient land attains its rightful and honoured place in
the world and makes its full and willing contribution to the
promotion of world peace and the welfare of mankind.
As stated above, the resolution defined India as an
“independent sovereign republic to be formed through a Union”
of: British India and Indian states in which all powers were to be
derived from the people. The resolution, in clause 5, guaranteed
and secured to all the people of India “Justice, social, economic
and political: equality of status, opportunity, and before the law,
freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship, vocation,
association and action subject to law and public morality”. Clause
6 of the objectives stated “adequate safeguards shall be provided
for minorities, backward and tribal areas, and depressed and
other backward classes.”
The resolution made its liberal intentions more than clear with
its added stress on civil rights, though its sovereign intentions too
laid extra emphasis on “social justice” with indications for the
provisions of affirmative action against the unprivileged
communities including the minorities. Though the resolution did
not include specific references to “democracy” or “universal adult
franchise”, it does in no case mean that Nehru avoided them
deliberately. Nor was the reason of their non-inclusion because
of any controversy with regard to them. The fact was that the use
of the “republic” was itself sufficient proof that independent India
was to be a democratic state with adult franchise based without
any discrimination whatsoever. However, the word “democratic”
was incorporated in February 1948 draft; and universal adult
franchise found a place in Article 324 of the Constitution.
The resolution did point out things which became nothing less
than a controversy. The “federal” aspect is one such example.
Clause 3 of the resolution clearly stated that the “Union” would
consist of constituents such as British India and the states which
“shall possess and retain the status of autonomous units,
together with residual powers... save and except such powers
and functions as are vested in or assigned to the Union.” The
objectives made the promise of bestowing the residuary powers
to the units, i.e. all the rest of the powers which were not
assigned to the Union. What happened was the reverse of what
was stated in the objectives resolutions. The sub-committee
ultimately decided on July 5, 1947 that “the constitution should be
a federal structure with a strong centre where there would be
three “exhaustive” legislative lists, “Union (97 items), State (66
items) and Concurrent (47 items)” with residuary powers for the
“Centre.”
The term “secularism” came to be included in the forty-second
amendment (1976) along with “socialist”, though the Constitution
did, through Articles 25 to 28, speak of freedom of religion,
guaranteeing freedom of conscience and free profession,
practice and propagation of religion with freedom to manage its
religious affairs with no taxes from the state of which proceeds
would be spent on any particular religion. The right to freedom of
religion was, to a great extent, an indirect admission of
secularism in India, or what Amartya Sen described as “secular
in the political sense”. However, despite the heated discussion on
words relating to secularism, the liberal-individualist rights,
including freedom of religion was restricted as Sumit Sarkar
(Indian Democracy: The Historical Inheritance) in Atul Kohli (ed.),
The Success of India’s Democracy says” in the interests of
maintaining the solidarity and _ discipline of religious
communities...”.
The question of a strong centre weighed heavily. Despite some
seeking to make concessions so as to win the Muslim League’s
cooperation to join the Indian union by granting the residual
powers to the units, it was ultimately shelved so as not to have
the existence of perpetual or permanent minorities in the country,
and with the Mountbatten partition plan of June 3, 1947, the
matter lost all arguments even for purposes of discussion. India,
as “the Union of States” in Article 1, was preferred to India as the
federal country. The provision of the single citizenship in a
country structurally federal was made with a view to imbibe the
requirements of an integrated and unified nation for a society so
segregated culturally, ethnically, linguistically and racially. The
framers of the Constitution of India were not only to create India,
they were to build it.
The framing of a set of fundamental rights, as per the
discussion of the sub-committee’s report, did not face much of a
debate while it finally decided to classify the justifiable rights
under seven heads:
i. citizenship;
ii. equality (including the abolition of untouchability);
iii. freedom (including the right to life);
iv. religion;
v. cultural and education;
vi. miscellaneous (including the right to property); and
vii. constitutional remedies.
As citizenship was to have a “space in the Constitution, right

against exploitation came to be incorporated in the Constitution.”
At one point of time, the Minority Right sub-committee insisted on
a neutral and autonomous election commission to conduct free
elections. Though the Advisory Committee too endorsed the
formula and the Draft Constitution of February 1948 too provided
in article 289 for a union and state election commissions, yet the
Ambedkar proposal of June 15, 1949 proposed, finally, the
integrated election commission, together with the regional
commissioners, not working under the provisional government.
The provisions with regard to the directive principles were
regarded as a golden compromise between the desires of the
Congress to achieve “a social revolution” and the pressure of
vested interests. The social policy content was deliberately kept
even beyond the reach of the judiciary; the due process of law
was intentionally rejected in favour of the procedure established
by law.
India as “the union of states” was a clear indication of a trend
towards centralisation, though the composite character of the
country was not ignored at all. The legislative, executive and
financial dominance of the Centre in relation to the states was
asserted clearly as against the provincial aspirations previously
aroused. The office of the President, according to the Union
Constitution Committee, was to represent both, the Centre and
the States, making the office of the Governor of the State to act
as the agent of the Centre, while granting the States rights to be
represented in the Council of States, only as per the strength of
their relative population. While, the justification of the second
chamber in the states was never fully established clearly, that of
the one at the Centre, as N.G. Ayyangar held the view, was “to
hold dignified debates on important issues and to delay the
legislation which might be the outcome of the passions of the
moment.”
With regard to the position of the Supreme Court as the
highest judicial organ of the integrated judiciary, the Union
Constitution Committee accepted the recommendations of the
Ad-hoc Committee on Supreme Court that the Supreme Court
would have:
i. the exclusive jurisdiction over the centre-unit and the inter-

unit disputes;
ii. ultimate jurisdiction on matters arising out of the union
government's treaties with foreign states;
iii. Concurrent jurisdiction with High Courts on disputes relating
to the fundamental rights;
iv. appellate jurisdiction similar to that of the Privy Council; and
v. advisory jurisdiction. while, on Ayyar’s resolution in the
Constituent Assembly giving the high courts powers to
issue writs, as with the Supreme Court, on cases involving
fundamental rights.
The Constituent Assembly debates relating to the discretionary

powers of the Governor, according to Clause 9 of the Provincial
Constitution Committee’s report, suggested that the governor
would act in his discretion in matters such as:
i. prevention of any grave menace to the peace and

tranquility of the province or any part thereof;
ii. the summoning and dissolving of the provincial legislature;
iii. the superintendence, direction and control of election; and
iv. the appointment of the Chairman and the members of the
Provincial State Commission and the Provincial Auditor
General.
The Drafting Committee only replaced the word ‘governor’s

‘discretion’ by the word governor's ‘pleasure.’
The emergency powers of the Centre as exercised through the
Parliament and the President of India were loaded in favour of
the Union Government, reducing the states to the position of
glorified municipalities, while keeping the liberties of the people at
the mercy of the centre. The major reason behind this was the
framers (and Ambedkar’s) concern for the country’s integrity and
stability in abnormal situations. Article 365 was, indeed, the last
stroke on the state’s autonomy empowering the President to
declare “constitutional breakdown” in the event of states not
complying with the directions of the centre.
The comprehensively-worded Constitution, with the least and
the most important articles, some even temporary and
transitional, forced the framers of the Constitution to devise the
multi-method procedures of amendment. The result was an
amendment every half-yearly on an average.
The efforts of the Constituent Assembly to frame a Constitution
for independent India within a period of three years were indeed
laudable. The framers were naturally to draw a lot, both from
sources internal (for example, the Government of India Act,
1935) and external (numerous Constitutions of the world notably,
the British, the American, the Irish, the Canadian and the like).
They were also to accommodate pressures of numerous shades
of opinions from within. The result was a “political” constitution
rather than a “social” one, a balance between, as Chaube says,
(Constituent Assembly and the Vision of the Future) “the claims
of stability and adaptability.” Placed between, he continues, “its,
own commitment to widespread socio-economic reforms,
repeated though rather vaguely promised and the pressure of the
propertied class, it upheld the claims of property and at the same
time confirmed its promises for socio-economic reforms ... “ The
Constitution, which ultimately came to the fore bore great
omissions, significant mistakes of commission, complicating
complaints, and overlapping provisions. And yet the work of
framing the Constitution was of immense importance.
Practice
Questions
1. Critically examine the legacy of the colonial

rule. (700-800 words)
2. Describe the main provisions of the
Government of India Act, 1919 or of the
Government of India Act, 1935. (700-800
words)
3. Enumerate the legacy of the Indian
National Movement. (700-800 words)
4. Explain the composition of the Constituent
Assembly. (200-250 words)
5. Give a brief account of the debates and
discussions of the Constituent Assembly in
its efforts at making the Constitution. (700-
800 words)
6. Write a brief note on the “Objectives
Resolution”. (200-250 words)
7. Give an account of numerous social and
political perspectives in the making of the
Indian Constitution. (700-800 words)
8. Discuss the Government of India Act, 1935 a
in detail. (700-800 words) |
Salient Features of The Indian
Constitution
: ndia is located in Southern Asia, bordering the Arabian

Sea in the west and the Bay of Bengal in the east, with
the Indian Ocean in the south, and the great Himalayas in
the north. Its neigh-bouring countries are Pakistan, Nepal,
Bhutan, China, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Sri Lanka and
Maldives. Its total area is 3,287,782 sq. km. —land, about
2,973,190 sq km and water, about 314,400 sq km. It has a
coastline of about 7000 km. Its population as in July 2007
stood at 1,129,866,154. The age structure is: 0-14 years,
31.8%; 15-64 years, 63.1%; 65 years and above 5.1%. The
percentage of various religious groups are: Hindus, 80.44%;
Muslims 13.42%, Christians, 2.3%; Sikhs 1.9%; others 1.8%;
unspecified 0.1%. Literacy stands at 65.38%; and life
expectancy at 69.2 years. Hindi is the official language,
though the Constitution recognises a total of 22 languages.
India Facts
e An area of over 12,65,000 sq miles (32,87,782 sq km)
of which 10,861 sq miles are included in the Union
Territories and the rest in the states. Other details
are: Expanse of the country is 3214 km north to
south; 2933 km east to west; while geographic
location is at latitude 8 4’ and 37 6’ North; longitude
68 7’ and 97 25’ East.
e There are 6,05,224 villages as against 4,689 towns;
5,767 tensils and 640 districts and 68.84 per cent of
the population lives in villages while 31.16 per cent
lives in urban areas.
e The population (in 2011) stood over 121.01 million
(decadal population growth 17.69 per cent).
According to a 1998 UN estimate 975.8 million ,
population density is 386 (2008 estimate); projected
population is 144.8 million for 2025 estimate). Hindus
constitute 80.44 per cent, Muslims 13.42 per cent,
and other religions together 6.14 per cent. As many
as 1,652 languages are spoken of which 24
languages are spoken by over a lakh people each,
and these 22 have, accordingly, been included in the
Eighth Schedule of the Constitution.
e 74.04 per cent of the population (2011) is literate. (In
1951, it was only 18.33 per cent). Life expectancy is
69.2 years.
e Every man and woman of 18 and above is an elector
for the House of the People and Legislative
Assembly. During the fifth general elections in 1971,
the number of persons on the electoral roll was 290
million. On the revision of the electoral roll, in 1986,
this number rose up to 361 million; and as a result of
the lowering of the voting age to 18, in the 1989
elections, the number exceeded 490 million. In the
1996 polls the number of voters was more than 590
million. In 2004, the voters’ number was 675 million,
around seven hundred million in 2009 and in 2014,
716 millions.
e General elections have been held in 1952, 1957,
1967, 1971, 1977, 1980, 1984, 1989, 1991, 1996,
1998, 1999, 2004, 2009, 2014.
e The Constituent Assembly had its first sitting on
9.12.1946.
e The Draft Constitution of India, which was prepared
by the Drafting Committee of the Constituent
Assembly and presented by it to the President of the
Constituent Assembly on 21.2.1948, contained 315
Articles and 8 Schedules.
e The Constitution of India, as adopted on 26.11.1949,
contained 395 Articles and 8 Schedules. After
subsequent amendments, the Constitution as it stood
on 31.12.2008, contained about 450 Articles and 12
Schedules.
e Up to June 2015, the Constitution amendments
numbered 100. Amendment procedure refers to
Article 368 of the Constitution.
YN JS
India is a federal republic with 29 States and 7 Union

Territories; suffrage is universal at 18 years of age and
above. India had adopted a parliamentary system with
executive of two types (President as constitutional and
nominal head and Prime Minister as the head of the
government together with the Council of Ministers as the real
head). The Parliament is bicameral with the Home of the
People (545 members at present) and the Council of States
(total 250 members). The Supreme Court is the highest
judicial body.
The Constitution of India was the result of deliberations and
debates conducted in a democratic manner. The draft
Constitution was ready by February 1948. To it, no fewer than
7635 amendments were tabled by the members and as many
as 2473 were actually moved, discussed and disposed of.
From these deliberations emerged the Constitution of India,
which was adopted on November 26, 1949 and enacted on
January 26, 1950.
|. SOURCES OF THE CONSTITUTION

The 1950 Constitution, it is often said, was the result of
borrowings, both external as well as internal. Indeed, the
framers of the Indian Constitution were influenced by
numerous constitutions of the world. The major external
sources were the British Constitution, for example, which
did influence in matters such as:
(a) first past the post principle;
(b) parliamentary form of government;
(c) the idea of the rule of law;
(d) institution of the office of the Speaker of the Lok
Sabha and his role; and
(e) law-making procedure.
(f) Rule of law and equality before law
(g) Civil services and police systems
From the Constitution of the United States of America
were borrowed the ideas relating to:
(a) the charter of Fundamental Rights;
(b) the office of the Chairman of the Council of States
or the Vice-President; and
(c) the idea of judicial review as well as the concept of
independence of judiciary.
The Constitution of the Irish Free State helped us evolve
what is contained in Part IV, i.e., the Directive Principles of
State Policy. The concepts of liberty, equality and fraternity as
are found in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution were
inspired by the French Constitution. The Canadian
Constitution influenced the framers of the Indian Constitution
in matters relating to:
(a) the quasi-federal form of government (i.e., the
cooperative type of federation); and
(b) the idea of residual powers.
The Constituent Assembly of India borrowed those ideas
from other Constitutions, but adopted them to the Indian
conditions with changes here and there.
The Government of India Act, 1935, as the major internal
source, did influence the framers of the Indian Constitution.
Approximately 250 articles have been taken, either verbatim
or with minor changes from the Act of 1935 in the 1950
Constitution. Ivor Jennings says: “The Constitution (of India)
derives directly from the Government of India Act 1935 from
which, in fact, many of the provisions are copied almost
textually.” The Indian Constitution, indeed, owes a great deal
to the Act of 1935, both in language as well as in substance.
There is a phraseological resemblance between the Act of
1935 and the Constitution of India. This is evident mainly from
the following examples:
(1) Article 256 of our Constitution and Section 126 of the
Act of 1935 have almost the same language, word for
word: “The executive power of every state shall be so
exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws
made by the Parliament, and the executive powers of
the Union shall extend to the giving of such directions
to a state as may appear to the Government of India
to be necessary for that purpose”.
(2) Article 251 of the Indian Constitution and Section 107
of the Act of 1935 refer to the law passed by the
Parliament prevailing over the one passed by the
state legislature. There is hardly any difference in the
language used in the Constitution and the Act of
1935.
(3) Articles 352 and 353 of the Indian Constitution relating
to the declaration of emergency by the President
have much in common with Section 102 of the Act of
1935.
(4) Article 356 of the Indian Constitution deals with the
failure of the constitutional machinery in the states.
This terminology is almost the same as in Section 92
of the Act of 1935.
There are examples of the same principles and the same
essence in both the Act of 1935 and the Constitution of India.
Some such examples are:
The federal polity as envisaged in the Act of 1935 had
made the central government more powerful than the
provincial governments. The Constitution of India
follows almost the same pattern: the union government,
in many respects, has more powers than those of the
state governments.
. The Act of 1935 provided the division of powers into
three lists: the federal, the provincial and the concurrent,
having 59, 54 and 36 subjects respectively. In the Indian
Constitution, the lists are the Union (97 subjects), the
State (66 subjects) and the Concurrent (47 subjects).
The substance of thw subjects in both the lists are
similar, if not the same.
The Act of 1935 envisaged the federal scheme tilting
heavily towards centralisation, i.e. centralising
tendencies. The Constitution of India is structurally
federal, but the spirit is clearly unitary. The Governor-
General under the Act of 1935, for example, could
exercise vast powers over the provincial governments.
So does the President of India under the Constitution of
India: the declaration of emergency under Article 356 in
the States, and his powers to entrust the state civil
servants to do any central function.
The bicameral legislature at the Centre and in
provinces, as under the Act of 1935, is almost similar to
what we have in the Union government and in some of
the states in the Indian Constitution. The pattern of
nomination and that of election in both (the Act and the
Constitution) have hardly any difference.
Some unifying institutions under the Act of 1935 as also
in the Constitution of India are strikingly similar. The
provision of public service commissions, the control of
the Supreme Court over the High Courts, taking over
the administration of the states in normal and
emergency conditions, and the protection of minorities
are some such examples.
The above examples make no secret about the borrowings

from the Act of 1935. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the Chairman of the
Drafting Committee of the Constitution of India, himself
admitted when he observed: “As the accusation that the Draft
Constitution has reproduced a good part of the provisions of
the Government of India Act, 1935, | make no apologies.
There is nothing to be ashamed of in borrowing. It involves no
plagiarism. Nobody holds any patent rights in the fundamental
ideas of a Constitution. What | am sorry about is that the
provisions taken from the Government of India Act, 1935
relate mostly to the details of administration.”
In spite of its large borrowings and adaptations from the
Act, the Constitution of India is not the glorified edition of the
Government of India Act, 1935. Nor would one like to endorse
the observation of Punjab Rao Deshmukh that the
Constitution is the Government of India Act, 1935 with only
adult franchise added to it. There is, in fact, a lot that
separates the two:
(a) The Constitution is not the product of any foreign
government as the Act of 1935 was. The Preamble
of the Constitution clearly makes the people of
India as those who had resolved to adopt and enact
the Constitution.
(b) The Constitution of India in Part Ill provides a list of
fundamental rights, and Part-IV, a chapter on the
directive principles of state policy, as laying the
foundation of political democracy, and another, that
of social and economic democracy. The
Government of India Act, 1935 provided neither of
the two.
(c) The Government of India Act, 1935 embodied
franchise which was_ both limited and
discriminatory; a vast majority of the people
possessed no right to vote. The Constitution of
India provides universal adult franchise. Nor is
there the provision for communal representation in
the Constitution, a feature which was prominent in
the Act of 1935.
(d) The Government of India Act, 1935 did not provide
parliamentary form of government as there were
discretionary powers with the Governor-General in
the names of ‘reservation’ and ‘safeguards’. The
provincial autonomy granted in the Act of 1935 was
only an apology of autonomy. The Constitution of
India provides for a parliamentary system of
government, with the President as the head of the
State, and the Prime Minister as head of the
government, with the Council of Ministers
collectively responsible to the popular house of the
legislature, both at the Centre and the States.
(e) The Government of India Act 1935 provided for a
marked distinction between British India and
princely India. The Constitution of India has done
away with it. The whole country has a single
uniform polity with democratic set up all around.
(f) The Government of India Act 1935 made no
mention of the amendment procedure, a power
which the British Government in Great Britain only
possessed. But the Constitution of India vests the
power to amend the Constitution in which both, the
Union Government and the governments of the
states participate as provided under Article 368.
(g) The Government of India Act, 1935 had no
preamble. The Constitution of India has a preamble
which signifies the essence, aspirations and wishes
of the people of India and the type of government
which would be constituted in the country.
ll. PREAMBLE OF THE CONSTITUTION

The Constitution of India has a Preamble. It reads:
WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to
constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote
among them all;
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the
unity and integrity of the Nation; IN OUR CONSTITUENT
ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November 1949 do
HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES
THIS CONSTITUTION.
The words ‘secular’, ‘socialist’ and ‘integrity’ were added in
the Preamble through 42nd Amendment of the Constitution in
1976.
The Preamble, indeed, explains the intentions of the
framers of the Constitution. Professor Ernest Barker rightly
describes the Preamble as a keynote to the Constitution.
Justice Madhokar had observed in Sajjan Singh vs. The State
of Rajasthan (1965) that the Preamble had the stamp of ‘deep
deliberation’ ‘marked by precision’ and that was why the
framers had attached special significance to it, though at that
point of time, the Supreme Court did not regard the Preamble
as a part of the Constitution. Indeed, the Preamble did
contain the sentiments expressed by Nehru’s Objectives
Resolution (December 1946), yet it was not until 1973 that the
Supreme Court, in the Kesavananda Bharati case, reviewing
its earlier observations, recognised the Preamble not merely
a part, but an integral part of the Constitution. Justice
Jaganmohan Reddy observed in the above case: “It is an
admitted fact ... that the preamble of a statute is a key to open
the minds of the makers as to the mischief which are to be
remedied... it is properly resorted to where there are doubts
and ambiguities upon the words of the enacting part ...The
Preamble can never be resorted to, to enlarge the powers
confined to the general government. We have the strongest of
assurance that this Preamble was ., but a solemn
promulgation of a fundamental fact, vital to the character and
the operation of the government’, Justice Shelat and Justice
Grover had, then said, “.... The Preamble to the Constitution of
India embodies the great purposes, objectives and the policy
underlying its way into existence, i.e., a sovereign democratic
republic... the Constitution makers gave to the Preamble the
pride of place. It embodied in a solemn form all the ideals and
aspirations for which the country had struggled during the
British regime and a Constitution was sought to be enacted in
accordance with the genius of the Indian people. The
Preamble was to embody in a very few and well-defined
words is, in fact, a key and keynote (Earnest Barkar) to the
understanding of the Constitution.” The former chief Justice of
India, M. Hidayatullah points out: “It (the Preamble) is the soul
of our Constitution which lays down the pattern of our political
society which it states is a sovereign democratic republic.”
The Preamble is important in so far as it states the source
of authority. It says: “We the people of India, do hereby adopt,
enact and give to ourselves this Constitution.” It is also
important in so far as it states as to when the Constitution
was adopted: the adoption date was November 26, 1949. As
to the date on which the Constitution was enacted, it was
done on January 26, 1950 which is celebrated as the
Republic Day. It was a day when twenty years earlier (i.e.
January 26, 1930), Indians had celebrated their unilateral
independence.
The Preamble was significant in numerous other ways. It
stated: (a) the nature of polity the Indians were to adopt, and
(b) the objectives towards which the Constitution was to
strive.
Nature of Polity
The Preamble refers to the nature of polity to be adopted by
the Constitution. The polity is described as: (i) Sovereign, (ii)
Socialist, (iii) Secular [(ii) and (iii) were incorporated in 1976
through the 42nd amendment of the Constitution], (iv)
Democratic, and (v) Republic. A discussion of each of these
concepts seems both necessary and pertinent.
(i) Sovereign: The Preamble of the Indian Constitution says
that India is a sovereign nation. It is sovereign in the sense
that it is independent of any external power, ‘sovereign’
signifying ‘independence’ in its relations to other nations (See
Schwarzenberger, /nternational Law). There is also the
internal aspect of sovereignty which means supremacy of the
government over all individuals and institutions within its
territory; supreme in so far as it possesses the power to make
laws as defined by the Constitution. The concept ‘sovereign’,
in the context of the Preamble and our polity implies a
government which is independent of any external control,
notwithstanding our membership of any _ international
institution (United Nations, the British Commonwealth, any
UN specialised agency etc.), and also a government internally
supreme within the provisions of the Constitution.
(ii) Socialist: The 42nd amendment (1976) adds the word
‘socialist’ along with ‘sovereign’, declaring the intention of the
Constitution to bring about socialism. The concept ‘socialist’
in the Preamble is related to, as D.D. Basu opines, social
justice, i.e., ending poverty, ignorance and inequality of
opportunity. The ideas used while the amendment was being
introduced were: “The question of amending the Constitution
for removing the difficulties which had arisen in achieving the
objectives of the socio-economic revolution, which would end
poverty and ignorance and disease and _ inequality of
opportunity ....” Indeed, the Indian type of socialism was not
that of Marx—social ownership of all means of production and
distribution; it was, as per the Avadi session of the Congress
(1954), the Nehruvian socialistic pattern of society,
notwithstanding Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s propagandistic ’Garibi
Hatao’ slogan. The Supreme Court itself made the term
‘socialist’ clear in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983).
Justice D.A. Desai observed: “The principle and aim of a
socialist is to eliminate inequality in income and status and
standards of life. The basic feature of socialism is to provide a
decent standard of living to the working class, and especially
provide security from the cradle to the grave. Ordinarily, a
socialist aims at providing for free education from primary to
Ph.D., but the pursuit be by those who have necessary
intelligence quotient and not as in our society where a brainy
young man coming from a poor background will not be able to
pursue proper education for certain financial constraints,
whereas an ill-equipped person from a wealthy family would
be able to do the same, thus resulting in national wastage.
But this does not mean that an ill-equipped person would be
left unemployed and given no right to education. He shall also
be assured a decent standard of life, and exploitation in any
form shall be eschewed.”
Following the new economic policy since 1990s, all emphasis
on ‘socialism’ efforts have taken a backseat.
(iii) Secularism: The term ‘secular’ was added along with the
term ‘socialist’ through 42nd amendment (1976) in the
Preamble. Explaining the term, the statement of object and
reasons stated: “To spell out the high ideas of socialism,
secularism and the integrity of the nation.” It is necessary to
give these terms a real meaning so as to enable these to
“promote public good”. Justice Desai explained the meaning
of the word ‘secular’ in the case of Ziyauddin Burhamuddin
Bukhari vs. Briimohan Ram Dass Mehara and Bros.: “The
Secular State, rising above all differences of religion, attempts
to secure the good of all its citizens irrespective of their
religious beliefs and practices. It is neutral or impartial in
extending its benefits to the citizens of all castes and creeds.
Maitland has pointed out that such a state has to ensure,
through its laws that the existence or exercise of political or
civil rights or the right to capacity to occupy any office or
position under it or to perform any public duty connected with
it does not depend on the profession or the practice of any
particular religion.”
Indeed, the term ‘secular’ as Justice Gajendrajadkar also
says, means equality of rights to all the citizens with their
religion completely irrelevant to that matter. In his words: “The
State does not owe loyalty to any of the particular religion as
such; it gives equal freedom to all religions”. Secularism, in
the Indian context, means, the right of citizens to follow any
religion, separation of politics and religion, equal respect to all
the religions by the state and the state’s neutrality in respect
of religions. In case of St. Xavier’s College Society vs. The
State of Gujarat (1975), the Supreme Court admitted that
though the Constitution does not use the word ‘the secular
state’, yet it does not mean that the framers of the
Constitution did not want to establish such a state. In yet
another case, 7.M.A Pai Foundation vs. The State of
Karnataka (2002), it was held: “Although the idea of
secularism may have been borrowed in the Indian
Constitution from the west, it has adopted its own unique
brand of secularism based on its particular history and
exigencies which are far removed in many ways from
secularism in other countries. The Indian Constitution does
not, unlike the United States, subscribe to the principles of
non-interference of the State in religious organisations, but it
remains secular as it strives to respect all religions equally;
the equality being understood in its substantive sense.”
(iv) Democratic: The word ‘democratic’, though not used in
the objectives Resolution, was used in the Preamble so as to
assert people’s sovereignty. The term implies:
(a) universal adult franchise,
(b) free and fair elections,
(c) periodic elections,
(d) accountability,
(e) election at all levels of governance, and
(f) equal participation of all in the polity.
In the Kesavananda Bharati case, Justice Mathew had
observed: “The concept of democracy as visu-alised by the
Constitution presupposes the representation of the people in
the Parliament and the State Legislatures by the method of
election. it is obvious that the powers must be lodged
somewhere to judge the validity of the election, for otherwise,
there would be no certainty as to who were legitimately
chosen as members, and any intruder or usurper might claim
a seat, and thus trample upon the privileges and liberties of
the people.”
(v) Republic: The use of the word ‘republic’ in the Preamble
signifies on the one hand, a govern-ment in which the people
or community as a whole wields power, and on the other, a
polity opposed to the rule of any hereditary monarchy. The
word republic, in the Indian context, means that the head of
the state, i.e., the President of India, is not a hereditary
position and that any citizen can aspire to be the first citizen
of the country.
Objectives of the Constitution

The objectives, as stated in the Preamble are: Justice; social,
economic and political; Liberty of thought, expression, belief,
faith and worship; Equality of status and of opportunity and to
promote among them all; Fraternity assuring the dignity of
the individual and unity and integrity of the Nation.
(a) Justice: Justice is one of the ideals which is to be sought.
It is justice in the social sense which implies absence of all
distinctions — to be treated as an equal member of society
irrespective of caste, creed, colour, region, sex, language or
any of these. It is also justice in the economic sense.
Economic justice implies absence of economic exploitation-
none to be so poor that he sells himself off, and none to be so
rich that he has the power over the lives of others; it is
sufficiency for all before there is superfluity for the few—
absence of economic disparities, employment for all,
satisfaction of the basic needs of each and all. It is justice in
the political sense. Political justice implies a democratic
society with franchise for all. It is equal participation of all in
the affairs of the government with rights, liberties and
freedoms assured to every member of society.
(b) Liberty: Liberty, as an ideal, implies liberty of thought,
permitting everyone to hold his/her definite opinions. Liberty
of expression is the next step to the liberty of thought and
Opinion: what is an opinion until it is expressed? Both, the
liberty of thought and of expression are essential conditions of
a democratic functioning. If democracy is a form of
government in which everyone has a Say, it is, then, natural
that all should have equal right to express themselves. The
Constitution of India, through the Preamble, refers to freedom
of religion, i.e., everyone is free to have his/her religious
beliefs, his/her faith, as also the ways and the means through
which they worship. This freedom of religion has been
guaranteed through one of the fundamental rights as
enshrined in Articles 25 to 28 of the Constitution.
(c) Equality: The ideal of equality is related to: (a) equality of
status, and (b) equality of opportunity. Equality of status
implies that as members of society, all enjoy the some status
and society does not admit any distinction, nor does it bestow
any privilege on some at the cost of others. Equality of
opportunity implies that opportunities would be available to all
equally Equal opportunities are likely to ensure equal benefits
in which no one is preferred to another. The incorporation of
equality in the Preamble is a type of equality which is one that
has been clearly qualified. It is equality in relation to liberty on
the one hand and in relation to justice on the other.
(d) Fraternity: There is the ideal of fraternity incorporated in
the Preamble. The word ‘integrity’ was added through 42nd
amendment of the Constitution in 1976. The Supreme Court
of India in its decision in the case of Raghunath Rao vs.
Union of India (1993) explains ‘fraternity’ to mean a sense of
common brotherhood of all Indians; a common citizenship.
India, being a land of diversities, may be threatened by
disruptive and divisive forces, and lest it become a prey to
such tendencies, the emphasis is laid on the unity and
integrity of the nation while assuring each individual his/her
dignity.
The importance of the Preamble can hardly be denied. It is, in
fact, a key to the Constitution, to its understanding embodying
not only the intentions and aspirations of the framers of the
Constitution, but also the ideals for which the Constitution has
been created. Some significant aspects of the Preamble do
not go without notice.
Firstly, the Preamble refers to the people of India having
resolved to constitute India into a defi-nite type of polity. The
word ‘people’ denotes all the people of India which means
that no particular section of the Indian people can ever
possibly opt out of the Constitution by disowning it. The Union
of India is not a federation in the sense that it is the product of
agreement among the various states. It may be noted that
‘the people’ and not ‘the states’ have made, adopted and
enacted the Constitution and that is why that the states can
never think of seceding from the Union: the unity and the
integrity of the nation are not the ones which are to be
questioned.
Secondly, the Preamble seeks to repeat much that is clearly
obvious, especially if one ponders over the words stating
India’s nature of polity. The words ‘sovereign’, ‘democratic’
and ‘republic’ duplicate, if not triplicate things. The word
‘sovereign’ does include the will of the people, democratically
structured. The word ‘republic’ too denotes elements of
democracy. What makes these words clear is the fact that
independent India would have a democratic polity. The
insertion of ‘socialist’, ‘secular’, ‘integrity’ through the 42nd
amendment of 1976, and at a time of emergency, was formal
rather than real, propagandistic rather than substantive:
‘socialism’ has gone into disfavour since the 1990s and we
have not become more secular by inserting the word secular
in the Preamble.
Thirdly, the Preamble constitutes a wish list; ideals full of
promises and the path likely to be followed by the future
governments. Indeed, it makes certain concepts clear in what
they include, i. e. justice as social, economic and political;
liberty as of thought and of expression; equality of status and
of opportunity. But these are what is the minimum expected
as any government worth its name must have them. Then,
there are other terms such as ‘unity’ and ‘integrity’ — the
ideals which are on-going ones, impracticable at times. The
most minimums and the most maximums have been sought
to be combined in the Preamble.
Fourthly, the Preamble has been hailed as an integral part of
the Constitution; integral to the understanding of the
Constitution, and integral to clarify the ambiguities if and
when they arise. It is the Preamble, which is the repository of
what the framers had in mind. The intentions of the framers
can be known through the interpretations made by the courts,
possibly by the judges. The Preamble, therefore, is the only
reference on which the interpretation depends.
lll. MAJOR FEATURES OF THE CONSTITUTION

The Indian Constitution is unique in many respects. Its major
features are:
(i) It is the lengthiest Constitution. The 1950 Constitution had
395 Articles and 8 Schedules. Now with amendments, as till
June 2015, there have been 100 amendments and four new
schedules have made the Constitution really very lengthy.
Numerous factors have helped the Indian Constitution to be
the lengthiest one: a considerable number of amendments
deleting some 20 articles and adding another 70. Three parts
IVA, IXA, XIVA and four schedules 9, 10, 11, 12 have been
added. The inordinate length of the Indian Constitution is, in
part, due to its own character. The federal Constitution, as the
Indian Constitution is, is relatively longer. It contains the
Constitution of the States as well: 86 Articles in Part VI relate
to the forms of a standard constitution meant for the states
and the Union Territories. The numerous provisions relating
to problems peculiar to India have tended to enlarge the size
of her Constitution. As many as 16 Articles have been
devoted to the services under the Union and the States, 9 to
the official language, 9 to emergency provisions, 13 to special
classes such as the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes
(Part XIV, 308-323; Part XVII, 343-351; XVIII, 352-360; XIV
330-342).
The Constitution has also a chapter on ‘Elections’, another on
‘Miscellaneous Provisions’, and a third on ‘Temporary and
Transitional provisions’. According to M.V. Pylee “Almost
three-fourths of the Constitution is covered by the items
mentioned above and that explains the size of the
Constitution.”
In relation to other constitutions, the Constitution of India,
except that of the Ecaudor with its 444 articles, is lengthier.
The US Constitution has seven articles, the Chinese one has
138 articles, the present French Constitution has 92 Articles,
and the German Constitution has 146 Articles while the
Constitution of South Africa has 243 Articles, the Chinese
1982 Constitution has 138 articles, Pakistan’s 1973
Constitution has 280 articles, Japan’s Constitution has 103
articles.
(ii) The Constitution of India, in its method of amendment, is
partly flexible and partly rigid. Some provisions of the
Constitution of India can be amended through simple majority
of the two Houses of Parliament (articles relating to
citizenship, scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, etc.); and
other provisions of the Constitution (under Article 368) can be
amended by 2/3rd majority of the members present and
voting in each House of the Parliament which should include
the simple majority of the total House followed by the
approval of one-half of the States (articles relating to the
election of the President, powers of the Union and the States,
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts. Article 368
itself etc.). Some other provisions of the Constitution can be
amended through the two-third majority of the members
present and voting in each House of the Parliament (most of
the Constitution is amended by this procedure). The
amending method question was probably the least debated
and the least controversial. B.N. Rao, at one point of time,
suggested a _ two-fold procedure: the most important
provisions to be amended through two-third majority in each
house of Parliament and to be ratified by a similar majority of
the provincial legislatures, while the least important provisions
to be amended by a simple majority in Parliament. After
having deliberated on the amending procedure as followed in
the American, the Australian, and the Irish Constitutions, the
Constituent Assembly agreed to the three-fold methods as
stated above. Professor K.C. Wheare appreciated the
amending procedure of India which, according to him, was a
blend of rigidity (in so far as the rights of the States were
concerned) and _ flexibility (relatively for less important
provisions).
With regard to the number of amendments made in the
Constitution, the position is over one and a half amendment
per year on an average (till 2008, there had been 94
amendments in our Constitution). Though the relatively
numerous amendments have not disfigured the Constitution,
many of them were devoted to procedural and transitional
provisions.
(iii) The Federal system with strong centralising trends
constitutes another feature of the Indian Constitution, some
pointing at 75 per cent unitary and 25 per cent federal. The
system in India is described not as a federal state with unitary
features, but a unitary state with federal features. India is not
called a federation, but “a Union of States” (Article 1 of the
Constitution). India is rightly described as federal in form, but
unitary in spirit. What it means is that structurally the
Constitution provides a federal system:
(a) a written constitution stating the structure of
government at the Centre as well as in the States;
(b) a rigid constitution in so far as amendability
requires the conccurrence of the states concerned;
(c) distribution of powers with Union List (97 subjects;
the Union government has the power to make laws
over them), State List (66 subjects; the states’
governments possess the right to make laws over
them), and Concurrent List (47 subjects; both the
Centre and the States governments have the power
to make laws);
(d) power of the Supreme Court to settle disputes
where the Centre or any State is a party, or
disputes between the Centre and the States; and
(e) the bicameral legislature at the Centre, with the
Council of States representing the States.
And yet, the centralising features make the Centre more
powerful than the States. Distribution of powers favours the
centre. The centre plays a dominant role in the amendment of
the Constitution, single citizenship, integrated singular
judiciary, uniformity in matters relating to administration, the
dependence of states on Centre’s financial aid—all these
make the union government more powerful than the states.
(iv) India has a parliamentary system of government both,
at the Centre and in the States. The President of the Indian
Union and the Governors in the States are constitutional
rulers with nominal powers. They act on the advice of their
respective Cabinets which wield the real executive authority
in the Union or in the States as the case may be. Besides, as
is essential in a parliamentary system of government, the
executive is drawn (both at the Centre and in the States) from
the legislature itself and depends for its existence upon the
confidence that the legislature has in it. The ultimate
legislative and executive control is vested in the popular
house which is elected on the basis of adult suffrage. There
are also provisions for resolving differences between the
Houses by joint sessions. Thus, the makers of the
Constitution have followed the British model in setting up the
governmental machinery at the Centre as well as in the
States.
To adopt a parliamentary system in India was a fact with
which the Indian leadership was already attuned during the
days of the liberation struggle. The Nehru Committee report,
the Sapru report, and the Draft Constitution as published by
the socialists and the Hindu Mahasabha leaders had all
argued in favour of the parliamentary system. Explaining the
rationale in choosing parliamentary system, Nehru had stated
in the Lok Sabha on March 28, 1957, “We chose the system
of parliamentary democracy deliberately; we chose it not only
because, to some extent, we had always thought on those
lines previously, but because we thought it in keeping with our
own old traditions; not the old traditions as they were, but
adjusted to the new conditions and new surroundings. We
chose it—let us give credit where the credit is due—because
we approved of it’s functioning in other countries, more
especially in the United Kingdom.” However, the
Westminsteral model adopted in India is not completely that
of the United Kingdom. The President of India does not reign
as does the British head of the state; he/she alone decides as
to who would rule when the possibilities of making the
government are remote. He/She alone preserves, protects
and defends the Constitution (Article 60 of the Constitution).
(v) Integrated and relatively powerful judiciary is yet
another feature of the Constitution of India. The Supreme
Court is the custodian of the Constitution, of the federal
system, and of the rights of the people. It is the highest court
in the sense that it exercises supervisory and appellate
jurisdiction over the courts below it. It interprets both the
Constitution as well as the law. Though the Supreme Court of
India is not as powerful as is the American Supreme Court,
but it does have jurisdiction of giving advisory opinion; a
power not exercised by the Supreme Court in the United
States. The role of the Supreme Court of India in evolving the
concept of basic structure of the Constitution as a domain
outside the power of the Parliament has been, indeed,
significant. Through successive reviews, the Supreme Court
has, in the Kesavananda Bharati case, finally been able to
highlight the essence of the Constitution. The judicial review
power of judiciary is the power through which any law
contrary to the Constitution can be declared unconstitutional.
It is through this power that the Supreme Court is described
as the final interpreter of the Constitution. The courts have
exercised this power judiciously.
(vi) Secularism is one of the distinctive features of the Indian
Constitution. India, as a secular state does not profess any
state religion, nor does it discriminate against any. It also
does not allow its authority to be used for the propagation of
any religion or creed. Even in the formulation of its policies, it
is not guided by any religious principles. It is mainly
concerned with the social, economic and political welfare of
the people, leaving the religious matters to the individual as
his personal ones. In the words of K.M. Panikkar, “In the
composite secular state of India the political institutions are
based on the economic and social interests of the entire
community, without reference to religion, race or sect. All
enjoy equal rights, but no privileges ... All communities share
the power as they share the duties and responsibilities of
being a citizen.” Further, in the secular state of India, all
religions are treated alike. Freedom of conscience and free
profession, practice and propagation of the religion are
guaranteed; and every office from the highest to the lowest is
open to the members of every community. Equal care is
taken to see that there is no discrimination against any
linguistic section in the country. It has also been provided that
in the secular state of India no person can be compelled to
pay any tax for the promotion of any religion; nor may any
religious instructions be imparted in educational institutions
maintained wholly or partly out of state funds. However, the
religious denominations have been given the right to establish
and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes.
A secular state is not necessarily a godless state. The Indian
Constitution has recognised theexistence of God. The
President of India and other dignitaries have to take an oath,
when they have to either swear in the name of God or make a
solemn affirmation.
(vii) The Preamble of the Constitution clearly proclaims the
sovereignty of the people of India. It lays down: “We the
people of India having solemnly resolved to constitute India
into a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic...”.
Further, the people have, as is clear from the Preamble,
themselves adopted and enacted the Constitution. The
people are, thus, the ultimate masters under the Constitution.
If the Constitution is to be amended, the Parliament under
Article 368 has the power to do so. If it is to be repealed or
reframed, only the people of India as the sovereign can do so.
Every five years the people of India get an opportunity of
affirming their views and putting in power a party that is liked
by them. Thus, the ultimate seat of power is the people of
India. In Gopalan vs. State of Madras, Mr. Justice Shastri
observed: “There can be no doubt that the people of India in
exercise of their sovereign will as expressed in the Preamble,
adopted the democratic ideal which assures to the citizen the
dignity of the individual and other cherished human values as
a means to the full evolution and expression of his
personality, and in delegating to the Legislature, the
Executive and the Judiciary, their respective powers in the
Constitution, reserved to themselves certain fundamental
rights...”
(viii) The Indian Constitution has introduced the principle of
universal adult suffrage and has abolished the old system
of communal electorates. Now every person, man or woman,
of eighteen years of age or above has the right to vote in the
elections to the House of the People and the State Legislative
Assembly. The provisions of the Constitution have been
hailed as the ‘fountain-spring of India’s democracy’, for it has
swept away at one stroke all antiquated and undemocratic
qualifications prescribed to be eligible for voting. Under the
Government of India Act 1935, only ten per cent of India’s
population had the right to vote. Now, in free India every
citizen of 18 or above is entitled to this elementary right of
citizenship. Besides, the abolition of communal electorates
has gone a long way in burying the ghost of communalism.
The citizens of India now vote as individuals and not as
Hindus, Muslims or Christians.
(ix) The Indian Constitution in its Part Ill embodied a set of
fundamental rights and in Part IV A, a set of fundamental
duties (The fundamental duties were inserted through 42nd
amendment of 1976). The fundamental rights include right to
equality (Articles 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18), to freedom (Articles
19 to 22), against exploitation (Articles 23, 24) to freedom of
religion (Articles 25, 26, 27 and 28), to cultural and
educational rights (Articles 29, 30) and right to constitutional
remedies (Article 32). Property right which was a fundamental
right until 442 amendment (1978) is now an ordinary right.
The Supreme Court, through writs such as habeas corpus,
mandamus, prohibition certiorari, and quo warranto, protects
the fundamental rights of the people. The fundamental rights
are not absolute and can be enjoyed within reasonable
limitations. The fundamental duties, under Article 51A, include
duties such as abiding by the Constitution and respecting the
ideals and institutions like the National Flag and the National
Anthem; cherishing the noble ideals of national struggle for
freedom; upholding and protecting the sovereignty, unity and
integrity of India; defending the country; promoting harmony
and the spirit of common brotherhood; preserving the
composite culture; protecting natural environment; respecting
women; developing scientific temper; safeguarding public
property and abjuring violence and the like. The Swaran
Singh Committee had recommended these duties earlier in
1976.
(x) The Constitution, under Part IV (Articles 36 to 51),
mentions directive principles of state policy which
constitutes another feature of our polity. These directive
principles of state policy, though not justiciable, have been
regarded as fundamental in the governance of the country.
They serve as a national manifesto in the sense that the
governments in India would strive to implement them. They
include principles such as socialist, Gandhian and liberals.
They lay down emphatically that the state would ensure for its
people adequate means of livelihood, fair distribution of
wealth, equal pay for equal work, protection of child, and adult
labour, employment, and free and compulsory education for
children upto the age of fourteen. They also provide that the
State shall make effective provisions for public assistance in
the event of unemployment, old age, sickness, disability and
other cases of undeserved want, a living wage, conditions of
work assuring a decent standard of life, full enjoyment of
leisure, and social and cultural opportunities and raising the
level of nutrition as also of health. In addition to this, the
Directive Principles lay great emphasis on the promotion of
educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of
the people, especially of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes.
They also enjoin that the country’s foreign policy would
promote international peace and security. The general
tendency of these Directives is obviously to introduce a wide
measure of socialism in the economic sphere, to provide
social security and better standards of sanitation and care for
all, to emphasise the duty towards women and children and
the obligations towards backward and tribal classes. If all
these principles were carried out, wrote M.C. Chagla, “Our
country would indeed be a heaven on earth. India would then
be not only a democracy in the political sense, but also a
welfare state looking after the welfare of the citizens — a
state in which there will be economic equality between its
different citizens and in which every one would have the
same opportunity to educate oneself, to work and to reap the
reward of one’s labour.”
(xi) There are numerous other features of the Constitution as
well. Single citizenship, single judiciary, special assistance to
the weaker sections of society, etc. are some other features
of the Constitution. Of late, basic structure of the Constitution
assures that the governments would not deface the
Constitution. The courts, through what is called judicial
activism, have indicated a domain out of the reach for the
Parliament. These include: republican and democratic form of
government, federal character of the Constitution, supremacy
of the Constitution, parliamentary democracy, secularism, and
rule of law.
The substantive and procedural achievements of the
Constitution of India can be clearly noticed. The substantive
achievements, as Rajiv Bhargava (Politics and Ethics of the
Indian Constitution) notes, have been:
(a) universal suffrage in the face of ineliminable
traditional hierarchies;
(b) liberal individualism committed to civil liberties in a
context filled up with communitarian values
indifferent to individual autonomy;
(c) a commitment to group rights, especially related to
cultural minorities;
(d) caste-based affirmative action programme provided
to the depressed and
(e) asymmetrical federalism by introducing special
provisions for Jammu and Kashmir and the North-
east.
The procedural achievements of the Constitution, as
Bhargava indicates, have been:
(a) faith in political deliberation,
(b) the spirit of compromise and accommodation, and
(c) consensually reached decisions.
The major drawbacks of the Constitution, as indicated by
Bhargava are:
i. the Constitution has been unwieldy,

ii. it has been unrepresentative;
iii. it has been ambiguous, and
iv. it has been an alien document.
IV. TERRITORY
When India got independence, the country (after integration
of princely States), following the partition, formed itself into
types of states called Part A States, Part B States, Part C
States, and territories in Part D. The different types of States
are:
e Part A States, which were the former provinces, were

ruled by an appointed governor and elected state
legislature. The nine Part A States were Assam, West
Bengal, Bihar, Bombay, Madhya Pradesh (formerly
Central Provinces and Berar), Madras, Orissa, Punjab
and Uttar Pradesh (formerly United Provinces).
e The eight Part B States were formerly princely states or
groups of princely states governed by a rajpramukh.
They were Jammu and Kashmir, Hyderabad,
Saurashtra, Mysore, Travancore-Cochin, Madhya
Bharat, Vindhya Pradesh, Patiala and East Punjab
States Union (PEPSU), and Rajasthan.
e The ten Part C States included both, former princely
states and provinces. They were governed by a chief
commissioner. The Part C States included Delhi, Kutch,
Himachal Pradesh, Bilaspur, Coorg, Bhopal, Manipur,
Ajmer and Tripura.
A three-member States Reorganisation Commission headed

by Faze Ali (its two other members were K.M. Panikkar and
H.N. Kunzru) recommended the abolition of the earlier three-
fold classification of states and suggested the creation of
States on linguistic basis. Accordingly, the States
Reorganisation Act (1956) was passed with 14 states and 6
union territories. With the passage of time, there are now 29
states and 7 union territories. These are:
Table 17.1 States of India
1. Andhra Pradesh = 11. Jharkhand 21. Punjab
2. Arunachal 12. Karnataka 22. Rajasthan

Pradesh
3. Assam 13. Kerala 23. Sikkim

4. Bihar 14. Madhya 24. Tamil Nadu
Pradesh
5. Chhattisgarh 15. Maharashtra 25. Telangana
6. Goa 16. Manipur 26. Tripura
7. Gujarat 17. Meghalaya 2/. Uttar

Pradesh
8. Haryana 18. Mizoram 28.

Uttarakhand
9. Himachal 19. Nagaland 29. West

Pradesh Bengal
10. Jammu & 20. Orissa

Kashmir
Table 17.2 Union Territories
A. Andaman and Nicobar B. Chandigarh

Islands
C. Dadra and Nagar D. Daman and Diu

Haveli
E. Lakshadweep F. National Capital Territory

of Delhi
G. Puducherry
Article 1(1) of the Constitution described India, that is Bharat,
as the Union of States. Article 1(2) says that the states and
territories forming part of India shall be specified in the First
Schedule. Article 1(3) says that the territories of India shall
comprise:
(a) the territories of the states;
(b) the Union Territories specified in the First
Schedule; and
(c) such other territories as may be acquired.
Article 2 authorises the Parliament to admit into the Union or
establish new states. Article 2(3) of the Constitution states as
to how the new states can be formed and how alteration of
areas, boundaries or names of the existing States can be
changed. It says that the Parliament may by law:
(a) form a new State by separation of territory from any
State or by uniting two or more States, or parts of
States, or by uniting any territory to a part of any
State;
(b) increase the area of any State;
(c) diminish the area of any State;
(d) alter the boundaries of any State;
(e) alter the name of any State.
Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in
either House of Parliament except on the recommendation of
the President and unless where the proposal contained in the
Bill affects the area, boundaries or name of any of the States,
or the Bill has been referred by the President of the
Legislature of that State for expressing its views thereon
within such period as may be specified in the reference or
within such further period as the President may allow and the
period so specified or allowed has expired.
A brief description of how the number of States has
increased from 14 to 28 is given below:
(a) Bombay was divided into Maharashtra and Gujarat
in 1960.
(b) Dadra and Nagar Haveli became a Union Territory
by the 10th amendment in 1961.
(c) Goa, Daman and Diu became Union Territories by
the 12th amendment in 1962. Later, Goa was
conferred Statehood.
(d) Pondicherry (now Puducherry) was made a Union
Territory by the 14th amendment in 1962.
(e) Nagaland became a State in 1963 by the 13th
amendment.
(f) In 1966, the State of Punjab was bifurcated and the
State of Haryana was created. So was created the
Union Territory of Chandigarh; in 1971, the Union
Territory of Himachal Pradesh was elevated to
become a full-fledged State.
(g) In 1972, the Union Territories of Manipur and
Tripura became States; sub-state Meghalaya also
got statehood while two new Union Territories—
Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh—created.
(h) Sikkim was made an associated state by 35th
amendment (1974), and it became a full state by
the 36th amendment in 1975.
(i) In 1987, three new States of Mizoram, Arunachal
Pradesh and Goa came into being.
(j) In 2000, three new States —Chhattisgarh,
Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand), and Jharkhand —
came up. In 2014, Telangana became the 29th
state of India.
There have been changes in the names of the States. The
State of United Provinces became ‘Uttar Pradesh’ in 1950;
Madras became Tamil Nadu in 1969; Mysore became
Karnataka in 1973, Laccadive, Minicoy and Aminidivi islands
became Lakshdweep in 1973. The union territory of Delhi was
re-designated as the National Capital Territory of Delhi in
1992 by the 69th amendment. The demand for the creation of
new states has been one that has been asked from time to
time for political reasons. That is why the states which
numbered only 14 in 1956 have been 29 till 2014.
V. CITIZENSHIP
Citizenship is not only a matter of rights, it is also a matter of
duties. A citizen, by virtue of his citizenship, is entitled to
certain rights, and by the same token, is expected to perform
certain duties. His/her rights include franchise rights, right to
contest elections, right to hold public office, while his/her
duties would include payment of taxes or any other service
expected of him/her.
The Constitution of India confers citizenship on those who
are citizens, and not on aliens. In numerous articles, the word
‘citizen’ is used while in some others; the word ‘person’ is
used. This means that where the word ‘citizen’ is used, citizen
alone has the right to avail those rights, and where the word
‘person’ is used; any person (alien subject, a minor or a
citizen) can avail of this facility. For example, article 14 uses
the word ‘person’ to state a facility that is available to
everyone. It says: ‘The State shall not deny to any person
equality before law or equal protection of law’. The next
article, i.e., Article 15, says: ‘The States shall not discriminate
against any citizen on grounds, only of religion, race, caste,
sex, place of birth or any of them’. Where the word citizen is
used, it is the citizen’s privilege and not that of the alien. Alien
is a ‘person’, but he/she is not a ‘citizen’.
According to Article 5 every person who has domicile in the
territory of India and
(a) who was born in the territory of India; or
(b) either of whose parents was born in the territory of
India; or
(c) who has been ordinary resident in the territory of
India for not less than five years immediately shall
be a_ citizen of India, preceding such
commencement.
Article 6 says: “Notwithstanding anything in Article 5, a
person who has migrated to the territory of India from the
territory now included in Pakistan is entitled to be citizen of
India at the commencement of the Constitution if:
(a) he or either of his parents or any of his
grandparents was born in India as defined in the
Government of India Act, 1935 (as_ originally
enacted); and
(b) (i) in the case where such person has so migrated
before the nineteenth day of July,1948, he has
been ordinarily resident in the territory of India
since the date of his migration, or
(ii) in the case where such person has so migrated on
or after the nineteenth day of July, 1948, he has
been registered as a citizen of India by an officer
appointed in that behalf by the Government of the
Dominion of India on an application made by him,
therefore, to such officer before the
commencement of this Constitution in the form and
manner prescribed by the Government.’ provided
that no person shall be so registered unless he has
been resident in the territory of India for at least six
months immediately preceding the date of his
application.
But any person who has migrated to Pakistan permanently
or any person who is residing outside India permanently,
unless registered in both cases, by the diplomatic
representative of India, shall not be deemed citizen of India.
The Citizenship Act, 1955 prescribes that the citizenship
may be acquired as follows:
(a) Citizenship by birth. Every person born in India on
or after January 26, 1950, shall be a citizen of India
by birth.
(b) Citizenship by descent. A person born outside India
on or after January 26, 1950, shall be a citizen of
India by descent, if either of his parents is a citizen
of India at the time of the person’s birth.
(c) Citizenship by registration. Several classes of
persons (who have not otherwise acquired Indian
citizenship) can acquire Indian citizenship by
registering themselves to that effect before the
prescribed authority.
(d) Citizenship by naturalisation. A foreigner can
acquire Indian citizenship on application for
naturalisation to the Government of India.
(e) Citizenship by incorporation of territory. \f any
territory becomes a part of India, the Gov-ernment
of India shall specify the persons of that territory
who shall be the citizens of India.
The Citizenship Act, 1955, also lays down the citizenship of
India may be lost—whether it was acquired under the
Citizenship Act, 1955, or prior to it—under the provisions of
the Constitution (i.e. under Articles 5-8). It may happen in any
of three ways — renunciation, termination and deprivation.
(a) Renunciation is a voluntary act by which a person
holding the citizenship of India as well as that of
another country may abjure one of them.
(b) Termination shall take place by operation of law as
soon as a citizen of India voluntarily acquires the
citizenship of another country.
(c) Deprivation is a compulsory termination of the
citizenship of India, by an order of the Government
of India, if it is satisfied, for example, that Indian
citizenship had been acquired by a person by fraud,
or that he has shown himself to be disloyal or
disaffected towards the Constitution of India.
There is a provision of single citizenship in India, though we
have a federal system of government. The concepts of dual
citizenship and restricted facilities to the People of Indian
Origin (PIO’s) exist (the commonwealth citizenship).
Practice
Questions
1. Describe the external sources of the

Indian Constitution. (200-250 words)
2. Do you think that the 1950 Constitution
is nothing but the Government of India
Act, 1935 with universal adult franchise
added to it? (700-800 words)
3. State the internal and external sources
of the Constitution of India. (700-800
words)
4. Write a detailed essay on _ the
significance of the Preamble to the
Constitution of India. (2013) (700-800
words)
5. Critically discuss the nature of polity
enshrined in the Preamble of the
Constitution. (700-800 words)
6. Elucidate five features of Indian
Constitution you think important. (700-
800 words)
7. Write a note on the demand for the
creation of new states in India. (2012)
(200-250 words)
8. How can you explain that India is a
secular state? (200-250 words)
9. Write a _ brief note on _ Indian
‘Citizenship’. (200-250 words)
10. Explain the words ‘Liberty’, ‘Equality’,
and ‘Fraternity’ enshrined in the to the
Constitution. (200-250 words)
Indian Constitution: Amendment
Procedure And Basic Structure
Doctrine
Ty he state’s life has to be vibrant if it has to go along with

the dynamic developments, and cater to the needs of
the society. The circumstances keep changing,
continuously. A state’s constitution drafted at a particular time
and in a particular context may prove inadequate at a later
stage. It is, therefore, important that the Constitution lives in
accordance with the changing times. To change the
constitution is to amend it through a method. The amendment
method keeps the constitution in pace with the changing
times.
|. AMENDMENT: MEANING AND DEFINITIONS

Amendment of the Constitution, in our discipline, means
modifications in the Constitution by way of addition, deletion
or correction so as to suit it to the needs of the present.
Institutions which help administer the society keep changing
continually: sometimes these institutions are scrapped for
new ones; sometimes they are altered while at others they
are done away with. All these are done through amendments
made in the laws, statutes, conventions, and the Constitution.
Amendments make such changes.
“Amendment”, according to Oxford’s Dictionary of Law,
“means changes made to legislation for the purposes of
adding to, correcting or modifying the operation of the
legislation.” Black’s Law Dictionary defines amendment as “a
formal revision or addition proposed or made to a statute,
constitution, pleading, order, or other instrument.” The
Kesavananda Bharati case provides the best explanation of
what constitutes an amendment: “A broad definition of the
word “Amendment” will include any alteration or change. The
word ‘amendment’ when used in connection with the
Constitution, may refer to the addition of a provision on a new
and independent subject, complete in itself and wholly
disconnected from other provisions, or to some particular
article or clause, and is then used to indicate an addition to,
the striking out, or some change in that particular article or
clause.”
Amendment in the context of the Constitution, thus, means
any change, alteration, addition, deletion or correction in any
law or article or clause of the Constitution.
Constitutions, in the context of amendments, are either
described as flexible, rigid or partly flexible and partly rigid. A
Constitution is flexible when the law-making procedure and
the amending procedure is the same, i.e., when the same
simple majority procedure is used in making the law as well
as in amending any article, clause or law. Flexibility amounts
to the amendment as if the new law is being made: a new law
changing the earlier law. A law is made through a simple
majority (i.e. 50.1 percent at least). When such a majority is
required to amend any law, any article or any clause of the
constitution, the constitution is said to be a flexible one.
A constitution is rigid when the amending procedure is
different than the law-making proce-dure. The law is made by
a simple majority (i.e. 50.1 percent). If the amending
procedure requires a different that is a higher majority, the
Constitution is said to be a rigid constitution. A rigid
constitution is one where the amendment procedure is
different from the one followed in making the law.
The partly flexible and the partly rigid constitution is one
where there are more than one amendment procedures and
where in amending certain articles of the constitution, simple
majority procedure is resorted to while in others, absolute
majority (more than 50.1 percent) procedure is followed.
The English Constitution follows the flexible method of
amendment when a new law replaces the older law. The
American Constitution is an example of a rigid constitution: an
amendment proposal can be initiated by the Congress or by
the states (Seeking amendment by a convention supported by
two-third majority); such an amendment proposal has to be
passed in each House of the Congress by two-third majority
and then the said proposal has to be ratified by three-fourth of
the States. The Swiss Constitution also provides for a rigid
method of amendment, one where the citizens also
participate in ratifying the amendment proposal. The Indian
Constitution is an example of both a partly flexible and partly
rigid constitution.
ll. WHY AMENDMENT?

A constitution is a system of fundamental laws or principles
for the performance of a nation. It differs from a law or statute
in that a law or a statute provides, at least, to a certain
degree, the details of the subject it treats, whereas the
Constitution usually states the general principles and
framework of the law and government. Permanence and
generality are the main characteristics of most of the
Constitutions in the world. As a rule, a Constitution does not
deal in detail but enunciates the general principles and
directions, for the framers of the Constitution cannot
anticipate conditions which may subsequently arise in the
progress of a nation. It is, indeed, unwise to provide
immutable rules for future exigencies which are at best dimly
perceived and which can be best dealt with by the legislature
keeping in view the unfolding circumstances. Besides, a
modern democratic Constitution not only establishes the
basis of the governmental system but also serves as an
effective means of public welfare, and this warrants its
adaptability more than anything else.
The idea of a rigid Constitution is logically untenable; for
human societies grow and develop with the passage of time
and, unless a provision is made for such constitutional
readjustments, as the internal development of society
requires, they must stagnate and retrogress. Moreover, a
Constitution that does not provide for a formal method of
amendment leaves room for unconstitutional and violent
changes. C.J. Friedrich rightly observes that “a well-drawn
Constitution will provide for its own amendment in such a way
as to forestall, as far as is humanly possible, revolutionary
upheavals.”
In view of the need for changes in the Constitution of India,
the framers of the constitution did not opt for a very rigid
procedure for amendment as is usually the case with federal
constitutions, and preferred a “facile procedure”. However,
they did not make the procedure so easy that it made the
Constitution unstable. They tried to strike a balance between
constitutional stability and change. Unlike many written
constitutions which have only one procedure for affecting “any
change of any kind in any part of the Constitution’, the
Constitution of India provides for a variety of procedures to
amend it—a feature which has been commended by K.C.
Wheare for the reason that uniformity in the amending
process imposes “quite unnecessary restrictions on the
amendment of parts of a Constitution.” As Nehru had said:
“While we want this (the Indian) Constitution to be solid and
permanent as we can make it, there is nothing permanent in
the Constitution. There should be certain flexibility. If you
make anything rigid and permanent, you stop the nation’s
growth, the growth of a living vital organic people.” The nature
of the amending procedure depends on the nature of the
constitution. The opposite is also true: an evolved constitution
usually has a flexible procedure; this is not true about the
written constitution; a written constitution provides for a
special majority for amending the constitution. China’s
constitution requires a two-third majority of the legislature for
an amendment to be carried out. Usually the unitary states
have a flexible procedure and the federal states, a rigid
procedure. For an amendment, a flexible constitution cannot
go with a federal government, nor a rigid constitution, with a
unitary government.
lll. PROCEDURE OF AMENDMENT IN INDIA

The founding fathers of our Constitution intended our
Parliament, elected on the basis of universal adult suffrage, to
be powerful enough to make changes in the Constitution
when needed for social and economic transformation.
Therefore, they made several provisions of the Constitution
amendable by a simple majority of Parliament. Part XX of our
Constitution consisting only of Article 368 deals with the
power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and procedure
thereon. It reads as under:
368. Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and
procedure therefore...
(1) Notwithstanding, anything in the Constitution,
Parliament may in exercise of its constituent power
amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any
provision of this constitution in accordance with the
procedure laid down in this article.
(2) An amendment of this Constitution may be initiated
only by the introduction of a Bill for the purpose in
either House of Parliament, and when the bill is
passed in each House by a majority of the total
membership of that House, and by a majority of not
less than two-thirds of the members of that House
present and voting, it shall be presented to the Presi
dent who shall give his assent to the Bill and
thereupon the Constitution shall stand amended in
accordance with the terms of the Bill:
Provided that if such amendment seeks to make any change
in
(a) Article 54, Article 55, Article 73, Article 162, Article
241, or
(b) Chapter IV of Part V, Chapter V of Part VI, or
Chapter | of Part XI, or
(c) Any of the Lists in the Seventh Schedule, or
(d) The representation of States in Parliament, or
(e) The provision of this Article,
The amendment shall also require to be ratified by the
Legislatures of not less than one-half of the States by
resolutions to that effect passed by those Legislatures before
the Bill making provision for such amendment is presented to
the President for assent.
(3) Nothing in Article 13 shall apply to any amendment
under this amendment.
(4) No amendment of this Constitution (including the
provisions of Part Ill) made or purporting to have
been made under this article (whether before or after
the commencement of Section 55 of the Constitution
(Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976) shall be called
in question in any court on any ground.
(5) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that
there shall be no limitation whatever on the
constituent power of Parliament to amend by way of
addition, variation or repeal the provisions of this
Constitution under this Article.
In the above text, the amplified marginal heading to the
article, clauses 1 and 3 and amendment in clause 2, were
inserted by the 24 th Amendment Act, 1971 and clauses 4
and 5, by the 429d Amendment Act, 1976.
The Constitution provides for three categories of
amendments. The first category includes those amendments
which can be affected by Parliament by a simple majority
which is required for passing any ordinary law. The
amendments contemplated in Articles 4, 169, para 7 (2) of
Schedule V and para 21 (2) of Schedule VI fall within this
category and are specifically excluded from the purview of
Article 368. Those amendments which can be affected by
Parliament by a prescribed ‘special majority’ constitute the
second category. And the third category consists of those
amendments which require, in addition to such “special
majority”, ratification by at least one-half of the States
Legislatures.
(a) Amendment by a Simple Majority

The following constitutional provisions can be amended by a
simple majority at the instance of the Union government:
i. Admission of a new state under Article 2, along with the

consequential amendments in Schedule | (which
defines the territory of a State) and Schedule IV (which
deals with the allocations of seats to a State in the
Rajya Sabha);
ii. Provisions relating to the citizenship of India, Article 11;
iii. Provisions relating to the exercise of executive power by
a State or its officers in respect of a matter over which
Parliament has power to make laws; Article 73 (2);
iv. Provisions relating to the salaries and allowances of
ministers: Article 75(6) and the consequential
amendments to Schedule II;
v. Provisions to the salaries and allowances of the
Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of the House of the
People, and the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman of
the Council of States: Article 97 and the consequential
amendments to Schedule II;
vi. Provisions relating to the salaries and allowances of the
Members of Parliament Article 106;
vii. Provisions relating to the number of judges in the
Supreme Court; Article 124 (1);
viii. Provisions relating to the privileges, allowances and
rights of judges of the Supreme Court; Article 125 (2);
ix. Provisions relating to appeals to the Supreme Court;
Article 133 (3);
x. Provisions relating to review of the judgments of the
Supreme Court: Article 137;
xi. Provisions relating to the salaries and allowances of the
Comptroller and the Auditor-General; Article 148 (3) and
the consequential amendments to Schedule Il;
xii. Provisions relating to the composition of the Legislative
Councils; Article 172 (2);
xiii. Provisions relating to the salaries and allowances of the
judges of the High Court: Article 221(2) and the
consequential amendments to Schedule Il;
xiv. Provisions relating to English language; Article 343 (3);
xv. Provisions relating to the language to be used in the
Supreme Court and the High Courts: Article 348 (1);
xvi. Provisions relating to the creation of Legislature and
Council of Ministers for a Union Territory: Article 239 A.
xvii. Provisions relating to the administration and control of
the Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes: Para 7 of
Schedule V; and
xviii. Provisions relating to the administration and control of
Tribal Areas: Para 21 of Schedule VI.
In addition to Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution

in the aforesaid areas, the State Legislative Assemblies also
have the power to amend Article 164(5) which relates to the
salaries and allowances of ministers in the States.
Strictly speaking, the amendments in the aforesaid areas
cannot be called constitutional amendments, because, for
these amendments the procedure laid down in Article 368
(which specially deals with amendments of the Constitution)
is not required to be followed. However, it is averred here that
these are amendments to the constitution in as much as the
Constitution stands amended, albeit by simple majority.
(b) Amendments at the Instance of the State
Governments
The amendments at the instance of the state governments fall
under two categories: (a) some of the provisions of the
Constitution can be amended at the instance of a State, and
(b) some can be amended in consultation with the States.
The provisions relating to the Upper House in a state fall
under the first category. Whether a State will create or abolish
an Upper House, entirely depends on the will of the State.
When, under Article 169, a state assembly passes a
resolution by a majority of not less than two-thirds of its
members present and voting for having or abolishing its
Upper House, Parliament may pass a law in this behalf by a
simple majority. Once such a law is passed, the Constitution
stands amended.
The provisions relating to the formation of a state and
alteration of the boundaries or name of a State fall under the
second category. Under Articles 3 and 4, Parliament has the
power to form new states and alter the boundaries and
names of the existing states. It can also make consequential
changes in Schedules | and IV. Parliament can do so by
passing a law by a simple majority. But no such Bill can be
introduced in Parliament except on the recommendation of
the President. When such a law is going to affect the area,
boundary or name of a State, the bill has to be referred to the
legislature of the affected state for its views thereon within
such period as may be specified in the reference (this period
may be extended by the President). Once such a law is
passed, the Constitution stands amended accordingly.
(c) Amendment by two-third Majority and with the

Concurrence of Half of the States
The following constitutional provisions can be amended by a
two-third majority and with the concurrence of half of the
States:
i. Mode and manner of the election of the President of

India: Article 54 and 55;
ii. Extent of the executive power of the Union: Article 73;
iii. Extent of the executive power of the States: Article 162;
iv. Constitution of a High Court for a Union Territory: Article
241;
Vv. Provisions relating to the Union judiciary: Chapter IV of
Part V of the Constitution: Articles 124-127;
Vi. Provisions relating to the High Courts: Chapter V of Part
VI of the Constitution: Articles 214-231;
Vii. Provisions relating to the distribution of legislative
powers between the Union and the States: Chapter | of
Part XI of the Constitution of India: Articles 245-255;
Vili. Provisions relating to the three lists: Schedule VII;
Provisions relating to the representation of States in
Parliament: Article 80 and Schedule IV; and
Provisions relating to the amendment of the
Constitution: Article 368. For the amendment of the
aforesaid provisions of the Constitution, the procedure
laid down in Article 368 has to be followed.
(d) Other Provisions

The provisions other than those which have been discussed
under the previous two heads can be amended by a special
majority vote in Parliament, i.e., by a majority of the total
membership of each House of Parliament and by a majority of
not less than two-thirds of the members of each House
present and voting. For the amendment of these provisions,
no ratification by the States is required.
(e) Assent of the President
In each of the aforesaid cases, an amendment of the
Constitution can be initiated only by an introduction of a Bill in
either House of Parliament, and in each case the assent of
the President of India is obligatory. Without the assent of the
President the Constitution cannot be amended.
(f) Special Features of the Amendment Procedure

Of the three methods of amending the Constitution as
specified above, there are certain special features. Some of
these are:
Parliament and legislatures of the States participate in

the amendment procedure. There is no provision of any
special body for purposes of amendment.
. The State legislatures participate in the amendment
when changes are to be made in what is included in
Article 368.
. There is no provision for referendum in amendment
procedure in India.
Neither the States nor the people can initiate any
amendment proposal. Only the Parliament can initiate
such proposals.
There is no provision of any joint sittings of the two
Houses of the Parliament to remove the deadlock
relating to the amendment proposal.
Vi. The prior permission of the President is not required for
introducing the amendment bills.
Vil. The President can neither refuse nor withhold his/her
assent to the amendment bills passed by the
legislatures.
IV. AMENDMENTS MADE IN THE CONSTITUTION
The following constitute the brief summary of the
amendments made in the Constitution till October, 2007:
1. The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1950—This

amendment provided for several new grounds of
restrictions to the right to freedom of speech and
expression and the right to practice any profession or to
carry on any trade or business as contained in Article 19
of the Constitution. These restrictions are related to
public order, friendly relations with foreign States or
incitement to an offence in relation to the right to freedom
of speech etc. The amendment also inserted two new
Articles 31A and 31B and the Ninth Schedule to give
protection from challenge to land reforms laws.
2. The Constitution (Second Amendment) Act, 1952—By
this amendment, the scale or representation for election
to the Lok Sabha was readjusted.
3. The Constitution (Third Amendment) Act, 1954—This
amendment substituted entry 33 (relating to trade and
commerce) of List Ill (Concurrent List) of the Seventh
Schedule to make it correspond to Article 369.
4. The Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955—Article
31(2) of the Constitution was amended to re-state more
precisely the State’s power of compulsory acquisition and
requisitioning to private property. Article 31A of the
Constitution was also essential welfare legislation. Six
Acts were also included in the Ninth Schedule. Article
305 was also amended to save certain laws providing of
State Monopolies.
5. The Constitution (Fifth Amendment) Act, 1955—This
amendment made a change in Article 3 so as to
empower President to specify a time limit for state
legislature to convey their views on the proposed Central
laws affecting area, boundaries, etc., of their states.
6. The Constitution (Sixth Amendment) Act, 1956 — This
amendment made some changes in Articles 269 and 286
relating to taxes on sale and purchase of goods in the
course of interstate trade and commerce. A new entry
92A was added to the Union List of the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution.
7. The Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956—This
amendment Act purported to give effect to the
recommendations of the State Reorganisation
Commission and the necessary consequential changes.
Broadly, the then existing states and territories were
changed to have two-fold classification of states and
union territories. The amendment also provided for
composition of the House of the People, re-adjustment
after every census, provisions regarding the
establishment of new High Courts, High Court judges,
etc.
8. The Constitution (Eighth Amendment) Act, 1960—Article
334 was amended with a view to extending the period of
reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes and to the Anglo-Indian Community by
nomination in Parliament and in the State Legislatures for
a further period of ten years.
9. The Constitution (Ninth Amendment) Act, 1960—The
purpose of this amendment was to give effect of the
transfer of certain territories to Pakistan in pursuance of
the agreement extended between Governments of India
and Pakistan. This amendment was necessitated in view
of the judgment of Supreme Court in to Re Berubari
Union by which it was held that any agreement to cede a
territory to another country could not be implemented by
a law made under Article 3 but would only be
implemented by an amendment of the Constitution.
10. The Constitution (Tenth Amendment) Act, 1961—This
Act amended Article 240 and the First Schedule in order
to include areas of Dadra and Nagar Haveli as a Union
Territory and to provide for its administration under the
regulation making powers of President.
11. The Constitution (Eleventh Amendment) Act, 1961—
The purpose of this amendment was to amend Articles
66 and 71 of the Constitution to provide that the election
of President or Vice-President could not be challenged
on the ground of any vacancy in the appropriate electoral
college.
12. The Constitution (Twelfth Amendment) Act, 1962—This
amendment sought to include Goa, Daman and Diu as a
Union Territory and to amend Article 240 for the purpose.
13. The Constitution (Thirteenth Amendment) Act, 1962 —
By this amendment, a new Article 371A was added to
make special provisions with respect to state of
Nagaland in pursuance of an agreement between
Government of India and Naga People’s Convention.
14. The Constitution (Fourteenth Amendment) Act, 1962 —
By this, Pondicherry was included in the First Schedule
as a Union Territory, and this Act has also enabled the
creation of Legislature by Parliamentary law for Himachal
Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura, Goa, Daman and Diu and
Pondicherry.
15. The Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963—
This amendment provided for increase in the age of
retirement of High Court Judge and for the provision of
compensatory allowance to judges who are transferred
from one High Court to another. The Act also provided
for appointment of retired judges to act as judges of High
Court. Article 226 was also enlarged to empower High
Court to issue direction, orders or writs to any
Government authority, etc. The Act also provided for the
exercise of powers of Chairman of the Service
Commissions, in their absence, by one of their Members.
16. The Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963—
Article 19 was amended by this Act to impose further
restriction on the rights to freedom of speech and
expression, to assemble peaceably and without arms
and to form associations in the interests of sovereignty
and integrity of India. The oath of affirmation to be
subscribed by candidates seeking election to Parliament
and State Legislature have been amended to include as
one of the conditions that they will uphold the sovereignty
and integrity of India. The amendments are intended to
promote national integration.
17. The Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964
—Article 31A was further amended to prohibit the
acquisition of land under a person’s cultivation unless the
market value of the land is paid as compensation and the
definition of “estate” as contained in that Article had also
been enlarged with retrospective effect. The Ninth
Schedule had also been amended to include 44 more
Acts.
18. The Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 1966—
Articles 3 was amended by this Act to specify that the
expression “State” will include a union territory also and
to make it clear that the power to form a new state under
this Article includes a power to form a new state of union
territory by uniting a part of a state or a union territory to
another state or union territory.
19. The Constitution (Nineteenth Amendment) Act, 1966—
Article 324 was amended to effect a consequential
change as a result of the decision to abolish Election
Tribunals and to hear election petitions by High Courts.
20. The Constitution (Twentieth Amendment) Act, 1966—
This amendment was necessitated by the decision of the
Supreme Courts in Chandramohan vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh in which certain appointments of District judges
in State of Uttar Pradesh were declared void by Supreme
Court. A new Article 233A was added and the
appointments made by Governor were validated.
21. The Constitution (Twenty-first Amendment) Act, 1967—
By this amendment, Sindhi Language was included in the
Eighth Schedule.
22. The Constitution (Twenty-second Amendment) Act,
1969—This act was enacted to facilitate the information
of a new autonomous state of Meghalaya within state of
Assam.
23. The Constitution (Twenty-third Amendment) Act, 1969
—Article 334 was amended so as extend the safeguards
in respect of reservation of seats in Parliament and State
Legislatures for Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes
as well as for Anglo-Indians for a further period of ten
years.
24. The Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971
—This amendment was passed in the context of a
situation that emerged with the verdict in Golaknath’s
case by Supreme Court. Accordingly, this Act amended
Article 13 and Article 368 to remove all doubts regarding
the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution
including the Fundamental Rights.
25. The Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971—
This amendment further amended Article 31 in the wake
of the Bank Nationalisation case. The word ‘amount’ was
substituted in place of ‘compensation’ in the light of the
judicial interpretation of the word ‘compensation’
meaning ‘adequate compensation’.
26. The Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971
— By this amendment, the privy and privileges of the
former rulers of Indian states were abolished. This
amendment was passed as a result of Supreme Court
decision in Madhav Rao case.
27. The Constitution (Twenty-seventh Amendment) Act,
1971—This amendment was passed to provide for
certain matters necessitated by the reorganisation of
north-eastern states. A new Article 239B was inserted
which enabled the promulgation of Ordinances by
Administrators of certain union territories.
28. The Constitution (Twenty-eighth Amendment) Act, 1972
—The amendment was enacted to abolish the special
privileges of the members of Indian Civil Services in
matters of leave, pension and rights as regard to
disciplinary matters.
29. The Constitution (Twenty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1972
—The Ninth Schedule to the Constitution was amended
to include therein two Kerala Acts on land reforms.
30. The Constitution (Thirtieth Amendment) Act, 1972—The

purpose of the amendment was to amend Article 133 in
order to do away with the valuation test of Rs. 20,000 as
fixed therein, and to provide instead for an appeal to
Supreme Court in civil proceedings only on a certificate
issued by High Court that the case involves a substantial
question of law of general important and that in opinion of
High Court, the question needs to be decided by
Supreme Court.
31. The Constitution (Thirty-first Amendment) Act, 1973—
This Act inter alia raises the upper limit for the
representation of states in the Lok Sabha from 500 to
525 and reducing the upper limit for the representation of
union territories from 25 members to 20.
32. The Constitution (Thirty-second Amendment) Act, 1973
—This Act provided the necessary constitutional
authority for giving effect to the provision of equal
Opportunities to different area of the state of Andhra
Pradesh and for the constitution of an Administrative
Tribunal with jurisdiction to deal with grievances relating
to public services. It also empowered Parliament to
legislate for the establishment of a Central university in
the State.
33. The Constitution (Thirty-third Amendment) Act, 1974 —
By this amendment, Articles 101 and 190 were amended
in order to streamline the procedure of the resignation of
members of Parliament and State Legislatures.
34. The Constitution (Thirty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1974
—By this Act, twenty more land tenure and land reform
laws enacted by various State Legislatures were included
in the Ninth Schedule.
35. The Constitution (Thirty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1974 —
By this Act a new Article 2A was added thereby
conferring on Sikkim the status of an associate State of
Indian Union. Consequent amendments were made to
Articles 80 and 81. A new schedule, i.e., Tenth Schedule,
was added laying down terms and conditions of
association of Sikkim with the Union.
36. The Constitution (Thirty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1975—
This was enacted to make Sikkim a fulfledged State of
Indian Union and to include it in the First Schedule to the
Constitution and to allot to Sikkim one seat each in the
Council of States and in the House of the People. Article
2A and the Tenth Schedule inserted by the Constitution
(Thirty-fifth Amendment) Act were omitted and Article 80
and 81 were suitably amended.
37. The Constitution (Thirty-seventh Amendment) Act, 1975
— By this Act, Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh was
provided with a Legislative Assembly. Article 240 of the
Constitution was also amended to provide that as in the
case of other union territories with Legislatures, the
power of President to make regulations for the Union
Territory of Arunachal Pradesh may by exercised only
when the assembly is either dissolved or its functions
remain suspended.
38. The Constitution (Thirty-eight Amendment) Act, 1975—
This amended Articles 123, 213 and 352 of the
Constitution to provide that the satisfaction of President
or Governor contained in these Articles would not be
called in question in any court of law.
39. The Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1975—
By this Act, disputes relating to the election of President,
Vice-president, Prime Minister, and Speaker are to be
determined by such authority as may be determined by
Parliamentary Law. Certain Central enactments were
also included in the Ninth Schedule by this Act.
40. The Constitution (Fortieth Amendment) Act, 1976 —
This act provided for vesting in the Union of all mines,
minerals and other things of value lying in the ocean
within the territorial waters or the continental shelf or the
exclusive economic zone of India. It further provided that
all other resources of the exclusive economic zone of
India shall also vest in the Union. This act also provided
that the limits of the territorial waters, the continental
shelf, the exclusive economic zone and the maritime
zones of India shall be as specified from time to time by
or under any law made by Parliament. Also some more
Acts were added to the Ninth Scheme.
41. The Constitution (Forty-first Amendment) Act, 1976 —
By this Act, Article 316 was amended to raise the
retirement age of Members of State Public Service
Commissions and Joint Public Service Commissions
from 60 to 62 years.
42. The Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976
— This act made a number of important amendments in
the Constitution. These amendments were mainly for the
purpose of giving effect to the recommendation of
Swaran Singh Committee.
Some of the important amendments made are for the
purpose of spelling out expressly the high ideals of
socialism, secularism, and the integrity of the nation; to
make the Directive Principles more comprehensive and
giving them precedence over those Fundamental Rights
which have been allowed to be relied upon to frustrate
socio-economic reforms. The amendments Act also
inserted a new chapter on the Fundamental Duties of
citizens and made special provisions for dealing with
anti-national activities, whether by individuals or by
association. This amendment Act provided for the
creation of administrative and other tribunals for dealing
with such matters while preserving the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court in regard to such matters under Article
136 of the Constitution. Certain modifications in the writ
jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 were also
made.
43. The Constitution (Forty-third Amendment) Act, 1977—
This Act inter alia provided for the restoration of the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts,
curtailed by the enactment of the Constitution (Forty-
second Amendment) Act, 1976 and accordingly Articles
32A, 131A, 144A, 226A and 228A included in the
Constitution by the said amendment, were omitted by this
Act. The Act also provided for the omission of Article 31
which conferred special powers on Parliament to enact
certain laws in respect of antinational activities.
44. The Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978—
The right to property which had been the occasion for
more than one amendment of Constitution was omitted
as a Fundamental Right and it was made only as a legal
right. It was, however, ensured that the removal of the
right to property from the list of Fundamental Rights
would not affect the right of minorities to establish and
administer educational institutions of their choice. Article
352 of the Constitution was amended to provide “armed
rebellion” as one of the circumstances for declaration of
emergency. Internal disturbance not amounting to armed
rebellion would not be a ground for the issuance of a
proclamation. The right to personal liberty as contained in
Article 21 and 22 is further strengthened by the provision
that the law for preventive detention cannot authorise, in
any case, detention for a longer period than two months
unless an Advisory Board has reported that there is
sufficient cause for such detention. With a view to
avoiding delays, Articles 132 and 134 were amended and
a new Article 134A was inserted to provide that a High
Court should consider granting a certificate for appeal to
Supreme Court.
45. The Constitution (Forty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1980—
This was passed to extend safeguards in respect of
reservation of seats in Parliament and State Assemblies
for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes as well as for
Anglo-Indians for a further period of ten years.
46. The Constitution (Forty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1982—
Articles 296, 286 and 366 were amended to bring about
uniformity in tax rates.
47. The Constitution (Forty-seventh Amendment) Act, 1984
—This amendment is intended to provide for the
inclusion of certain land Reform Acts in the Ninth
Schedule to the Constitution with a view to obviating the
scope of litigation hampering the implementation process
of those Acts.
48. The Constitution (Forty-eight Amendment) Act, 1984—
The proclamation issued by President under Article 356
of the Constitution with respect to the State of Punjab
cannot be continued in force for more than one year
unless the special conditions mentioned in clause (5) of
the said Article demand otherwise.
49. The Constitution (Forty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1984 —
Tripura Government recommended, that the provisions of
the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution may be made
applicable to tribal areas of the state. The amendment
involved in this Act is intended to give a constitutional
security to the autonomous District Council functioning in
the State.
50. The Constitution (Fiftieth Amendment) Act, 1984—lt
was proposed to amend Article 33 so as to bring within
its ambit
the members of the Force charged with the protection of

property belonging to or in the charge or possession of
the state; or
. persons employed in any bureau or other organisation
established by the state for purposes of intelligence or
counter-intelligence; or
persons employed in or in connection with the
telecommunication systems set up for the purposes of
any Force, bureau of organisation.
51. The Constitution (Fifty-first Amendment) Act, 1984—

Article 330 has been amended by this Act for providing
reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes in Meghalaya,
Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram in
Parliament and Article 332 has been amended to provide
similar reservation in the Legislative Assemblies of
Nagaland and Meghalaya to meet the aspirations of local
tribal population.
52. The Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act, 1985
—Ilt amends the Constitution to provide that a Member of
Parliament or a State Legislature who defects or is
expelled from the party which set him up as a candidate
in the election or if an independent member of the House
joins a political party after expiry of six months from the
date on which he takes seat in the House shall be
disqualified to remain a member of the House. The Act
also makes suitable provisions, with respect to splits and
merger of political parties.
53. The Constitution (Fifty-third Amendment) Act, 1986 —
This Article provides that the Legislative Assembly of
Mizoram shall consist of not less than 40 members.
54. The Constitution (Fifty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1986—
This Act increased the salaries of Supreme Court and
High Court judges as follows:
Chief Justice of India Rs. 10,000 per month
Judges of Supreme Court Rs. 9,000 per month
Chief Justice of High Court Rs. 9,000 per month
Judges of High Court Rs. 8,000 per month
55. The Constitution (Fifty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1986—

Made special provisions in respect of Arunachal Pradesh
and fixed the strength of its Assembly at a minimum of 30
members.
56. The Constitution (Fifty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1987—
Fixed the strength of the Goa Legislative Assembly at a
minimum of 30 members.
57. The Constitution (Fifty-seventh Amendment) Act,
1987—Reserved seats for the Scheduled Tribes in the
legislative assemblies of the states of Arunachal
Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland.
58. The Constitution (Fifty-eighth Amendment) Act, 1987—
provided for an authoritative text of the Constitution in
Hindi language and gave the same legal sanctity to the
Hindi version of the Constitution.
59. The Constitution (Fifty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1988—1.
Facilitated the extension of President’s Rule in Punjab up
to three years. 2. Provided for the declaration of national
emergency in Punjab on the ground of _ internal
disturbance.
60. The Constitution (Sixtieth Amendment) Act, 1988—
Increased the ceiling of taxes on professions, trades,
callings, and employments from Rs. 250 per annum to
Rs. 2500 per annum.
61. The Constitution (Sixty-first Amendment) Act, 1989—
Reduced the voting age from 21 years to 18 for the Lok
Sabha and State Legislative Assembly elections.
62. The Constitution (Sixty-second Amendment) Act, 1989
—Extended the reservation of seats for the Scheduled
castes and Scheduled Tribes and special representation
for the Anglo-Indians in the Lok Sabha and the State
Legislative Assemblies for the further period of ten years
(i.e., upto 2000).
63. The Constitution (Sixty-third Amendment) Act, 1989—
Repealed the changes introduced by the 59th
Amendment Act of 1988 in relation to Punjab. In other
words, Punjab was brought at par with the other states in
respect of emergency provisions.
64. The Constitution (Sixty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1990—
Facilitated the extension of the President’s rule in Punjab
upto a total period of three years and six months.
65. The Constitution (Sixty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1990 —
Provided for the establishment of a multi-member
National Commission for Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes.
66. The Constitution (Sixty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1990—

Included 55 more land reform Acts of various states in
the Ninth Schedule.
67. The Constitution (Sixty-seventh Amendment) Act, 1990

—Facilitated the extension of the President’s rule in
Punjab upto a total period of four years.
68. The Constitution (Sixty-eighth Amendment) Act, 1991—
Facilitated the extension of the President’s rule in Punjab
upto a total period of five years.
69. The Constitution (Sixty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1991—
Accorded a special status to the Union Territory of Delhi
by designating it as the National Capital Territory of
Delhi. The amendment also provided for the creation of a
70-member legislative assembly and a 7- member
council of ministers for Delhi.
70. The Constitution (Seventieth Amendment) Act, 1992—
Provided for the inclusion of the members of the
Legislative Assemblies of National Capital Territory of
Delhi and the Union Territory of Pondicherry in the
electoral college for the election of the President.
71. The Constitution (Seventy-first Amendment) Act, 1992
—There have been demands for inclusion of certain
languages in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution.
This Act amends the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution
to include Konkani, Manipuri and Nepali languages.
72. The Constitution (Seventy-second Amendment) Act,
1992—For restoring peace and harmony in the areas of
the State of Tripura where disturbed conditions prevailed;
a Memorandum of Settlement was signed by
Government of India with Tripura National Volunteers on
August 12, 1988.
In order to implement the said Memorandum, Article 332
of the Constitution has been amended by the
Constitution (Seventy-second Amendment) Act, 1992 for
making a temporary provision for the determination of the
number of seats reserved for the Scheduled Tribes in the
State Assembly of Tripura, until the re-adjustment of
seats is made on the basis of the first Census after the
year 2000 under Article 170 of the Constitution.
73. The Constitution (Seventy-third Amendment) Act, 1993
—A New Part IX relating to the Panchayats had been
inserted in the Constitution to provide for, among other
things, Gram Sabha in a village or group of villages;
constitution of Panchayats at village and other level or
levels; direct elections to all seats in Panchayats at the
village and intermediate level, if any, and to the offices of
Chairpersons of Panchayats at such levels; reservation
of seats for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
in proportion to their population for membership of
Panchayats and office of Chairpersons in Panchayats at
each level; reservation of not less than one-third of the
seats for women; fixing tenure for five years for
Panchayats and holding elections within a period of six
months in the event of supersession of any Panchayat.
74. The Constitution (Seventy-fourth Amendment) Act,
1993 — Having regard to these inadequacies a new part
IX-A relating to the Municipalities has been incorporated
in the Constitution to provide for among other things,
constitution of three types of Municipalities, i.e. Nagar
Panchayats for areas in transition from a rural area to
urban area, Municipal Councils for smaller urban area
and Municipal Corporations for larger urban areas.
75. The Constitution (Seventy-fifth Amendment) Act, 1994
—Provided for the establishment of rent tribunals for the
adjudication of disputes with respect to rent, its regulation
and control and tenancy issues including the rights, title,
and interest of landlords and tenants.
76. The Constitution (Seventy-sixth Amendment) Act, 1994
— Included the Tamil Nadu Reservation Act of 1994
(which provides for 69 per cent reservation of seats in
educational institutions and posts in state services) in the
Ninth Schedule to protect it from judicial review. In 1992,
the Supreme Court ruled that the total reservation should
not exceed 50 per cent.
77. The Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act,
1995—Provided for reservation in promotions in
government jobs for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes. This amendment nullified the Supreme Court
ruling with regard to reservation in promotions.
78. The Constitution (Seventy-eighth Amendment) Act,
1995—Included 27 more land reform Acts of various
states in the Ninth Schedule. With this, the total number
of Acts in the Schedule increased to 284.
79. The Constitution (Seventy-ninth Amendment) Act, 1999

— Extended the reservation of seats for the SCs and
STs and special representation for the Anglo-Indians in
the Lok Sabha and the State Legislative Assemblies for a
further period of ten years (i.e., upto 2010).
80. The Constitution (Eightieth Amendment) Act, 2000—
Provided for an ‘alternative scheme of devolution’ of
revenue between the Centre and States. This was
enacted on the basis of the recommendations of the
Tenth Finance Commission which has recommended
that out of the total income obtained from Central taxes
and duties, twenty-nine per cent should be distributed
among the States.
81. The Constitution (Eighty-first Amendment) Act, 2000—
By this amendment the unfilled vacancies of a year which
were reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes for being filled up in that year in
accordance with any provision for reservations made
under Article 16 of the Constitution, shall be considered
as a separate class of vacancies to be filled up in any
succeeding year or years, and such class of vacancies
shall not be considered together with the vacancies of
the year in which they were filled up for determining the
ceiling of fifty per cent reservation against total number of
vacancies of that year.
82. The Constitution (Eighty-second Amendment) Act, 2000
—The amendment provides that nothing in Article 335
shall prevent the State from making any provision in
favour of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes for relaxation in qualifying marks in any
examination or lowering the standards of evaluation for
reservation in matter of promotion to any class or classes
of service or posts in connection with affairs of the Union
or of a State.
83. The Constitution (Eighty-third Amendment) Act, 2000—
The Act amended Article 243M of the Constitution to
provide that no reservation in Panchayats need be made
in favour of the Scheduled Castes in Arunachal Pradesh
wholly inhabited by tribal population.
84. The Constitution (Eighty-fourth Amendment) Act, 2001
—The Act amended provisions to articles 82 and 180 (3)
of the Constitution to readjust and rationalise the
territorial constituencies in the State, without altering the
number of seats allotted to each State in House of
People and Legislative Assemblies of the States,
including the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
constituencies, on the basis of population ascertained at
the census for the year 1991 so as to remove the
imbalance caused due to uneven’ growth of
populations/electorate in different constituencies. It is
also to refix the number of seats reserved for the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in the
House of the People and the Legislative Assemblies of
the States on the basis of the population ascertained at
the census for the year 1991 so as to remove the
imbalance caused due to uneven’ growth of
population/electorate in different constituencies.
85. The Constituent (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001—
This Act amended Article 164(A) of the Constitution to
provide for consequential seniority in the case of
promotion by virtue of rule of reservation for the
Government servants belonging to the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes. It also provides retrospective
effect from 17th day of June 1995.
86. The Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002—
The Act deals with insertion of a new article 21A after
article 21. The new article 21A deals with Right to
Education—‘“The State shall provide free and compulsory
education to all children of the ages of six to fourteen
years in such manner as the State may, by law,
determine.”
Substitution of new Article for Article 45. For Article 45 of
the Constitution, the following article shall be substituted,
namely, provision for early childhood care and education
to children below the age of six years. Article 45 states:
“The State shall endeavour to provide early childhood
care and education for all children until they complete the
age of six years.” Article 51A of the Constitution was
amended and a new clause (k) was added after clause
(j), which states that anyone, “(k) who is a parent or
guardian to provide opportunities for education to his
child or, as the case may be, ward between the age of
six and fourteen years.”
87. The Constitution (Eighty-seventh Amendment) Act,
2003—1In Article 81 of the Constitution, in clause (3), in
the proviso, in clause (ii), for the figures ‘1991’, the
figures ‘2001’ shall be substituted.
88. The Constitution (Eighty-eighth Amendment) Act, 2003
—Made a provision for service tax (Article 268-A). Taxes
on services are levied by the Centre. But, their proceeds
are collected as well as appropriated by both the Centre
and the States in accordance with the principles
formulated by Parliament.
89. The Constitution (Eighty-ninth Amendment) Act, 2003—
Bifurcated the erstwhile combined National Commission
for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes into two
separate bodies, namely, National Commission for
Scheduled Castes (Article 338) and _ National
Commission for Scheduled Tribes (Article 338-A). Both
the Commissions consist of a Chairperson, a Vice-
Chairperson and three other members. They are
appointed by the President.
90. The Constitution (Ninetieth Amendment) Act, 2003 — In
Article 332 of the Constitution, in clause (6), the following
proviso shall be inserted, namely: “Provided that for
elections to the Legislative Assembly of the State of
Assam, the representation of the Scheduled Tribes and
non-Scheduled Tribes in the constituencies included in
the Bodoland Territorial Area District, so notified, and
existing prior to the constitution of the Bodoland
Territorial Area District, shall be maintained.”
91. The Constitution (Ninety-First Amendment) Act, 2003—
Made the following provision to limit the size of Council of
Ministers, to debar defectors from holding public offices,
and to strengthen the anti-defection law:
i. The total number of ministers, including the Prime

Minster, in the Central Council of Ministers shall not
exceed 15 per cent of the total strength of the Lok
Sabha [Article 75(1A)].
ii. A member of either House of Parliament belonging to
any political party who is disqualified on grounds of
defection shall also be disqualified to be appointed as a
minister [Article 75(B)].
iii. The total number of ministers, including the Chief
Minister, in the Council of Ministers in a state shall not
exceed 15 per cent of the total strength of the
Legislative Assembly of that State. But, the number of
ministers, including the Chief Minister, in a state shall
not be less than 12 [Article 164(1A)].
A member of either House of a State Legislature
belonging to any political party who is disqualified on
grounds of defection shall also be disqualified to be
appointed as a minister [Article 164(1B)].
A member of either House of Parliament or either
House of a State Legislature belonging to any political
party who is disqualified on grounds of defection shall
also be disqualified to hold any remunerative political
post. The expression “remunerative political post”
means (i) any office under the central government or a
state government where the salary or remuneration for
such office is paid out of the public revenue of the
concerned government; or (ii) any office under a body,
whether incorporated or not, which is wholly or partially
owned by the central government or a state government
and the salary or remuneration for such office is paid by
such body, except where such salary or remuneration
paid is compensatory in nature (Article 361-B).
Vi. The provision of the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law)
pertaining to exemption from disqualification in case of
split by one-third members of legislature party has been
deleted. It means that the defectors have no more
protection on grounds of splits.
92. The Constitution (Ninety-second Amendment) Act,

2003—Included four more languages in the Eighth
Schedule. They are Bodo, Dogri (Dongri), Mathilli
(Maithili) and Santhali. With this, the total number of
constitutionally recognised languages increases to 22.
93. The Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2006—
Greater access to higher education including
professional education, is of great importance to a large
number of students belonging to the Scheduled Castes,
the Scheduled Tribes and _ other socially and
educationally backward classes of citizens. To promote
the educational advancement of the socially and
educationally backward classes of citizens, i.e., the Other
Backward Classes or of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes in matter of admission of students
belonging to those categories in unaided educational
institutions, other than the minority educational
institutions referred to in clause (1) of Article 30, the
provisions of article 15 were amplified. The new clause
(5) of said article 15 shall enable the Parliament as well
as the State Legislatures to make appropriate laws for
the above mentioned purpose.
94. The Constitution (Ninety-fourth Amendment) Act,
2006—Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh are to have a tribal
welfare minister each. Orissa and Madhya Pradesh still
have this provision (Article 164(1)): Article 164(1).
95. The Constitution (Ninety-fifth Amendment) Act, 2010—
Provides reservation for Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative
Assemblies from sixty to seventy years, till 2020.
96. The Constitution (Ninety-sixth Amendment) Act, 2011
— substitutes ‘Odia’ for ‘Oriya’.
97. The Constitution (Ninety-seventh Amendment) Act,
2012 — adds “co-operative societies” after the words “or
unions” in Article 19(I)(C) and inserts Article 43B and
adds Part-IXB.
98. The Constitution (Ninety-eighth Amendment) Act, 2013

—provides special responsibilities to the Government of
Karnataka with respect to a separate development board
for Hyderabad and Karnataka region.
99. The Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014—
provides for the appointment of National Judicial
Commission and amends Articles 124, 124A, 124B, 127,
128, 217, 222, 224A, 231. It may however, be,
mentioned that this 9th amendment has been declared
invalid by the Supreme Court.
100. The Constitution (Hundredth Amendment) Act, 2015
(June) — provides for exchange of certain enclaves from
India to Bangladesh and from Bangladesh to India i.e.
boundary settlement.
V. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS AND THE

SHIFTING JUDICIAL STANCE
The first attack on Parliament's power to amend the
Constitution came in Shankari Prasad case, soon after the
Constitution was promulgated. In this case, the First
Amendment Act was erroneously assailed on the ground that
it infringed upon the right to property, a Fundamental Right
(then), and attracted the prohibition of Article 13(2) of the
Constitution. In fact, the first constitutional amendment which
caused curtailment of Fundamental Rights was enacted by
the Provisional Parliament - the same body as the Constituent
Assembly (which continued to function as Parliament till the
new Parliament was elected after the first elections in 1952).
The amendment was, therefore, for act of the same persons
who had made our Constitution. On October 5, 1951, the
Supreme Court unanimously declared the impugned Act valid
on the ground that the power in exercise of which the
Amendment Act had been passed was a constituent power
and the validity of the exercise of that power was not within
the reach of the judicial process. Again, when the
Seventeenth Amendment was challenged in the Sajjan Singh
case, the Supreme Court examined inter alia the scope and
reach of the amending power and arrived at the conclusion
that the Court’s earlier decision in the Shankari Prasad case
was correct.
The Supreme Court, however, in 1967, usurped the power
of judicial review of constitutional amendments by the
narrowest margin when it declared in the Golaknath case that
the Fundamental Rights could not be abridged or taken away
even through the process of constitutional amendment.
Notwithstanding earlier decisions of the Court, the majority
led by Chief Justice K. Subba Rao and Hidayatullah Justice in
this case misconstrued Articles 368 and 13(2) and came to
the conclusion that Article 368 was controlled by Article 13(2).
The government passed the 24th Amendment superseding
the Golaknath decision. The amendment provided that the
power of Parliament to amend the Constitution was to be
found in Article 368; (b) the amending power was a
constituent power; (c) Parliament could amend any part of the
Constitution, including Part Ill; (d) it was obligatory for the
President to give assent to a bill amending the Constitution;
and (e) the provisions of Article 13 would not be applicable to
any amendment of the Constitution. The 24th Amendment to
the Constitution tried to bury the Golaknath decision
completely.
In 1972, the Supreme Court was called upon to consider
the validity of the 24th, 25th and 29th Amendments in the
famous Kesavananda Bharati case. The Golaknath decision
was also recon sidered. Kesavananda Bharati provided yet
another opportunity to the Supreme Court to rule upon the
limits of the amending power. In this case, the Golaknath
decision was over-ruled to the extent that the Court conceded
wider amending powers to Parliament and lifted the embargo
of Article
13 placed by the earlier Bench in the Golaknath case. But
the Court interpreted the 24th Amendment and consequently
Article 368 in its own way. It upheld the validity of the 24th
Amendment Act but at the same time declared that on the
basis of certain implied limitations, the amending power could
not damage or destroy the basic features of the Constitution.
The decision opened a Pandora’s box and _ created
uncertainty, as it did not specify the basic features of the
Constitution. In fact, the Court widened the basis of
Golaknath limitation and thereby the scope of judicial review.
Instead of resolving the controversy raised by the Golaknath
case, the Supreme Court through Kesavananda Bharati case
redefined the argument advanced in the earlier case. It
prevented the Fundamental Right plus much more from being
damaged or destroyed by constitutional amendment.
In 1975-76, during the period of internal emergency, the
government enacted the 39th Amendment Act which inter alia
inserted Article 329-A to validate the election of the Prime
Minister and to wipe off appeals and cross-appeals in the
election dispute that were lying before the Supreme Court of
India. The validity of the 39th Amendment was assailed on the
ground that it had violated the basic structure limitation laid
down in the Kesavananda Bharati case. The 39t? Amendment
was impeachable on moral and political grounds, but it could
not have constituted the basis for judicial invalidation.
However, the Court held that, since the 39!" Amendment had
not made any change in Article 368, the 24th Amendment
which laid the law in respect of the amending power could be
applied only as it was interpreted by the majority of judges in
Kesavananda Bharati. In sum, the Kesavananda Bharati ratio
was considered as binding on the Supreme Court, and the
Election case was decided accordingly. The counsel for the
government was left with a limited scope for arguing in favour
of the 39th Amendment and his argument rested on the
slippery ground that the impugned parts of the 39th
Amendment did not damage or destroy the basic structure of
the Constitution. Consequently, the impugned parts of the
39th Amendment were struck down on the basis of the basic
structure limitation, although there was no unanimity on the
basic features that had been violated by the amendment and
each judge chose his own path to invalidate the amendment.
The decision in the Election case provided a new
dimension to the theory of basic structure limitation. It
declared that the amending power was subject to the theory
of separation of power; that the amending power could not
become a judicial power; and that there was a difference
between the constituent power and the amending power.
Just as the 24th Amendment was enacted to supersede the
Golaknath decision, the Parliament added clauses (4) and (5)
to Article 368 through Section 55 of the 429d Amendment Act
to nullify the effect of the Kesavananda Bharati decision.
According to the two clauses, no court could question any
amendment of the Constitution on any ground and there were
to be no limitations on the constituent power of Parliament to
amend the Constitution. The 42" Amendment Act was a firm
communication to the Supreme Court to the effect that the
Parliament had an absolute power to amend the Constitution.
Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment Act amended Article 32(c)
to give preponderance to all the Directive Principles of State
Policy over the Fundamental Rights laid down under Articles
14, 19 and 31 and the government also demonstrated that it
needed an unfettered amending power to bring about
revolutionary socio-economic changes _ in __ society.
Subsequently, when the 429d Amendment was substantially
repealed by the Janata Government, the above mentioned
Sections 4 and 55 of the Amendment Act remained unaltered,
because the Congress which had a majority in the Rajya
Sabha refused to give its approval to the proposed changes
in respect of these two sections.
It was hoped that the 429d Amendment would take care of
the basic features theory and bring to an end the conflict
between the government and the judiciary over the amending
power. But that did not happen. Sections 4 and 5, inter alia,
came for judicial review in Minerva Mills case and the
Supreme Court affirmed the theory of basic structure and
revived the Kesavananda Bharati ratio. After the 24th
Amendment, the Golaknath decision had stood over-ruled,
and after the 42nd Amendment the Kesavananda Bharati
decision should have ceased to exist. But the apex court
through Minerva Mills case elbowed Section 55 out and
brought back Kesavananda Bharati case.
Further, the Supreme Court in P. Sambamurthy v. State of
Andhra Pradesh invalidated Clause 5 along with its proviso of
Article 371-D which had been introduced in the Constitution
by the 32nd Amendment Act, 1973; the proviso the Clause 5
had empowered the State Government of Andhra
Pradesh to modify or even nullify an award given against it
by the Administrative Tribunal constituted under Clause 3 of
the same Article. The five-member Bench headed by Chief
Justice Bhagwati declared the impugned part as shocking
and subversive of the principles of justice; the Court held that
it was violative of the basic structure doctrine and, therefore,
was unconstitutional. Thus, the Supreme Court knocked
down yet another constitutional amendment—an amendment
that had existed for twelve long years.
The above discussions clearly show that there has been a
steady usurpation expansion of judicial review power since
the Golaknath case. The Supreme Court, through
Kesavananda Bharati, and subsequent cases seems to have
firmly established its power of invalidating constitutional
amendments. However, it must be acknowledged that the
Supreme Court has not interfered in many cases on the basis
of “basic structure” doctrine; in particular, it has allowed the
socioeconomic changes to take place through the
constitutional amendments.
VI. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND SOCIAL

CHANGE
Various constitutional amendments have been enacted to
bring about important socio-economic changes. In fact, the
government had to take the help of Article 368 to implement
agrarian reforms, soon after the launching of our Constitution.
From the very beginning, many social legislations and
executive actions were held invalid by the Court.
Consequently, the Constitution had to be amended to
overcome the difficulties created by these judicial decisions.
Every amendment has been brought about with some specific
purpose. The amendments which aimed at ushering in a new
egalitarian social order are the First, Fourth, Seventeenth,
Twenty-fourth, Twenty-fifth, Twenty-sixth, Twenty-ninth,
Thirty-ninth, Fortieth, Forty-second, Forty-fourth, Forty-
seventh, Forty-ninth, Fifty-first, Sixty-fifth and Seventy-third to
Seventy-eighth.
The first major challenge to the Constitution came when the
Supreme Court held the abolition of Zamindari as void in
Kameneshwar Singh vs. State of Bihar, Ramesh Thaper vs.
State of Madras and Motilal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. The
Court invalidated the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, on the
ground that it discriminated between the rich and the poor in
determining the compensation for acquiring property. The
Court held that the compensation provided in the Act was
unjust, inequitable and in some cases _ illusory. The
government was committed to protect such legislations and,
therefore, came forward with the First Amendment, the main
object of which was to secure fully the constitutional validity of
abrogating Zamindari and Jagirdari laws in general, and of
certain specific State Acts, in particular. For this purpose the
amendment added Articles 31-A and 31-B. The famous IX
Schedule also came into being to preclude the judicial review
of the Acts in the Schedule.
Like the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment also
intended to bring the constitutional provisions in line with the
new social order. Difficulties arose once again because
decisions of the Supreme Court in cases like State of West
Bengal vs. Bela Banerjee, Dwarkadas Shriniwas vs. Sholapur
Spinning Co. Ltd. and State of West Bengal vs. Subodh
Gopal, the Court had given a very wide meaning to clauses (i)
and (ii) of Article 31 regarding the limitation against
compulsory acquisition of property. State’s power needed
redefinition in this context, so as to distinguish it from cases in
which the operation of regulatory or prohibitory laws of the
state resulted in deprivation of property. Further, the judicial
decisions interpreting the Fundamental Rights had raised
serious difficulties in the implementation of social welfare
programmes such as fixing the limit on agricultural holdings,
conferment of rights on tenants, proper planning of urban and
rural areas, clearance of slums, etc. The state also required
power to take over commercial or industrial undertaking or
other property in the public interest. Furthermore, the
government wanted certain acts to be protected and,
therefore, wanted to include them in the IXth Schedule.
The Fourth Amendment nullified the decision in the Bela
Banerjee case. It declared that the adequacy of
compensation for acquiring private property could not be
justiciable. The amendment also clarified the right of
Parliament or state legislature to make laws introducing State
monopoly in any trade or commerce. The government was
committed to see that the right to property did not come in the
way of social revolution. The first and the fourth amendments
were in pursuit of this object. When Kerala Agrarian Relations
Act, 1961, the Madras Land Reforms Act, 1961 (fixation of
ceiling on land), the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, and the
Maharashtra Agricultural Land Act, 1961 (ceiling and holding),
were struck down by the judiciary, the need for yet another
constitutional amendment was thus felt. The definition of the
term ‘Estate’ in Article 31-A was found lacking. According to
the Supreme Court it did not include lands held under ryotwari
settlement and also other lands which figure in land reforms
enactments. The situation became rather complicated as the
term ‘Estate’ had come to be defined differently in different
states. The Seventeenth Amendment Act was passed to get
over all these difficulties. The amendment defined ‘Estate’
widely by substituting old sub-clause (a) of Clause (2) of
Article 31-A with a new clause and added 44 statutes relating
to land reform in the Schedule. The Supreme Court though
struck down the various legislative, enactments it upheld the
power of Parliament to amend the fundamental rights in the
Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India Case in 1965.
An unfortunate situation arose in 1967 when the Supreme
Court in the Golaknath case revised its earlier stand and
declared that the fundamental rights could not be impaired or
taken away even through the process of amendment. This
was an erroneous decision, to say the least. It created a
political impasse and Indira Gandhi who had just established
herself in the internecine struggle ordered the mid-term poll.
The election was fought to seek popular sanction from the
electorate on the issue of parliamentary competence to
amend the Constitution, to implement the various socio-
economic programmes. Mrs. Gandhi got more than two-thirds
majority and that enabled her government to pass the
Twenty-fourth, the Twenty-fifth, the Twenty-sixth and the
Twenty-ninth Amendments.
The Twenty-fourth Amendment was passed to nullify the
effect of Golaknath case and to assert the Parliament’s right
to amend the fundamental rights. The amendment made it
abundantly clear that the Parliament had the power to amend
any part of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights.
The Supreme Court in the Bank Nationalisation case held that
the properties taken over by the state like banks and other
industrial units should be paid compensation according to the
market-value. The government had not proposed to pay the
fourteen nationalised banks the compensation according to
the market value and, therefore, the Supreme Court
invalidated the nationalization. To surmount the difficulties
created by the decision, the Twenty-fifth Amendment was
passed in 1971. The amendment substituted the word
‘compensation’ by the word ‘amount’ and forbade the courts
to go into the question of quantum of compensation. The
Twenty-fifth Amendment also authorised the government to
make laws to give effect to the Directive Principles specified
in clause (b) and (c) of Article 39. They were not to be
declared void on the ground that they took away any of the
fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14,19 and 31.
Thus, Article 31 (c) sought to subordinate the fundamental
rights to prevent concentration of wealth and to have
economic programmes that could subserve the common
good.
Indira Gandhi was committed to abolish Privy Purses of the
erstwhile rulers. She described the Privy Purses as
“anachronism” and got the princes derecognised and
abolished their special privileges and privy purses through
Presidential order. This Presidential order was challenged in
the Supreme Court and the Court gave its ruling against it.
The Twenty-sixth Amendment was subsequently enacted in
December 1971, to nullify the court decision and to abolish
the Privy Purses and special privileges of the princes. The
amendment was justified by the Prime Minister and the Law
Minister on the ground that it was necessary to transform the
economic and social structure of the Indian society.
The Twenty-ninth and Thirty-fourth Amendments also
belong to this category of amendments (made for socio-
economic change). The Twenty-ninth Amendment included
Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1969 and 1971, in the Ninth
Schedule of the Constitution which empowered the state
government to take over the land in excess of the ceiling
without paying compensation at the market value and the
thirty-fourth Amendment (1974) provided constitutional
protection to all the 17 land reforms Acts passed by different
states.
Another important constitutional development took place
when the Twenty-fourth, Twenty-fifth and Twenty-ninth
Amendments were challenged in the Supreme Court in the
Kesavananda Bharati case. Though the Supreme Court
reversed its earlier decision in the Golaknath case and upheld
Parliament’s right to amend the Constitution including the
fundamental rights, it held that the basic structure or
framework of the Constitution could not be amended. The
Court, thus, put fetters on Parliament's power to amend the
Constitution.
Again with a view to boost progressive measure the
government enacted Section 5 of the 39? Amendment Act
(1975) and the 40th Amendment Act (1976). The 39th and
40th Amendments added 38 and 64 new entries respectively
in the Ninth Schedule. Besides, the Acts relating to land
reforms, the aforesaid section of the 39° Amendment inter
alia inserted the Industries (development and regulation) Act,
1951, the Mines and Minerals (regulation and development)
Act, 1957, the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices
Act, 1969, the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, the
Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, the General
Insurance (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, the Sick Textile
Undertakings (taking over of management) Act, 1972, the
Coal Mines (taking over Management) Act, 1973 and the
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 in the Ninth
Schedule to pre-empt litigation. Similarly, the 40th
Amendment inter alia gave protection to certain Central laws
such as the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators
(forfeiture of property) Act, 1976, the Urban Land (ceiling and
regulation) Act, 1976, the Essential Commodities Act, 1955,
and certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, by
placing them in the Ninth Schedule. When the progressive
legislations conceived in the interest of the public are allowed
to be challenged in the court of law, the very purpose of
enacting these stands defeated. Hence, this exercise.
The much-discredited Forty-second Amendment was
brought about with a view to revising the Constitution. The
comprehensive amendment did not leave any important area
untouched. It inter alia sought to reassert once and for all the
supremacy of Parliament and its plenary powers to amend
any provision of the Schedule; incorporated in the Preamble
the words ‘Socialist’ and ‘Secular’; prescribed fundamental
duties for the citizens and established primacy of the Directive
Principles over certain fundamental rights.
The Forty-fourth Amendment omitted the right to property
from the list of fundamental rights to enable the Parliament to
go ahead with socio-economic measures unimpeded. And, on
the suggestion of the state governments of Assam, Bihar,
Haryana, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal and
the Administration of the Union Territory of Goa, Daman, and
Diu to include some of their Acts relating to land reforms in
the Ninth Schedule - the Forty-seventh Amendment Act,
1984, inserted as many as fourteen entries in the Schedule.
A couple of amendments have been made to help the
development of tribal areas and representation of tribal
people in the legislatures. The Forty-ninth Amendment
provides constitutional sanctity to the autonomous District
Council in the State of Tripura, meant to ensure rapid
development of tribal areas and self-governance by the
tribals. The Fifty-first Amendment changed Amendment 330
to provide for reservation of seats in the Lok Sabha for
Scheduled Tribes in Meghalaya, Nagaland, Arunachal
Pradesh, and Mizoram and Article 332 to provide for similar
reservation in the Legislative Assemblies of Nagaland and
Meghalaya.
The Sixty-fifth Amendment has brought in a quantitative
and comprehensive change in Article 338 of the Constitution.
It provides for a high level five-member National Commission
for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to investigate
and monitor all matters relating to the safeguards provided for
the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes under the
Constitution and law. It has also been vested with the power
to recommend suitable measures for the protection, welfare
and socio-economic development of the scheduled castes
and scheduled tribes.
The Sixth-sixth Amendment added a further group of land
reform enactments passed by the State legislatures of Andhra
Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka,
Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan,
Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and the Union
Territory of Pondicherry to the IXth Schedule of the
Constitution, so that they could remain outside the purview of
judicial review.
Moving on to the landmark Seventy-third Amendment of the
Constitution, it may be mentioned that the successive
governments have been making efforts to revitalise the
Panchayati Raj institutions in India. In 1989, Rajiv Gandhi's
government introduced 64th Constitution Amendment Bill in
Parliament and likewise in September 1990, V.P. Singh
government introduced the 74th Constitution Amendment Bill
but these efforts did not succeed because of the dissolution of
the Lok Sabha. It was only during P.V. Narasimha Rao’s
tenure as Prime Minister, the government succeeded in
passing the 73 Constitutional Amendment. This historic
amendment provides for an elaborate system of establishing
panchayats as units of self-government; it has added Articles
243-A to 243-O and a fresh Schedule XI enumerating the
powers and functions of Panchayati Raj institutions. The
constitutional amendment inter alia provides for a three-tier
model of Panchayati Raj and reservation of seats for
scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, and women in the
panchayats. It also provides for constituting a Finance
Commission for each state to look after the financial position
of Panchayati Raj institutions.
Again, the 74th Amendment is a very important one. It deals
with the establishment of municipalities as a part of the
Constitution. The amendment details the powers, duration,
election, finance, and other related matters of different types
of municipalities. It has added the Twelfth Schedule to the
Constitution wherein 18 subjects are mentioned for the
municipalities to handle.
The Seventy-sixth Amendment has been enacted to raise
the reservation quota of government jobs and seats for
admission in educational institutions in favour of socially and
educationally backward classes to 69 per cent in Tamil Nadu.
Further, the Amendment Act has been included in the IXth
Schedule to save it from judicial scrutiny. This has been done
at the behest of the Tamil Nadu government. All the political
parties in Tamil Nadu without exception put pressure on the
Union government for its enactment, no political party wanted
to miss an opportunity to have political mileage. However, this
Act was assailed on the basis of the Indra Sawhney v. Union
of India Case before the apex court.
The Seventy-seventh Amendment has added a new sub-
section 4(a) to Article 16 of the Constitution to enable the
state to make any provision for reservation in matters of
promotion in government jobs in favour of Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes, if it is of the opinion that they are
inadequately represented in services under the state. Some
other amendments such as 81St, 82nd, 84th, g5th, ggth, goth
make favourable relevant changes with regard to the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
The Seventy-eighth Amendment has been made to insert
land reforms Act once again of various States in the IXth
Schedule to give them constitutional protection from judicial
invalidation. The Amendment adds 27 land reform acts
bringing the total entries to 284 in the IXth Schedule.
The Eighty-sixth amendment (2002) inserts a new Article
21A granting Right to Education and in the process making
relevant changes in Article 45.
The above discussion clearly reveals the objects and
purposes of enacting various constitutional amendments.
Judicial invalidation of good number of socio-economic
legislative measures resulted in the enactments’ of
aforementioned constitutional amendments. However, the
enactment of such large constitutional amendments during
the last about sixty years cannot be justified. Undoubtedly,
while some of the amendments were a natural product of
evolution of the new political system, there were others which
sub-served only the political power. By way of illustration, it
may be mentioned that the purpose of rushing through the
38th Constitutional Amendment was only to prevent inquiry
into the constitutionality of the proclamation of internal
Emergency on June 26, 1975, and the following 39th
Amendment was masterminded to oust the jurisdiction of
courts retrospectively any petition challenging the Prime
Minister’s election. The much discussed 429d Amendment
was brought about to institutionalise emergency; it whittled
down fundamental rights and made serious inroads into our
democratic polity. Many have also questioned the wisdom of
enacting anti-defection law and blatantly discriminatory 59th
Amendment. There are also amendments which have not
only enlarged the size of Schedule IX, but have also changed
its content. There is, in fact, something called “politics of IXth
Schedule.”
To sum up, it can be said that the founding fathers of our
Constitution were keen to bring about socio-economic
revolution in free India through constitutional means and for
that, they deliberately provided for a facile procedure.
However, they did not make the procedure so easy that it
made the Constitution unstable.
Part XX of our Constitution containing Article 368 deals with
the power to amend the Constitution and the procedure
therefor. The multiple mechanism provided therein has its
own advantages. The original Article 368 and the subsequent
modifications to it through 24th and 42d Constitutional
Amendments leave no scope whatever for any kind of
limitation on the amending power.
However, the Supreme Court decided to put limitations on
the amending power while handing down its decision in the
Golaknath case in 1967, and in 1973, it further refined its
Golaknath ratio and introduced the ‘basic structure’ limitation
through Kesavananda. The subsequent decisions of the apex
court only reaffirm and reiterate the Kesavananda ratio.
On the other hand, the successive governments have
passed constitutional amendments to bring about important
socio-economic and political changes, on the other, certain
amendments smack of only politics and politicking. Also, it
has been noticed that on many occasions, when national
interest demanded, the ruling party received wholehearted
support from the opposition for the passage of constitutional
amendments.
In fact, there are two views about amending the Indian
Constitution. One, the Constitution has failed to deliver and it
needs to be changed lock, stock, and barrel; and two, the
Constitution has served us well by and large, and the
successive governments have been able to bring about
significant changes through the available mechanism under
the Constitution. Hence, the present arrangement is
satisfactory. The second view is supported here, as the
Constitution alone cannot bring in qualitative changes either
in the society or in the functioning of the government. Even
the best of Constitutions may not be of help so long our
society is inflicted with illiteracy, poverty, corruption and
lawlessness and we the people remain ‘soft’. This sentiment
has been succinctly expressed by Sabyasachi Mukherji, the
former Chief Justice of India in the following words:
“The root cause of India’s failure in many fields is not in the
structure of the Constitution, but because we have not
imbibed the requisite culture of living by constitutional
morality, respecting law and order and the principle of
accountability.”
He further added, “The constitution was intended to bring
about substantial changes in Indian society. In 1947, we
achieved the goal of national independence, but the parallel
goal of social, cultural, and economic revolution is still in the
process.”
Vil. BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE

The ‘basic structure’ doctrine emerged basically because of
two prominent factors: one, when the Parliament began
amending the constitution too oftenly, second, when the
Supreme Court began demonstrating shifting stances with
regard to Parliament's power of amending the Constitution.
Both the factors, indeed, were the cause and effect of each
other. With the intentions of preserving the original ideals
envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, the Supreme
Court pronounced that the Parliament could not distort,
damage or alter the basic features of the Constitution under
the pretext of amending power vested of what constitutes the
basic structure of the constitution in the Kesavananda Bharati
case (1973). In Nagraj vs. Union of India (2007) case, the
Supreme Court defined the term ‘basic structure’ as
“systematic principles underlying and concerning the
provisions of the Constitution. They give coherence and
durability to the Constitution. These are part of the
constitutional law if not express state... It is the court which
will determine the basic structure on the basis of facts in each
case that comes before it.”
It would be instructive, indeed, to go into the background of
the basic structure doctrine.
(i) The Position Before the Kesavananda Case

The Constitution of India empowers both the Parliament and
the state legislatures to make laws on subjects within their
respective jurisdiction. This power is, indeed, not absolute
because the judiciary, according to the Constitution, has the
power to adjudicate upon the constitutionality of all laws, and
in the process, declare any law ultra vires if it goes against
the Constitution: this is what is the power of judicial review.
But the framers of the Constitution wanted to make the
constitution an adaptable document and hence gave the
Parliament the power to amend the Constitution so to ward off
the judiciary in matters relating to the amendments made in
the Constitution.
The pre-Kesavananda position was that the Supreme
Court, at one stage of time (in Shankri Prasad Singh Deo vs.
Union of India case in 1951 and Sajjan Singh vs. The State of
Rajasthan case in 1965) upheld the power of Parliament to
amend any part of the Constitution including the fundamental
rights. In 1967, an eleven-judge bench of the Supreme Court
reversed its position when in the Golaknath vs. The State of
Punjab case, the apex court declared that the Parliament
cannot amend any article, including the fundamental rights, of
the Constitution and that Article 368 specifies the procedure
of amendment and that it does not give the Parliament any
power to amend the Constitution. Through a spate of
amendments made between July 1971 and June 1972 (24th
and other amendments), the Parliament restored for itself the
absolute power to amend any part of the Constitution
including Part Ill, dealing with fundamental rights. Even the
President was made duty bound to give his assent to any
amendment bill passed by both the Houses of the Parliament.
(ii) Emergence of the Basic Structure Concept—The

Kesavananda Case
Inevitably, the constitutional validity of the above
amendments was challenged before a full bench of the
Supreme Court (thirteen judges). Their verdict can be found
in eleven separate judgments. Nine judges signed a summary
statement which records the most important conclusions
reached by them in this case. Granville Austin notes that
there are several discrepancies between the points contained
in the summary signed by the judges and the opinions
expressed by them in_ their separate judgments.
Nevertheless, the seminal concept of ‘basic structure’ of the
Constitution gained recognition in the majority verdict.
All judges upheld the validity of the twenty-fourth
amendment saying that Parliament had the power to amend
any provision of the Constitution. All signatories to the
summary held that the Golaknath case had been decided
wrongly and that Article 368 contained both the power and
the procedure for amending the Constitution.
Seven of the thirteen judges in the Kesavananda Bharati
case, including Chief Justice Sikri who signed the summary
statement, declared that Parliament’s constituent power
was subject to inherent limitations. Parliament could not
use its amending powers under Article 368 to ’dam-age’,
‘emasculate’, destroy’, ‘abrogate’, ‘change’ or ‘alter’ the
‘basic structure’ or framework of the Constitution.
(iii) Basic Structure of the Constitution according to the

Kesavananda Verdict
Each judge laid out separately, what he thought were the
basic or essential features of the Constitution. There was no
unanimity of opinion within the majority view either.
Chief Justice Sikri, explained that the concept of basic
structure included:
supremacy of the Constitution

republican and democratic form of government
secular character of the Constitution
separation of powers between the legislature, executive
and the judiciary
e federal character of the Constitution
Justice Shelat and Justice Grover, added two more basic

features to this list:
e the mandate to build a welfare state contained in the
Directive Principles of State Policy.
e Unity and integrity of the nation.
Hedge and Mukherjee, Justices, identified a separate and

shorter list of basic features:
sovereignty of India
democratic character of the polity
unity of the country
essential features of the individual freedoms secured to
the citizens
e mandate to build a welfare state
Jaganmohan Reddy, Justice, stated that elements of the

basic features were to be found in the Preamble of the
Constitution and the provisions into which they translated
such as:
® sovereign democratic republic

e parliamentary democracy
e three organs of the State
He said that the Constitution would not be itself without the

fundamental freedoms and the directive principles.
Only six judges on the bench (therefore a minority view)
agreed that the fundamental rights of the citizens belonged to
the basic structure and Parliament could not amend it.
The minority view delivered by Justice A.N. Ray, Justice
M.H. Beg, Justice K.K. Mathew and Justice S.N. Dwivedi
also agreed that Golaknath had been decided wrongly. They
upheld the validity of all three amendments challenged before
the Court. Justice Ray held that all parts of the Constitution
were essential and no distinction could be made between its
essential and non-essential parts. All of them agreed that
Parliament could make fundamental changes in the
Constitution by exercising its power under Article 368.
In summary the majority verdict in Kesavananda Bharati
recognised the power of Parliament to amend any or all
provisions of the Constitution provided such an act did not
destroy its basic structure. But there was no unanimity of
opinion about what constituted the basic structure. Though
the Supreme Court very nearly returned to the position of
Shankari Prasad (1952) by restoring the supremacy of
Parliament's amending power, in effect it strengthened the
power of judicial review much more.
(iv) Basic Structure Concept Reaffirmed - The Indira

Gandhi Election Case
In 1975, the Supreme Court again had the opportunity to
pronounce on the basic structure of the Constitution. A
challenge to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's election victory
was upheld by the Allahabad High Court on grounds of
electoral malpractice in 1975. Pending appeal, the vacation
judge—Justice Krishna lyer, granted a stay that allowed Smt.
Indira Gandhi to function as Prime Minister on the condition
that she should not draw a salary and speak or vote in
Parliament until the case was _ decided. Meanwhile,
Parliament passed the Thirty-ninth Amendment to the
Constitution which removed the authority of the Supreme
Court to adjudicate petitions regarding elections of the
President, Vice-President, Prime Minister and Speaker of the
Lok Sabha.
Amendments were also made to the Representation of
Peoples Acts of 1951 and 1974 and placed in the Ninth
Schedule along with the Election Laws Amendment Act,
1975 in order to save the Prime Minister from embarrassment
if the apex court delivered an unfavourable verdict. The mala
fide intention of the government was proved by the haste in
which the Thirty-ninth Amendment was passed. The bill
was introduced on August 7, 1975 and passed by the Lok
Sabha the same day. The Rajya Sabha (Upper House)
passed it the next day and the President gave his assent two
days later. The amendment was ratified by the state
legislatures in special Saturday session. It was gazetted on
August 10.
Four out of five judges on the bench upheld the Thirty-
ninth Amendment, but only after striking down that part
which sought to curb the power of the judiciary to adjudicate
in the current election dispute. One judge, Justice Beg,
upheld the amendment in its entirety. Mrs. Gandhi’s election
was declared valid on the basis of the amended election laws.
(v) Basic Features of the Constitution according to the

Election Case Verdict
Again, each judge expressed views about what amounts to
the basic structure of the Constitution. According to Justice
H.R. Khanna, democracy is the basic feature of the
Constitution and includes free and fair elections. Justice K.K.
Thomas held that the power of judicial review is an essential
feature.
Justice Y.V. Chandrachud listed four basic features which
he considered unamendable:
e sovereign democratic republic status

© equality of status and opportunity.
e secularism and freedom of conscience and religion
e ‘government of laws and not of men’ i.e., the rule of law
Despite the disagreement between the judges on what

constituted the basic structure of the Constitution, the idea
that the Constitution had a core content which was
sacrosanct was upheld by the majority views.
(vi) Basic Structure doctrine reaffirmed—The Minerva

Mills and Waman Rao Cases
Within less than two years of the restoration of Parliament's
amending powers to near absolute terms, the forty-second
amendment was challenged before the Supreme Court by the
owners of the Minerva Mills (Bangalore), a sick industrial firm
which was nationalised by the government in 1974.
Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, delivering the majority
judgment (4: 1) upheld the power of judicial review of
constitutional amendments. It maintained that clauses (4) and
(5) of Article 368 conferred unlimited power on Parliament to
amend the Constitution. It said that this deprived courts of the
ability to question the amendment even if it damaged or
destroyed the Constitution’s basic structure.
The judges, who concurred with Chandrachud, C.J. ruled
that a limited amending power itself is the basic feature of the
Constitution.
In another case (Waman Rao vs. Union of India, 1981)
relating to a similar dispute involving agricultural property, the
apex court held that all constitutional amendments made after
the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment were open to
judicial review. All laws placed in the Schedule IX after the
date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment were open to
review in the courts. They can be challenged on the ground
that they are beyond Parliament’s constituent power or that
they have damaged the basic structure of the Constitution. In
essence, the Supreme Court struck a balance between its
authority to interpret the Constitution and Parliament’s power
to amend it.
In conclusion, it may be said that while the idea that there is
such a thing as a basic structure to the Constitution is well
established and its contents cannot completely be determined
with any measure of finality until a judgment of the Supreme
Court spells it out. Nevertheless, the sovereign, democratic
and secular character of the polity, rule of law, independence
of the judiciary, fundamental rights of citizens etc. are some of
the essential features of the Constitution that have appeared
time and again in the apex court’s pronouncements. One
certainty that has emerged is that all laws and constitutional
amendments are now subject to judicial review and that the
laws, which transgress the basic structure, are likely to be
struck down by the Supreme Court. Indeed, the Parliament's
power to amend the Constitution is not absolute and the
Supreme Court is the final arbiter, and interpreter of all
constitutional amendments.
Though the list of the basic structure cannot be enlisted, yet
certain decisions of the Supreme Court do provide indications
of the basic structure which can be enlisted as _ these:
supremacy of the Constitution; republican and democratic
form of polity; separation of powers; federal nature of India’s
federal structure; welfare state as indicated in the Directive
Principles; Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties;
individual freedom; fair and free elections; parliamentary form
of government; secularism; rule of law, etc.
It may, however, be stated that the basic structure is not
new to the Indian Constitution. There have been
unamendable provisions in some of the Constitutions in the
world, e.g., Articles 20 and 79 of the German Constitution
relating to democracy, republicanism, rule of law and human
rights cannot be amended; Article 139(republicanism) of the
Italian Constitution cannot be amended; Article 1 relating to
republicanism in the Turkish Constitution cannot be amended.
In the Australian Constitution, provisions relating to
parliamentary sovereignty, national flag and the federal polity
are not amendable.
Practice
Questions
1. Give clearly the meaning of

‘amendment’. (200-250 words)
2. How and on what bases the
constitutions are described as ‘flexible’,
‘rigid’, and ’partly flexible’ — ‘partly
rigid’. (200-250 words)
3. Why should the Constitution be
amended? (200-250 words)
4. Write a brief note on Article 368 of the
Constitution? (200-250 words)
5. How is the Constitution of India
amended? (700-800 words)
6. Describe briefly the features of the
amendment procedure in India? (200-
250 words)
7. State briefly the Supreme Court's
shifting stances on questions relating to
amendment. (700-800 words)
8. Write a detailed note on the ‘basic
structure’ doctrine of the Indian
Constitution. (2012) (200-250 words)
9. How’ have the _ constitutional
amendments helped in bringing about
change in India? Give examples. (700-
800 words)
10. What should constitute the basic
structure of the constitution? Support
your answer with arguments. (700-800
A
V
words)
Fundamental Rights, Directive
Principles And Fundamental Duties
LY ights are, Laski says, claims of social life, without

which no man can seek to be at his best self. They
help individuals develop their personality; they are
claims on others, on society; they emanate from our
membership of the society and as such are rewards for our
obligations to others; they are always social, and are never
against the society, above it or before it. The state recognises
certain individual rights, maintains, and protects them.
The Constitution of India, in Part Ill (Articles 12 to 35),
provides fundamental rights, and Part IV, (Articles 36 to 51)
explains directive principles of the state policy. Part IVA
(Article, 51A), inserted in the Constitution through 42nd
Amendment (1976), which deals with fundamental duties of
the Indian citizens.
I. DEBATES IN THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY

The concept of fundamental rights in the Indian constitution
derives its cue from numerous historical documents, such as
Britain’s Bill of Rights, the American Bill of Rights, and the
French Declaration of the Rights of Man. During the national
movement, an All-Parties Conference proposed, in 1928,
certain constitutional reforms. The Nehru Committee—an-
eleven-member Committee headed by Motilal Nehru—
suggested a list of fundamental rights, including the rights for
religious and ethnic minorities and others seeking to limit
government's powers. In 1931, the Indian National Congress,
at its Karachi session, adopted resolutions defining as well as
committing itself to defend fundamental civil rights, including
socioeconomic rights, such as minimum wages and the
abolition of untouchability and serfdom. Committing
themselves to socialism in 1936, leaders of the Congress
party draw examples from the Soviet Constitution, which
called for fundamental duties of citizens to serve as a means
of collective, patriotic responsibility.
The Constituent Assembly was convinced that a list of
constitutional rights should be a part of the Constitution for
reasons such as
(a) the Executive needs to be prevented from acting
arbitrarily;
(b) socioeconomic justice needs to be achieved by
ensuring certain objectives; and
(c) minority groups need to be assured of the
protection of their interests.
The liberal school, represented by K.M. Munshi, A.K.
Ayyar, and Thakurdas Bhargava in the Constituent Assembly,
sought negative rights, i.e., liberties against the possible
onslaughts of the government. The democratic left school,
represented by men like K.T. Shah, Damodar Swarup, and V.
P. Tripathi, suggested positive rights, i.e., guaranteed
socioeconomic rights for the common man. A sub-committee,
headed by Sardar Patel, decided to draw a distinction
between justiciable rights and non-justiciable rights. Two
schools emerged: one, seeking to incorporate as many rights
as possible, enforceable in a court of law; another, seeking to
restrict fundamental rights to a few essential things; with the
former favouring justiciable rights and the latter favouring
non-justiciable right. Thus, there emerged two parts in the
Constitution: Part Ill and Part IV dealing with the Fundamental
Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy
respectively: Fundamental rights as the soul of the
Constitution and the Directive Principles as the conscience of
the Constitution.
In addition to individual fundamental rights, (i.e., the rights
to equality, and freedom), there was a_ considerable
discussion on fundamental rights to be guaranteed to
religious and ethnic minority groups. Members of the
Constituent Assembly had already committed themselves to
protect the interests of the minorities. Moving a resolution,
while setting up an Advisory Committee on Fundamental
Rights and the Rights of Minorities, G.B. Pant stated: “A
satisfactory solution to questions pertaining to the minorities
will ensure the health, vitality, and strength of the free State of
India, unless the minorities are fully satisfied, we cannot make
progress”. In the wake of the partition of the country the
Constituent Assembly had, in early days of 1947, agreed on
the rights of the minorities to protect their cultures, but had
not accepted their claim to political rights for reservation seats
in legislatures. But sub-committee on minorities headed by
H.C. Mookherjee, in its report on July 27, 1947,
recommended that seats should be reserved for religious
minorities under joint electorates, that the interests of such
minorities need to be protected in the cabinet, that the
reservations for minorities should be provided in the services,
and that the independent officials should be appointed to
report to the legislature on the working of the safe-guards for
minorities. Sardar Patel’s Advisory Committee on
Fundamental Rights accepted most of the recommendations
of the Mookherjee sub-committee on August 8, 1947 and the
Constituent Assembly adopted the entire report of the
Advisory Committee on August 27 and 28, 1947 while in the
draft Constitution, these provisions were incorporated in Part
XIV, in February, 1948. However, the whole question with
regard to the political rights of the minorities was reopened in
December, 1948. The partition of the country had changed
the whole situation. Sardar Patel, as a result, tabled the report
of Advisory Committee to the Constituent Assembly in May,
1949, saying that the minorities, instead of having
reservations, need to play a definite role in the development
of a healthy nation and that their special claims have to be
harmonised with that role. Nehru had seen the germs of
separation in the reservation of political rights of the
minorities. Thus, the idea of reservation for the minorities was
dropped as politically divisive, though the cultural and
educational rights of the minorities were guaranteed in the
Constitution.
ll. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

The original Constitution (1950) had seven fundamental
rights, but as a consequence of the 44th Amendment in 1978,
the right to property was deleted from the list of fundamental
rights, and was declared as an ordinary right under Article
300A. Article 300A reads: No person shall be deprived of his
property save by authority of the law.
Article 12 is a general provision, which defines the word
‘State’ to include the Government and the Parliament of India
and the governments and legislatures of states and other
local authorities.
Article 13 clearly says that laws inconsistent with or in
derogation of the fundamental rights would stand void. It
further says that the State would not make any law which
takes away or abridges the fundamental rights and any law
made in contravention of this clause would stand void.
Furthermore, it says that nothing in this article (i.e., Article 13)
would apply to any amendment to the Constitution made
under Article 368.
Articles 33 and 34 relate to changes in these rights with
regard to armed forces and martial law. Article 35 empowers
the Parliament and not state legislatures to make laws with
respect to clause 3 of Article 16, and (3) of Articles 32, 33 and
34.
The fundamental rights as stated in Article 14 to 32 with the
exception of Article 31 and its other parts (now deleted) are
as under:
ll.(a) Fundamental Rights: Article-wise
1. Right to Equality
i. The State shall not deny any person equality before the
law or equal protection of the law within the territory of
India (Article 14).
ii. The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on
grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or
any of them [Article 15(1)].
iii. No citizen shall, on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex,
place of birth, or any of them, be subject to any
disability, liability, restriction, or condition with regard to:
(a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels, and

places of public entertainment; or
(b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads, and
places of public resort maintained wholly or partly
out of state funds or dedicated to the use of the
general public [Article 15(2)].
Nothing in this Article shall prevent the state from

making any special provision for women and children
[Article 15(3)).
. Nothing in this Article or in clause (2) of Article 29 shall
prevent the state from making any special provision for
the advancement of any socially and educationally
backward class of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes [Article 15(4)].
Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment
There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in

matters relating to employment or appointment to any
office under the state [Article 16(1)].
. No citizen shall, on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex,
descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be
ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of any
employment or office under the state [Article 16(2)].
Nothing in this Article shall prevent the Parliament from
making any law prescribing, in regard to a class or
classes of employment or appointment to an office
under the Government, or any local or other authority
within a state or union territory, any requirement as to
residence within that state or union territory prior to such
employment or appointment [Article 16(3)].
iv. Nothing in this Article shall prevent the state from
making any provision for the reservation of
appointments or posts in favour of any backward class
of citizens which, in the opinion of the state, is not
adequately represented in the services under the state
[Article 16(4)].
v. Nothing in this Article shall prevent the state from
making any provision for reservation in matters of
promotion to any class or classes of posts in the
services under the state in favour of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion
of the state, are not adequately represented in the
services under the state [Article 16(4A)].
vi. Nothing in this Article shall affect the operation of any
law which provides that the incumbent of an office in
connection with the affairs of any religious or
denominational institution or any member of the
governing body thereof shall be a person professing a
particular religion or belonging to a particular
denomination [Article 16(5)].
Abolition of Untouchability
“Untouchability” is abolished and its practice in any form is
forbidden. The enforcement of any disability rising out of
“Untouchability” shall be an offence punishable in accordance
with the law (Article 17).
Abolition of Titles
1. No title, not being a military or academic distinction, shall

be conferred by the state [Article 18(1)].
2. No citizen of India shall accept any title from any foreign
state [Article 18(2)].
3. No person who is not a citizen of India shall, while he
holds any office of profit or trust under the state, accept
without the consent of the President any title from any
foreign state [Article 18(3)].
4. No person holding any office of profit or trust under the
state shall, without the consent of the President, accept
any present, emolument, or office of any kind from or
under any foreign state [Article 18(4)].
2. Right to Freedom
1. All citizens shall have the right
(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) to form association or union, “cooperative societies”
(added by 97th amendment, 2012);
(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of
India, and
(f) to practice any profession and to carry on any
occupation, trade, or business [Article 19(1)].
The above freedoms have to be exercised within the
framework of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the
security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states,
public order, decency or morality; or in relation to contempt of
court, defamation or incitement to an offence; or reasonable
restrictions, in the interest of the scheduled castes and the
like [Article 19(2 to 6)].
Protection of Life and Personal Liberty
No person shall be deprived of his life or personal except
according to procedure established by law (Article 21).
Protection in respect of conviction for offences
1. No person shall be convicted of an offence except for the
violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of
the act charged as an offence, nor shall he be subjected
to a penalty greater than that which might have been
inflicted under the law in force at the time of the
commission of the offence [Article 20(1)].
2. No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the
same offence more than once [Article 20(2)].
3. No person accused of an offence shall be compelled to
be a witness against himself [Article 20(3)].
Right to Education
Article 21A asks the state to provide free and compulsory
education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in
such a manner as is determined by the state (added 86th
Amendment, 2002).
Protection against Arrest and Detention in Certain Cases
1. No person who is arrested shall be in custody without
being informed, as soon as may be, of the ground for
such arrest, nor shall he be denied the right to consult,
and to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice
[Article 22(1)].
2. Every person who is arrested and detained in custody
shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within
twenty-four hours of such arrest, excluding the time
necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the
court of the magistrate, and no such person shall remain
in custody beyond the said period without the authority
by a magistrate [Article 22(2)].
3. Nothing in clauses 1 and 2 shall apply:
(a) to a person who for the time being is an enemy
alien; or
(b) to a person who is arrested or detained under a law
providing for preventive detention [Article 22(3)].
4. No law providing for preventive detention shall authorise
the detention of a person for a period longer than three
months unless:
(a) an Advisory Board, consisting of persons who are
or have been, or are qualified to be appointed as
Judges of a High Court, has reported before the
expiration of the said period of three months that
there is in its opinion sufficient cause for such
detention [Article 22(4a)].
(b) Such person is detained in accordance with the
provisions of any law made by Parliament under
sub-classes (a) and (b) of clause (7).
5. When a person is detained in pursuance of an order
made under a law providing for preventive detention, the
authority making the order shall, as soon as may be,
communicate to such person the grounds on which the
order has been made and shall afford him the earliest
opportunity of making a representation against the order
[Article 22(5)].
6. Nothing in clause (5) shall require the authority making
such an order as is referred to in that clause to disclose
facts which such authority considers to be against the
public interest to disclose [Article 22(7)].
7. Parliament may by law prescribe:
(a) the circumstances under which, and the class or
classes of cases in which, a person may be
detained for a period longer than three months
under a law providing for preventive detention
without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board
in accordance with the provisions of sub-clause (a)
of clause (4);
(b) the maximum period for which a person may, in a
class or classes of cases, be detained under a law
providing for preventive detention; and
(c) the procedure to be followed by an Advisory Board
in an inquiry under sub-clause (a) of clause (4)
[Article 22(7, a, b, c)].
3. Right Against Exploitation

1. Traffic in human beings and beggary and other similar
forms of forced labour are prohib-ited and any
contravention of this provision shall be an offence
punishable in accordance with law [Article 23(1)].
2. Nothing in this article shall prevent the state from
imposing compulsory service for public purposes, and in
imposing such service the state shall not make any
discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, or
class or any of them [Article 23(2)].
3. No child below the age of fourteen years shall be
employed to work in any factory or mine or engaged in
any other hazardous employment (Article 24).
4. Right to Freedom of Religion
1. Subject to public order, morality and health and other
provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to
freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise,
and propagate religion [Article 25(1)].
2. Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any
existing law or prevent the state from making any law
(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial,
political or other secular activity which may be
associated with religious practice.
(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the
throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of
public character to all classes and sections of
Hindus [Article 25(2a, b)].
Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious
denomination or section thereof shall have the right
(a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious
and charitable purposes;
(b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion;
(c) to own and acquire movable and immovable
property; and
(d) to administer such property in accordance with the
law (Article 26).
No person shall be compelled to pay a tax, the proceeds of
which are specifically appropriated for payment of expenses
for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or
religious denomination (Article 27).
1. No religious instruction shall be provided in any
educational institution wholly maintained out of state
funds [Article 28(23)].
2. Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to an educational
institution which is administered by the state but has
been established under an endowment or trust which
requires that religious instruction shall be imparted in
such an institution [Article 28(2)].
3. No person attending any educational institution
recognised by the state or receiving aid out of state funds
shall be required to take part in any religious instruction
that may be imparted in such institution or to attend any
religious worship that may be conducted in such an
institution or in premises attached thereto unless such
person or, if such person is a minor, his guardian has
given his consent thereto [Article 28(3)].
5, Cultural and Educational Rights

1. Any section of citizens residing in the territory of India or
any part thereof having a distinct language, script or
culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the
same [Article 29(1)].
2. No citizen shall be denied admission to any educational
institution maintained by the state or receiving aid out of
state funds on grounds of religion, race, caste, language,
or any of them [Article 29(2)].
Rights of Minorities to Establish and Administer
Educational Institutions
1. All minorities, whether based on religion or language,
shall have the right to establish and administer
educational institutions of their choice [Article 30 (1)].
2. In making a law providing for the compulsory acquisition
of property of an educational institution established and
administered by a minority, referred to in clause (1), the
state shall ensure that the amount fixed by or determined
under such law for the acquisition of such property is
such as would not restrict or abrogate the right
guaranteed under the clause [Article 30(1A)].
3. The state shall not, in granting aid to educational
institutions, discriminate against any educational
institution on the ground that it is under the management
of a minority, whether based on religion or language
[Article 30(2)).
6. Right to Constitutional Remedies

1. The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate
proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred
by this Part is guaranteed [Article 32(1)].
2. The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions
or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas
corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and
certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the
enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part [Article
32(1)].
Writ Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court, under Article 32, and High Courts, under
Article 226, have the power to issue writs, though the
Parliament can empower any other court to issue writs as
well. The writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High
Courts differ:
i. Whereas the Supreme Court issues writs for the

enforcement of the fundamental rights, the High Courts
do it for the enforcement of the fundamental rights as
well as for other purposes;
ii. The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction of writs covers the
whole country, and that of the High Courts, to their
respective territorial areas; The types of writs are:
iii, Habeas Corpus: Literally (from Latin term) it means ‘to
have the body of’. This writ can be issued against both
public authorities and individuals. It is not issued where
(a) the detention is lawful, (b) the proceedings are for
contempt of a legislature or a court, (c) the detention is
by a competent court, and (d) the detention is outside
the jurisdiction of the court.
iv. Mandamus: Literally it means ‘we command’. This writ
is issued (a) against a private individual or a body; (b) to
enforce departmental instruction that does not possess
statutory force; (c) when the duty is discretionary and
not mandatory; (d) to enforce a contractual obligation;
(e) against the President of India or state governors;
and (f) against the chief justice of a High Court acting in
judicial capacity.
v. Prohibition: Literally, it means ‘to forbid’. This writ can
be issued only against judicial and quasi-judicial
authorities. It is not available against administrative
authorities, legislative bodies, and private individuals or
bodies.
vi. Certiorari: Literally, it means “to be certified” or ‘to be
informed’. It is issued by a higher court to a lower court
or a tribunal or to an administrative authority (since
1991), either to transfer on the ground of excess of
jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction or error of law. Thus,
unlike prohibition, which is only preventive, certiorari is
both preventive as well as curative.
vii. Quo Warranto: Literally, it means ‘by what authority or
warrant’. It is issued by the court to enquire into the
legality of claim of a person to a public office. Hence, it
prevents illegal usurpation of public office by a person.
ll. (b) Fundamental Rights: Analysis

Fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens, as incorporated in
Part Ill of the Constitution, constitute individual rights common
to most people in liberal democracies. They are enforceable
in a court of law, i.e., their violations result in punishments.
These rights are not absolute: they are exercised within the
framework of the provisions of the Constitution. They help us
remove or reduce inequalities as witnessed in_ social
practices, specially | untouchability. | They prohibit
discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, region,
or place of birth. They forbid bonded labour and human
trafficking. They protect and promote the interests of the
minorities: religious, cultural, and ethnic. They guarantee us
freedom as also the right to life and personal liberty. What is
more is that they provide remedies; i.e. if they are violated,
courts can be approached to protect and safeguard these
rights.
The fundamental rights are both natural as well as legal:
natural, in the sense that they are necessary for the
promotion of our personality; legal in the sense that they are
binding upon every government-central, provincial, district
and local. The fundamental rights are both claim rights as
well as liberty rights: claim rights, in the sense that every
citizen must be in a position to claim them—rights are our
claims on others—liberty rights, in the sense that they assure
us of certain liberties-of thought, expression, assembly,
association, movement and vocation and the like. The
fundamental rights are both negative as well as positive:
negative, in the sense that they enforce limitations on
authorities; positive, in the sense that they provide facilities
and amenities to promote our interests. The fundamental
rights are both individual as well as group rights: individual
rights because some rights relate to individuals such as:
equality, liberty, freedom of religion; group rights, because
some of them relate to groups, like religious, cultural, and
ethnic minorities, these groups through which the people are
able to protect and promote their interests.
A general glance at Part Ill of the Constitution reveals a
couple of salient features in our scheme of fundamental
rights. Firstly, the fundamental rights have been projected as
some kind of limitation on the powers of the legislature and
the executive in so far as Article 13 forbids the state to make
any law contrary to the provisions of Part Ill, and if it does so,
such a law would be void. The Article implicitly states that it
would be for the courts to declare such a law void.
Incidentally, the Supreme Court has been able to state its
position clearly in cases like the Kesavananda Bharati and
Minerva Mills. Secondly, the right to property, which was a
fundamental right till the enactment of the 44th Amendment
(1978), has been converted into a legal right. Thirdly, the
scope of operation of fundamental rights has been made
limited by Article 31 A (except laws providing for acquisition of
estates, etc.), Article 31B (validation of certain acts and
regulations included in the Ninth Schedule), and Article 31 C
(except laws giving effect to certain directive principles).
Fourthly, with the inclusion of fundamental duties, Part IVA
has, in a way, minimized the emphasis which was laid on the
fundamental rights. Indeed, the fundamental duties are not
enforceable by the court nor is their violation punishable. Yet
a court can refuse to enforce a fundamental right of an
individual who has patently violated the duties. Fifthly, the
fundamental rights in the Indian Constitution have been,
indeed, exhaustively stated: each right has been enumerated
in what it means, as clearly as possible. Sixthly, the
amendability of fundamental rights has been a contentious
issue for a long time.
The right of parliament to amend the Constitution has been
upheld by the judiciary, but the fundamental rights have also
been made a part of the basic structure. Seventhly, the
chapter on fundamental rights makes a distinction between
citizens and persons; Though all citizens are persons, all
persons are not citizens; for example (e.g.) aliens are persons
but they are not citizens. Article 14 uses the word ‘person’
(equality before the law or equal protection of the law), but
Article 15 uses the word ‘citizen’ (the state shall not
discriminate against any citizen on grounds of religion, race,
caste, sex, place of birth, or any of them). Eighthly, right to
education has been made a part of fundamental rights under
Article 21A. Ninthly, fundamental rights (except those in
Articles 19, 20 and 21) can be suspended during the
operation of national emergency. Tenthly, Article 35 states
that a few rights [(as in clause (3) of Article 16, clause (3) of
Article 32, Articles 33 and 34)] are enforceable by the law of
Parliament and not of state legislatures.
ll. (c) Amendability of Fundamental Rights

Fundamental rights are enforceable. The courts have special
responsibility to protect fundamental rights, which they
perform by issuing writs. Though the fundamental rights, or
some parts of them can be suspended during periods of
emergency under Articles 352 and 356, they can be amended
by the Parliament. In the Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India
(1951), the constitutional validity of the first amendment
(1951), which curtailed the right to property, was challenged.
The Supreme Court ruled that the power of Parliament to
amend the Constitution under Article 368 also included the
power to amend the fundamental rights. In the Golaknath vs.
State of Punjab (1967), the Supreme Court held that the
fundamental rights are immutable and hence the Parliament
cannot abridge or take away any of the fundamental rights.
Reacting to the 1967 case, the Parliament enacted the 24th
Amendment (1971) asserting that the Parliament can abridge
or take away fundamental rights, and that it has the power to
amend the Constitution, including the fundamental rights. In
the Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1971) case, the
Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 24th Amendment,
saying that the Parliament can abridge or take away the
fundamental rights by amending the Constitution. But the
apex court ruled that the amending power of the Parliament
does not enable it to alter the ‘basic structure’ of the
Constitution. The 4294 Amendment (1976) authorised the
Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution and that no
amendment could be questioned in any court. The Supreme
Court, in the Minerva Mills vs. Union of India (1980) and the
Waman Rao (1981) cases, adhered to the doctrine of “basic
structure” as something out of the domain of Parliament,
though the Parliament does possess the power of amending
the Constitution.
Il. (d) The Court and Fundamental Rights

The courts, especially the Supreme Court and High Courts
have played significant role in protecting the fundamental
rights of the people in India. Major cases decided by the
Supreme Court and associated with fundamental rights are,
indeed, important. As protector and guarantor of the
fundamental rights of the people, the Supreme Court, as per
a decision in Romesh Thapur vs. State of Bombay, cannot
refuse to entertain application seeking protection against the
infringement of such rights. Though the Parliament had
reversed the Supreme Court’s decision through 25th and 26th
Amendments (1971), the apex court had earlier invalidated
the government's stand on bank nationalisation and privy
purses in Rustom Cavasjee vs. Union of India (1970) and
Madhavrao Shivajirao Sciendia vs. Union of India (1971)
cases, declaring the government's actions against Articles 14,
19(1)(f), 19(1)(g), 31(2), and 32. While in the Gopalan case
(1950), the Supreme Court had held that the freedoms under
Articles 19, 21, 22, and 31 are exclusive, it overturned its own
stand in R.C. Cooper (1971) case saying that the
fundamental rights conferred by Part Ill are not distinct and
mutually exclusive rights. In the Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of
India (1978) case, the Supreme Court declared that no one
shall be deprived of personal liberty and the right to life
except according to the procedure prescribed by the law with
attributes found in Article 19. In Rudul Sah vs. State of Bihar
(1983), the Supreme Court ruled that compensation for illegal
detention should be granted under Article 32 without affecting
the petitioner's right to sue for damages. In St. Stephen’s
College vs. University of Delhi (1992) case, the Supreme
Court held that the minority aided educational institutions are
entitled under Article 30(1) to accord preference in favour of
or reserve seats for candidates belonging to their community
to the maximum of 50 per cent of annual admissions. In the
D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal (1997) case, the
Supreme Court set a number of measures to be observed by
the police while securing the arrest of a person so as to
prevent the abuse of power by police authorities. In another
case, Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997), the apex court
set out guidelines for the protection of women from sexual
harassment at workplaces. The refusal of the Bombay High
Court to permit abortion of a 26-week pregnancy in the
Niketa-Haresh Mehta case amounts to right to life, though of
an unborn child.
Il. (e) Evaluation of Fundamental Rights

The fundamental rights granted in the Indian constitution have
been criticised as inadequate in so far as they do not provide
sufficient freedom and opportunity to all citizens. The
phrases, such as “security of state”, “public order’, “morality
uy
and the like, are not only unclear, but have wide implications.
Likewise, words such as “reasonable restrictions,” “the
interest of public orders” have not been explicitly stated. That
is why it is often said that there are more limitations on
fundamental rights than the rights conferred on the people).
Though exhaustively stated, the chapter on fundamental
rights does not contain a single right which can be termed as
having ‘social’ or ‘economic’ content. Jennings objects to the
legalistic language used in the chapter: as lawyers’ paradise,
beyond the comprehension of common man.’ Despite free
legal aid, the whole legal procedure is so expensive that the
people usually choose to stay away from courts. The freedom
of press is slightly more than implicit. The employment of
children in hazardous environments continues. Yet, it would
be wrong to ignore the importance of fundamental rights: the
fundamental rights have been very aptly described as the
Magna Carta of liberties of the Indian people; they provide a
check on the legislature and the executive; they protect the
rights and interests of the people, the minorities in particular;
they help establish the rule of law and democratic system in
the country—and thanks to judicial activism, the courts
sometimes seem mightier than the state.
lll. DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY

Part IV of the Constitution from Articles 36 to 51, contains
Directive Principles of State Policy. These provisions are,
Article 37 says, not enforceable by a court, but are regarded
as fundamental to the governance of the country and the
state would do well in applying them in making laws.
The Directive Principles as stated in the Constitution are:
iii.(a) State to Secure Social Order for the Promotion of

People’s Welfare
1. The state shall strive to promote the welfare of the
people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may
a social order in which social, economic and political
justice, shall be an integral part of all institutions of the
national life [Article 38(1)].
2. The state shall, in particular, strive to minimise
inequalities in income, and endeavour to eliminate
inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, not only
among individuals but also among groups of people
residing in different areas or engaged in different
vocations. [Article 38(2)].
Certain Principles of Policy to be Followed by the State
The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards
securing:
(1) that citizens—men and women equally—have the
right to adequate means of livelihood;
(2) that the ownership and control of material
resources of the community are so distributed as to
best subserve the common good;
(3) that the operation of the economic system does not
result in the concentration of wealth and means of
production to the common detriment;
(4) that there is an equal pay for equal work for both
men and women;
(5) that the health and strength of workers both men
and women, and children of tender age—are not
abused and that citizens are not forced by
economic necessity to enter vocations not suited to
their age or strength;
(6) that children are given opportunities and facilities to
develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of
freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth
are protected against exploitation and moral and
material abandonment (Article 39).
Equal Justice and Free Legal Aid
The state shall secure that the operation of the legal system
promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity and shall, in
particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or
scheme or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for
securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of
economic or other disabilities (Article 39A).
Organisation of Village Panchayats
The state shall take steps to organise village panchayats and
endow them with such powers and authority as may be
necessary to enable them to function as units of self-
government (Article 40).
Right to Work, to Education and to Public Assistance in
Certain Cases
The state shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and
development, make effective provi-sions for securing the right
to work, to education, and to public assistance in cases of
unemployment, old age, sickness, and disablement (Article
41).
Provision for Just and Humane Conditions of Work and
Maternity Relief
The state shall make provision for securing just and humane
conditions of work and for maternity relief (Article 42).
Living Wage, for Workers
The state shall endeavour to secure, by suitable legislation
or economic organisation or in any other way, to all workers
— agricultural, industrial or others work, a living wage
conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full
enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities,
and, in particular, the state shall endeavour to promote
cottage industries on an individual or cooperative basis in
rural areas (Article 43).
Participation of Workers in Management of Industries

The state shall take steps, by suitable legislation or in any
other way, to secure the participation of workers in the
management of undertakings, establishments or other
organisations engaged in any industry (Article 43A).
Uniform Civil Code For Citizens

The state shall endeavour to secure for citizens a uniform civil
code throughout the territory of India (Article 44).
Provision for Free and Compulsory Education for
Children
The state shall endeavour to provide, within a period of ten
years from the commencement of the Constitution, free and
compulsory education for all children until they complete the
age of fourteen years (Article 45). Through 869 Amendment
Act of 2002, the State is required to provide free and
compulsory education to all children between the age of six
and fourteen.
Promotion of Educational and Economic Interests of

Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other
Weaker Sections
The state shall promote with special care the educational and
economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and,
in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all
forms of exploitation (Article 46).
Duty of the State to Raise the Level of Nutrition and the

Standard of Living and to Improve Public Health
The state shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and
the standard of living of its people and the improvement of
public health as among its primary duties and, in particular,
the state shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the
consumption, except for medical purposes, of intoxicating
drinks and drugs, which are injurious to health (Article 47).
Organisation of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry

The state shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal
husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in
particular, take steps for preserving and improving the
breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and
other milch and draught cattle (Article 48).
Protection and Improvement of Environment and

Safeguarding of Forests and Wildlife
The state shall, through 42"d Amendment (1976), endeavour
to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests
and wildlife of the country (Article 48A).
Protection of Monuments and Places and Objects of

National Importance
It shall be the obligation of the state to protect every
monument or place or object of artistic or historial at interest,
declared by a law made by Parliament to be of national
importance, from spoiling, disfigurement, destruction,
removal, disposal or export, or otherwise (Article 49).
Separation of Judiciary from Executive

The state shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the
executive in public services of the state (Article 50).
Promotion of International Peace and Security

The state shall endeavour to
(1) promote international peace and security;
(2) maintain just and honourable relations between nations;
(3) foster respect for international law and treaty obligations
in dealings with other peoples; and
(4) encourage settlement of international disputes by
arbitration (Article 51).
lIl(b) Directive Principles: What the Framers of the
Constitution had Intended
A fundamental rights sub-committee was entrusted to frame
fundamental rights as well as directive principles, both to be
designated as fundamental rights. The sub-committee had
numerous types of rights—social, political, economic—to
select from. Having classified them into two cat-egories, the
sub-committee marked one category as enforceable in a
court of law, and the other as non-enforceable. Presumably
the committee felt that the first category of right with some
what political overtones could be legally enforced, while the
second category of right could not, until they were realized.
The framers of the Constitution did not find the two categories
of rights as mutually opposed. In fact, they found them
complementary to each other, putting the fundamental rights
in the forefront and the directive principles in the waiting, with
one to be enforced immediately and the other to be enforced
as and when practicable. The intentions of the framers were
to enlarge, as Markandan (“Fundamental Rights vis-a-vis
Directive Principles of State Policy”) says in the chapter on
Fundamental Rights, by a progressive transfer to it from that
part of the Constitution dealing with the Directive Principles.
In fact, they thought of the fundamental rights and directive
principles as equally important to the fundamental rights. The
fundamental rights are fundamental because they are
essential for the development of the individual’s personality
but the directive principles are no less fundamental and they
are indeed regarded as so in the governance of the country. It
is not that the framers thought of the directive principles as of
no significance. Representing the socio-economic ideals and
objectives of the peoples’ aspirations, the directive principles
were made non-justiciable till the time they could be made
justiciable. This means that the courts, indeed, would not
force the state to implement the directive principles, but they
would not go against them. If they do, it amounts to going
against the spirit of the Constitution as well. To this extent,
the directive principles do enjoy judicial status as well. It is
clear that the framers of the Constitution did not see any
conflict between the fundamental rights and the directive
principles, nor did they suggest the primacy of fundamental
rights over the directive principles.
The records of the Constituent Assembly that B.N. Rau
suggested that as and when the two parts appear to come
into conflict, the directive principles would prevail. Rau’s
suggestion in the form of an amendment was not accepted,
but it certainly demonstrates the mood of that time. The
framers of the Constitution thought of the fundamental rights
and directive principles complementing each other, the former
as the laws for the present and the latter as the laws of the
future. Happily, the courts, have settled down to the position
that the directive principles do constitute relevance to
fundamental rights.
lll. Directive Principles: Features

The idea of Directive Principles of State Policy as part of the
Constitution is not very old. The constitution of the principality
of Liechtenstein (1921) and that of the Spanish republic
(1931) had references to some directives issued for the state.
The framers of the Indian Constitution were impressed by the
provisions relating to directive principles as stated in the
Constitution of the Irish Free state (1937). Dr. B.R. Ambedkar
described directive principles as the ‘novel’ feature of our
Constitution: as they are, like the instruments of instructions
of the Government of India Act, 1935, issued to the governor-
general by the British Government. These are directives to
the governments of the day to consider them fundamental
while formulating the policies with regard to the administration
of the country.
Some of the features of these principles can be briefly
summed up as under:
1. These principles are not justiciable: the government
cannot be called to courts for not having implemented
them.
2. They serve as guidelines while making laws for the
people: they are like policies for the govern-ment; the
national manifesto, irrespective of political party in power.
3. They are so comprehensive that they seek to build a
socialist society (see Articles 38, 39, 39A, 41, 42, 43,
43A, and 47), a Gandhian India (see Articles 40, 43, 46,
47, and 48) and a liberal international state (see
Articles 44, 45, 48, 48A, 49, 50, and 51).
4. They are positive as they require the government to do
certain things.
5. They are social and economic in nature: the directive
principles seek to establish social and economic
democracy.
6. They are not enforceable; but they cannot be ignored
either. Governments cannot make laws against them,
and if they do, they can be declared violative of the
Constitution. In this sense, the Directive Principles are
enforceable.
7. They lay the foundation of economic democracy.
8. Ever since the Directive Principles of State Policy were
incorporated in the Constitution, certain new directive
principles have been added. These are:
(a) To secure opportunities for healthy development of
children (Article 39).
(b) To promote equal justice and to provide free legal
aid to the poor (Article 39A).
(c) To take steps to secure the participation of workers
in the management of industries (Article 43A).
(d) To protect and improve the environment and to
safeguard forests and wildlife (Article 48A).
(e) To minimize inequalities in income, status, facilities,
and opportunities, added in Article 38 (44th
Amendment, 1978).
(f) To declare elementary education obligatory under
Article 21 (86th Amendment, 2002).
9. Directive Principles help supplement fundamental rights:
they constitute the economic aspect of fundamental
rights, its socio-economic aspect.
10. As they stand, fundamental rights and directive
principles are distinct from each other. That is why they
are often distinguished: the fundamental rights are
enforceable by the court, whereas the directive principles
are not enforceable in courts; the courts can issue writs
so as to help protect the fundamental rights whereas they
cannot issue any writ to force the state to implement the
directive principles; the fundamental rights are rights of
the people; whereas the directive principles are not the
rights but are the fundamental duties of the state to keep
them in mind while formulating policies or making laws.
The fundamental rights provide restrictions on the state;
they are limitations on the powers of the state; whereas
the directive principles are obligations the state is
supposed to perform; the fundamental rights are, in their
nature, both negative (seeking checks on the state) and
positive (asking the state to provide certain facilities);
while the directive principles are, in their nature, always
positive, expecting the state to perform certain tasks; the
fundamental rights lay the foundation of political
democracy whereas the directive principles those of
economic and social democracy; the directive principles
usually conform to the chapter on fundamental rights; the
fundamental rights are, by and large, individual-oriented;
whereas the directive principles are, to a great extent,
community-oriented; the fundamental rights have a
‘liberal’ orientation whereas the directive principles have
a ‘communitarian’ orientation.
Ill. (d) Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles: Their

Relative Position
The question of attitudes of the judiciary, legislature, and
executive with regard to fundamental rights and the directive
principles has been a significant one. In cases, such as Om
Prakash vs. State of Punjab (1951), State of Madras vs.
Champakam Dorairjan (1951), and Jagwant Kaur vs. State of
Bombay (1952), the courts held the view that the Directive
Principles of State Policy have to conform to, and, in fact, run
subsidiary to fundamental rights. In Fram Nusserwanji
Balsara vs. State of Bombay (1951), Ajaib Singh vs. State of
Punjab (1952), and in Biswanbhar vs. State of Orissa (1957)
cases, the courts held the view that the directive principles
have to work within the framework of fundamental rights. In
yet another case, M.H. Quareshi vs. State of Bihar (1958), the
Supreme Court maintained that although the directive
principles should conform to and run subsidiary to the chapter
on fundamental rights, it would not reject the directive
principles altogether. The constitutional amendments (first in
1951, the fourth in 1955, and the seventeenth in 1964)
authorised the Parliament to amend the Constitution so as to
give the directive principles an advantageous position as
compared to the fundamental rights. In 1967, the Supreme
Court, in the Golaknath case, declared the fundamental rights
as “sacrosanct” and held that the fundamental rights cannot
be amended for the implementation of the directive principles.
In reaction to the Golaknath case, the 25th Amendment
(1971) inserted Article 31C which contained: (i) no law which
seeks to implement Article 39(b) and 39(c) would be void on
the ground that it contravenes the fundamental rights,
especially Articles 14, 19, and 31; (ii) no law which seeks to
give effect to such policy (i.e., Articles 39(b) and 39(c) would
be questioned in a court of law.
In the Kesavananda Bharati case, the Supreme Court
declared clause (ii) of Article 31C as uncon-stitutional; stating
that the judicial review is a part of the basic structure of the
Constitution. The 429d Amendment (1976) accorded primacy
to directive principles over fundamental rights (Articles 14, 19,
and 31). But in the Minerva Mills case (1980) the Supreme
Court reversed the position making the Directive Principles
subordinate to Fundamental Rights. However, the Supreme
Court, in the Minerva Mills case regarded both the
Fundamental Rights and _ Directive’ Principles as
complementary, one no less important than the other and
both essential parts of the basic structure.
Ill. (e) Directive Principles: Implementation

Though much remains to be done with respect to the
implementation of the directive principles, there is much that
has been done. The Minimum Wages Act (1948), the
Payment of Wages Act (1936), the Payment of Bonus Act
(1965), the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act
(1970) , the Child Labour Prohibition and Regulation Act
(1986), the Bonded Labour System Abolition Act (1976), the
Trade Unions Act (1926), the Factories Act (1948), the Mines
Act (1952), the Industrial Disputes Act (1948), the Workmen’s
Compensation Act (1923) have been enacted to protect the
interests of the labour. The Maternity Benefit Act (1961) and
the Equal Remuneration Act (1976) have been made to
protect the interests of women workers. For the promotion of
common good, insurance companies were nationalised in
1956 and banks in 1971. The Community Development
Project (1952), Hill Area Development Programme (1960),
Drought-Prone Area Programme (1973), Minimum Needs
Programme (1974), Integrated Rural Development
Programme (1978), Jawahar Rozgar Yojana _ (1989),
Swaranajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (1999), and
Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana have been launched for
raising the standard of living of the people. The Wildlife
(Protection) Act, 1972, and the Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980, have been enacted to safeguard the wildlife and the
forests respectively. The 73° and 74th amendments have
given the local governments a constitutional status. The
Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, renamed as_ the
Protection of Civil Rights Act in 1976, and the legislations
passed for the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes in
1989 have helped promote the interests of the weaker
sections of the society. Health services are being extended to
the remotest possible areas and attempts are being made to
eradicate diseases such as leprosy, AIDS, cancer, and the
like. Universalisation of education, especially elementary
education, has been accorded the highest priority so as to
provide free education to all children till the age of 14. The
86th amendment (2002), creating Article 21A, seeks to
provide free and compulsory education to all children
between the age of 6 and 14 years. The year 1990-91,
declared as the “year of social justice” in the memory of Dr.
B.R. Ambedkar, indicates the facilities given to the people
belonging to the scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In
order to protect the scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
from discrimination, the government enacted Prevention of
Atrocities Act in 1995 prescribing severe punishments for
such action. Land reforms legislations have been enacted
from time to time.
Upto September 2001, more than 20 million acres (81,
000sq. km.) of land had been distributed to Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the landless poor. A core
objective of the banking policy is to improve banking facilities
in rural areas. The Minimum Wages Act of 1948 empowers
government to fix minimum wages for people working across
the economic spectrum. The Consumer Protection Act of
1986 provides for better protection of consumers. The act is
intended to provide simple, speedy, and _ inexpensive
redressal of consumer’ grievances and awarding relief and
compensation wherever appropriate to the consumer. A
system of elected village councils, known as Panchayati Raj
covers almost all states and territories of India. One-third of
the total number of seats have been reserved for women in
Panchayats at every level; and in the case of Bihar, half the
seats have been reserved for women. Legal aid at the
expense of the State has been made compulsory in all cases
pertaining to criminal law, if the accused does not have the
means to engage a lawyer. India’s foreign policy has been
influenced by the directive principles. India supported the
United Nations in peace-keeping activities, with the Indian
Army having participated in 37 UN peace-keeping operations.
The implementation of a uniform civil code for all citizens has
not been achieved owing to widespread opposition from
various religious groups and political parties. The Shah Bano
case (1985-86) provoked a political firestorm in India when
the Supreme Court ruled that Shah Bano, a Muslim woman
who had been divorced by her husband in 1978, was entitled
to alimony from her former husband under the Indian law
applicable to all Indian women. This decision evoked outrage
in the Muslim community, which sought the application of the
Muslim Personal Law. In response, the Parliament passed
the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act,
1986. However, the problem persists.
Though there is much that has to be achieved with respect
to the implementation of numerous Directive Principles, the
task of implementing them is an ongoing process. Speaking
about it, Nehru had rightly remarked: “.so long as there are
tears and sufferings, so long our work will not be over.”
Ill. (f) Directive Principles: Evaluation

Professor Wheare describes the Directive Principles as a
manifesto of our ideals and objectives. It may rightly be called
our national manifesto; for every political party which comes
to power is supposed to implement them. The Directive
Principles have evoked a mixed opinion. They are, as K.T.
Shah has said, a cheque payable at the convenience of the
bank. Some object to the inclusion of directive principles into
what constitutes the basic structure of the Constitution (see
Pratap Bhanu Mehta, “Inner Conflict of Constitutionalism”)
stating that determinate fundamental rights cannot be
equated with indeterminate directive principles. Srinivasan
held the view that these principles combine “rather
incongruously” the modern with the old, and provisions
suggested by reason and science with provision based purely
on sentiments and prejudice.’ Sir Ivor Jennings says:
“Directive Principles do not matter.” These principles have
been criticised as lacking legal sanction, devoid of
constitutional importance; they are vaguely stated and have
been illogically arranged: no two principles are linked
together; there are principles which would not be
implemented in any remote future, and there are principles
which any government worth the name must enforce. Yet
these principles have utility of their own. B.N. Rau, the
advisor to the Constituent Assembly, had said that these
principles are “moral precepts for the authorities of the state”
and that “they have an educative value.” Granville Austin
thought of these principles as those, which help further “the
goals of the social revolution.” These principles act, as
signposts indicating what has been achieved and what still
has to be achieved; they provide criteria to judge about the
performance of the ruler; they help induce the governments to
work for the welfare of the people. Justice Sapru had said: “In
these directive principles will be found the entire philosophy
on which the welfare state in any modern community can be
founded.” These principles serve as the common manifesto.
Justice Gajendragadker (The Constitution of India) rightly
says: “A ruling party, irrespective of its political ideology, has
to recognise the fact that these principles are intended to be
its guide, philosopher, and friend in its legislative and
executive act.”
IV. FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES
The Swaran Singh Committee, in its recommendations
(1976), suggested the inclusion of a separate chapter on
fundamental duties in the Constitution. Following it, Part IVA;
with Article 51A; was added by the 429d Amendment . In
2002, through the 86t? Amendment, a duty was incorporated,
providing opportunities to children between the ages of six
and fourteen years. The fundamental duties, so described in
the constitution, are:
(a) to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals
and institutions, the National Flag, and the National
Anthem;
(b) to cherish and follow the noble ideals which
inspired our national struggle for freedom;
(c) to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and
integrity of India;
(d) to defend the country and render national service
when called upon to do so;
(e) to promote harmony and _ spirit of common
brotherhood among all people of India_ tran-
scending religious, linguistic, and regional or
sectional diversities;
(f) to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of
women;
(g) to value and preserve the rich heritage of our
composite culture;
(h) to protect and improve the natural environment
including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to
have compassion for living creatures;
(i) to develop scientific temper, humanism, and spirit of
inquiry and reform;
(j) to safeguard public property and to abjure violence;
(k) to strive towards excellence in all spheres of
individual and collective activity so that the nation
constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and
achievement;
(l) Parents or guardian, should provide opportunities
for education to their children or wards, between
the ages of six and fourteen years (86th
Amendment, 2002).
The fundamental duties, included in the Constitution, are
vague and ambiguous, described only as moral percepts.
There is no provision for the enforcement of these duties
[Ramsharan vs. Union of India (1980)] or any sanction to
prevent their violation. The Verma Committee on
Fundamental Duties (1999), however, has identified the
existence of meritorious provisions for the implementation of
fundamental duties, such as: the Prevention of Insults to
National Honour Act (1971) , the Protection of Civil Rights Act
(1976), and the Wildlife (Protection) Act, (1972).
Practice
Questions
(1) Locate the roots of fundamental rights

in the liberation struggle of India. (200-
250 words)
(2) Describe ‘Right to Equality’ and ‘Right
to Freedom’ as mentioned in the
Constitution of India. (700-800 words)
(3) Comment on the increasingly higher
focus on Directive Principles of State
Policy. (2014) (200-250 words)
(4) Relate the concept of secularism with
the right to freedom of religion as
enshrined in the Constitution of India.
(700-800 words)
(5) Substantiate the concept that the
Supreme Court of India is the custodian
of our fundamental rights. (700-800
words)
(6) Explain the right which ensures the
minorities their culture and_ interests.
(200-250 words)
(7) Analyse the significance of Article 32
— ‘Right to Constitutional Remedies’.
(2013) (200-250 words)
(8) Examine the significance of the
verdicts of Supreme Court in the
Golaknath and Kesavananda Bharati
cases for an understanding of Article
368 in regard to Fundamental Rights.
(2014) (700-800 words)
(9) Examine the relevance of the Directive
Principles of State Policy in the age of
liberalisation and globalisation. (2012)
fA
V
(700-800 words)
The Executive In India:
The President, The Prime
Minister, And The Union Cabinet,
The Governor, The Chief Minister
And The State Cabinet
Ty he BJP (Bhartiya Janata Party) dominated National

Democratic Alliance, 2014 had a governing mantra:
maximum governance and minimum government.
Minimum government did not mean absence of government
or absence of authority; what it did mean is less of rules, less
of files, less of red tapism, less of officialdom — a system
which is self-regulating; self-evolving system that regulates on
its own. Minimum government oversees of what is being
done: the government neither it controls nor it coordinates,
but it only facilitates.
By maximum governance is meant more of implementation
than mere formulation of theories and policies; its objective is
the happiness of the people, their overall development based
on democratic values. The United Nations refers to certain
attributes of governance: primacy of the rule of law, a
consensus-oriented decision making process, efficiency and
effectiveness, transparency, responsiveness, equitable and
accountable, and citizen-driven encouraging participation in
the process of governance.
Maximum governance and minimum government has most
of the civil servants, meant shrinking of leisure, increasing
work, officially there is a five days week but on Saturday most
of them along with their assistants down to clerks and peons
are at work; there are no Gymkhana festivities in the late
evening; officers’ meetings finishing at 8:00 p.m. are followed
by completing the office’s daily pending work till about 10:0
p.m. Bureaucrats are caged in Modi’s steel frame. Foreign
trips are out and if done, the reports are to be made available
within three days of coming back from the trip.
In a parliamentary democracy as India, the executive, both
at the Union or the state level is nominal—i.e. the President at
the Union and the Governor at the state—and the real or de
facto power rests with the Prime Minister and his Council of
Ministers at the Union and with the Chief Minister and his
Council of Ministers in the states. There are, therefore, two
offices of power in the parliamentary system—the head of the
state and the head of the government. The President at the
Union level and the Governor at the state /eve/ constitute
the head of the state in whose names there are powers but
who do not exercise them. On the other hand, the Prime
Minister, with his Council of Ministers at the Union level, and
the Chief Minister, with his Council of Ministers, at the state
level constitute the real executive in whose names there are
no powers but they exercise all powers, which are vested in
the nominal executive.
|. THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA
I(a). Introduction
Part V, Chapter I, (Articles 52 to 78) of the Constitution deals
with the Union executive, i.e., the President, the Vice
President, the Council of Ministers, and the Prime Minister.
Article 52 of the Constitution reads: “There shall be a
President of India” and Article 53(1) says that the executive
power of the Union shall be vested in the President and shall
be exercised by him either directly or through officers
subordinate to him in the Constitution. Article 53(2) declares
the President as the supreme commander of defence forces,
but stipulates that the exercise of his powers to be regulated
by the law. However, the Article states that any function can
be transferred to the President and permits the Parliament to
confer any function on/any authority besides the President.
This article makes the following things clear:
i. The President can exercise the executive powers of the

Union himself.
ii. He can exercise these powers through officers
subordinate to him.
iii. Either he or officers subordinate to him would exercise
these powers in accordance with the provisions of the
Constitution and the law.
iv. His functions can be increased by the Parliament, and
also conferred on authorities other than the President.
The president is elected indirectly. Article 54 of the

Constitution says that the President shall be elected by the an
electoral college consisting of: members of both Houses of
Parliament; and the members of state legislative assemblies.
In this Article and Article 55, the word “States” includes the
National Capital Territory of Delhi and the Union territory of
Pondicherry—i.e., the legislative assemblies of both Delhi and
Pondicherry.
Article 55 explains the manner of the election of the
President.
Article 55 of the Constitution says:
1. As far as practicable, there shall be uniformity in the
scale of representation of different states in the election
of the President.
2. For the purpose of securing such uniformity among
states inter se as well as parity between the states, as a
whole and the Union, the number of votes which each
elected number of Parliament and the _ legislative
assembly of each state is entitled to cast shall be
determined in accordance with the Constitution.
3. The election of the President shall be held in accordance
with the system of proportional representation by single
transferable vote and the voting by secret ballot.
The value of votes of elected members of state legislative
assemblies and the Houses of Parliament is determined as
per the provisions of Article 55(2) of the Constitution.
Presidential elections of India involve — proportional
representation from respective states. The number of votes
assigned to a voter from a legislative assembly decided as
follows:
Total population of the state

Total number of elected members » 1000
Total population of the state Total number of elected

members x 1000
In the 2012 Presidential elections, Pranab Mukherjee got
373,116 MPs votes and 340,647 MLAs votes while P.A.
Sangma got the 145,848 MPs and 170,130 MLAs, votes:
Pranab Mukherjee 713,763, P.A. Sangma 315,978 votes.
The term of the President, according to Article 56, is five
years, with a provision for re-election (Article 57). The
President can resign before the expiry of his term,
(resignation to be addressed to the Vice President) or be can
removed by impeachment for violation of the Constitution in
the manner as enunciated in Article 61. Article 58 prescribes
the qualification for election as President. These are:
i. The person is a citizen of India,

ii. The person has completed the age of thirty-five years,
and
iii. He/She is qualified for election as a member of the
House of the People (Lok Sabha).
A person who holds an office of profit is considered

ineligible for election. He should also not be a member of
either House of the Parliament or state legislature, and if he
is, his seat in the House would be regarded as vacant on the
date on which he enters upon the office as the President
(Article 59). Article 60 of the Constitution prescribes the oath
or affirmation by the President before he takes up his job, in
which he aftirms that he shall preserve, protect, and defend
the dignity of the Constitution and the Law. Article 61
prescribes the procedure for impeachment of the President.
i. Impeachment proposal can be initiated in either houses

of the Parliament.
ii. The proposal has to be signed by one-fourth of
members of particular House.
iii, A 14-day’ notice has to be given to the President.
iv. The House must pass the impeachment proposal by a
majority of two-thirds of the total membership of that
House.
v. The passed impeachment proposal bill, then, is sent to
the other House which sits as a court and investigates
the charges.
vi. The President against whom the investigation is on has
the right to appear and be represented in the House.
vii. If the other House passes the resolution by a majority of
two-thirds of the total membership of that House, the
President stands removed on the day the resolution is
so passed.
No President has been removed by impeachment so far.
l(b) The President of India—Powers and Duties:

Executive
1. All executive actions of the Government of India are
expressed to be taken in the name of the President
[Article 77(1)]. All orders and instruments are to be made
and executed in his name [Article 77(2)]. The President
makes rules for more convenient transaction of business
of the Government [Article 77(3)], and contracts, etc.
(Article 299).
2. All officers of the Union are his “subordinates” [Article
53(1)].
3. The President has the right to be informed of the affairs
of the Union [Article 78(b)].
4. The President has the power to appoint:
i. the Prime Minister

ii. other Union ministers
iii. the Attorney General of India
iv. the Controller and Auditor General of India
Judges of the Supreme Court
Vi. Judges of High Courts
vii. the Governor of a State
viii. the Finance Commission
the Union Public Service Commission or joint
commissions for a group of states
the Chief Election Commissioner and other members of
the Election Commission
Xi. Special Officer for Scheduled Castes and Tribes
Xil. Commission to report on the admission of Scheduled
Areas
xiii. Commission to investigate into the conditions of
backward classes
Xiv. Commission on Official Language
XV. Special Officer for linguistic minorities
5. The President is the Supreme Commander of the Armed

Forces [Article 53(2)].
6. The President appoints ambassadors and_ high
commissioners; and receives diplomatic rep-resentatives.
Treaties with other countries are concluded in his name;
he represents the country in the external world.
Constitutional Limitations on President’s Powers
Executive power to be exercised in accordance with

the Constitution [Article 53(1)]
All the ministers are to be appointed by the President
on the advice of the Prime Minister [Article 75(1)].
President's powers are to be exercised in accordance
with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers
headed by the Prime Minister [Article 74(1), 424
Amendment]
iv. President may seek reconsideration of the advice
sought, but he has to act in accordance with the
advice tendered after such reconsideration [Article
74(1), 44t2 Amendment].
Table 20.2 The Presidents of India
Name Tenure
Dr. Rajendra Prasad 26 January 1950-13 May

(1884-1963) 1962
Dr. Sarvepalli 13 May 1962-13 May

Radhakrishnan (1888— 1967
1975)
Dr. Zakir Husain (1897— 13 May 1967-3 May 1969

1969)
Varahagiri Venkatagiri 3 May 1969-20 July 1969

(1884-1980) (Acting)
Justice Mohammad 20 July 1969-24 August

Hidayatullah (1905— 92) 1969 (Acting)
Varahagiri Venkatagiri 24 August 1969-24 August

(1884-1980) 1974
Fakhruddin Ali Anmed 24 August 1974—11 Feb.

(1905-77) 1977
B.D. Jatti (1913-2002) 11 Feb. 1977-25 July 1977

(Acting)
Neelam Sanjiva Reddy 25 July 1977-25 July 1982

(1913-96)
Giani Zail Singh (1916-94) 25 July 1982-25 July 1987
R. Venkatraman (1910-— 25 July 1987-25 July 1992

2009)
Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma 25 July 1992-25 July 1997

(1918-99)
K.R. Narayanan (1921— 25 July 1997-25 July 2002

2005)
Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam 25 July 2002-25 July 2007

(1931-2015)
Pratibha Patil (b-1934) 25 July 2007-25 July 2012
Pranab Mukherjee (b-1935) 25 July 2012-till date
I.(c) The President of India—Powers and Duties:

Legislative and Financial
1. The President has power to summon or prorogue the
Houses of Parliament and to dissolve the Lower House
(Article 85). He has the power to summon a joint sitting of
both Houses of Parliament in the case of a deadlock
between them over an ordinary bill (Article 108).
2. The President can address both Houses of Parliament
assembled together at the first session after general
elections and the first session each year, and ‘informs
the Parliament of the cause of this summons’ (Article 87).
3. The President has the right to address either House or
the joint sitting of both Houses at any time, and to require
the attendance of members for this purpose [Article
86(1)]. In addition to the right address the Parliament, the
Indian President has the right to send messages to either
the House in regard to pending bill or to other members
The House must then consider the message “with all
convenient despatch” [Article 86(2)].
4. In the Council of States Rajya Sabha, 12 members,
having special knowledge or practical experience of
literature, science, art, and social service are nominated
by the President [Article 80(1)]. The President is also
empowered to nominate not more than two members to
the House of the People from the Anglo-Indian
community, if he is of the opinion that the Anglo-Indian
community is not adequately represented in that House
(Article 331).
5. It is the duty of the President to lay before the
Parliament:
(a) Annual Financial Statement (Budget) and
Supplementary Statement, if any.
(b) Report of the Auditor-General relating to the
accounts of the Government of India.
(c) Recommendations of the Finance Commission,
together with explanatory memorandum of action
taken thereon.
(d) Report of the Union Public Service Commission,
explaining the reasons where an advice of the
Commission has not been accepted.
(e) Report of the Special Officer for Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes.
(f) Report of the Commission on backward Classes
(g) Report of the Special Officer for Linguistic
minorities.
6. The Constitution requires a prior sanction or
recommendation of the President for introducing
legislation on matters such as:
(a) the formation of a new state or the alternation of
boundaries etc. of an existing state (Article 3);
(b) a bill providing for any matter specified in Article 31
A(1);
(c) a Money Bill [Article 117(1)(3)];
(d) a bill affecting taxation in which states are
interested, etc. [Article 274(1), Chapter 1 of Part
XII];
(e) a state bill imposing restrictions upon the freedom
of trade (Article 304).
7. After a bill is passed by the Parliament, the President
(a) may give his assent to the bill; or
(b) may withhold his assent to the bill; or
(c) may, in the case of non-money bill, return the bill for
reconsideration of the Houses, with or without a
message suggesting amendments. A money bill
cannot be returned for reconsideration.
(d) In the case of (c), if the bill is passed again by both
Houses of Parliament with or without amendments
and again presented to the President, it would be
obligatory upon him to assent to it (Article 111).
(e) The President has the right to disallow or return for
reconsideration a state bill, which may have been
reserved for his consideration by the Governor
(Article 201).
8. The President has the power to legislate by ordinance
when it is not possible to have parliamentary enactment
(Article 123).
9. Money bills are introduced in the Lok Sabha on the
recommendation of the President (Articles 112, 117).
10. The Contigency Fund of India is placed at the disposal
of the President of India (Article 267).
I.(d) The President of India—Powers and Duties: Judicial

and Miscellaneous
1. The President has the power to grant pardon, reprieve,
respite, or remission of punishment, or suspend, remit, or
commute sentence of a person convicted of offence
[Article 72(1)].
2. He has the power to make rules and regulations relating
to various matters of the state (Article 77).
3. He has the power to give instructions to a Governor to
promulgate an ordinance if a bill containing the same
provisions requires a prior sanction of the President
under the Constitution [Article 213 (1), Proviso].
4. He has the power to refer question of public importance
to the Supreme Court for opinion. Ten such references
have been made since 1950 [Article 143, under “Advisory
Jurisdiction’].
5. He has the power to appoint commissions to report on
specific matters, such as, commissions on_ the
administration of Scheduled Areas and welfare of
Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes; the Finance
Commission; the Commission on Official Languages; and
the Inter-State Council.
I.(e) Emergency Provisions

The President can declare three types of emergencies:
National Emergency (Article 32), State Emergency (Article
356), and Financial Emergency (Article 360). National
Emergency is caused by war, external aggression, or armed
rebellion in the whole of India or a part of its territory. Such an
emergency was declared in India in 1962 (Indo-China war),
1965 (Indo-Pakistan war), 1975 internal emergency (declared
by Indira Gandhi on account of “internal disturbances”). The
President can declare such an emergency only on the basis
of a written request by the Council of Ministers headed by the
Prime Minister. Such a proclamation must be approved by the
Parliament within one month. Such an emergency can be
imposed at one time for six months. It can be extended for six
months again and again by repeated parliamentary
approvals. In such an emergency, Fundamental Rights of the
Indian citizens can be suspended. The six freedoms under
Right to Freedom are automatically suspended. However, the
Right to Life and Personal Liberty cannot be suspended.
State Emergency is declared due to failure of constitutional
machinery in a state. Nearly all states have undergone such
an emergency. This emergency is also known as _ the
President’s rule. lf the President is satisfied, on the basis of a
report by the Governor of the concerned state or from other
sources that the governance in a state cannot be carried out
according to the provisions of the Constitution, he can declare
emergency in the state. Such an emergency must be
approved by the Parliament within two months. It is imposed
for six months at one time and can last for a maximum of
three years with repeated parliamentary approvals every six
months. If the emergency needs to be extended for more than
three years, this can be achieved by a constitutional
amendment, as had happened in Punjab and Jammu &
Kashmir. During such an emergency, the President can take
over the entire work of the executive, and the Governor
administers the state in the name of the President. The
Legislative Assembly of that state may be dissolved or remain
in suspended animation. The Parliament makes laws on all
66 subjects of the state list. All money bills have to be
referred to the Parliament for approval.
If the President is satisfied that there is an economic
situation in which the financial stability or the credit of India is
threatened, he can proclaim financial emergency as per the
Constitution’s Article 360. Such an emergency must be
approved by the Parliament within two months. It has never
been declared. A state of financial emergency remains in
force until revoked by the President. In case of a financial
emergency, the President can reduce salaries of government
Officials, including judges of the Supreme Court and High
Courts. All money bills passed by state legislatures are
submitted to the President for his approval. He can direct the
states to observe certain principles (economy measures)
relating to financial matters.
1.(f) Role and Position of the President of India

If we look at the provisions of the Constitution, there appears
to be a situation where the President is both a real as well as
a nominal ruler. Article 53(1) stipulates that the executive
powers of the Union Government are vested in the President
who can exercise them directly or through officials appointed
by him. The President, through Article 72 (1), has the power
to grant pardons, reprieves, or remissions of punishment, or
suspend, remit, or commute the sentence of any person
convicted of offence. Article 75(1) authorises the President to
appoint ministers on the advice of the Prime Minister and
ministers, and in accordance with the Article 75(2), they
would remain in office during the pleasure of the President.
Article 77(1) says that all the actions of the Government are
to be expressed in the name of the President, made and
executed in his/her name [Article 77(2)] and that he is
empowered, under Article 77(3), to make rules for the
convenient transaction of business. Article 78 (a, b) entitles
President to be informed of the affairs of the administration of
the Union. Article 103(1) empowers the President to give final
decision with regard to disqualifications of a member of the
legislature. Through Article 111, the President has the right to
withhold his/her assent to a bill or send back to the originating
House, with regard to ordinary bill. The President, under
Article 263, has the power to establish inter-state council in
the public interest to enquire into or seek advice upon
disputes between states, to investigate and discuss subjects
of common interest and to make recommendations leading to
coordination of policies.
The President, it may be argued, is elected by elected
members of the Parliament and state legislative assemblies
These provisions indicate that the framers of the Constitution
did not intend to make the President a nominal head. There
are, on the other hand, reasonably powerful arguments,
which help the Indian presidency not to become a really
powerful one. The provisions of the parliamentary form of
government in India call is for a nominal head and not the real
one. The indirect election of the President, under Article 54 is
meant to give the President an office of honour and not of
power. Article 74(1) wants the President to seek the aid and
advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime
Minister in the exercise of his/her power, and the advice, in
accordance with the 429d Amendment (reconsidered, as per
the 44th Amendment) is binding on the President. All this
does not make the President a real ruler of the country.
Article 75(3) makes the Council of Ministers headed by the
Prime Minister collectively responsible to the House of the
People. Had the President been made a real ruler, this
responsibility would have been given to him/her. There is no
financial power given to the President. Articles 112, 115, 119,
354, and 360 clearly indicate that the President has no real
financial powers with him/her. Even the emergency provisions
do not grant any real power to the President. The reading of
Article 78 clearly shows that the administrative decisions are
to be taken by the Council of Ministers and the President has
only the right to be informed of these decisions.
The stipulations of the above articles of the Constitution
indicate that the position of the President lies somewhere else
—he is, if not a real ruler, is also not a nominal head. The
President of India has a definite position in the federal
scheme which the Constitution has adopted. If that were not
so, why is there a provision that elected members of state
legislative assemblies participate in his/her election (Articles
54, 55) or why is there a provision empowering him/her to
establish an inter-state council (Article 263). The President,
under Article 60, is given the task of preserving, protecting
and defending the Constitution: he/she also has to see that
the administration carries on according to the provisions of
the Constitution. This indicates that the President has a
definite role to play in the administration. He/She is the
custodian of the democratic process as enshrined in the
Constitution. At times, especially when the majority of a
political party / parties is not clear, he/she can use his/her
discretion as to who should form the government or whether
any advice by a Prime Minister to dissolve the House of the
People be accepted or not.
This theoretical position evident from the Articles of the
Constitution apart, let us see what the framers of the
Constitution had in mind about the Indian presidency and
how, in reality, the Presidents have conducted themselves.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had pointed out in the Constituent
Assembly: “Under the Constitution, the President occupies
the same position as the King under the British Constitution.
He is head of the state but not the executive. He represents
the nation but does not rule the nation. He is the symbol of
the nation. His place in the administration is that of a
ceremonial head on whose seal the nation’s decisions are
made known.” Dr Rajendra Prasad had himself stated that the
President would become a “constitutional President in all
matters.” But when he became the President of India in 1951,
he found himself at odds on the question of his giving assent
to a Hindu Code Bill. In 1960, he said: “There is no provision
in the Constitution which in so many words lays down that the
President shall be bound to act in accordance with the advice
of the Council of Ministers.” He had, thus, raised the dual
identity of the President: (i) as a voice of the government of
the day and (ii) as guardian of the constitutional proprietary.
President K.R. Narayanan too had raised voice against the
then government’s proposal to have a presidential system
replacing the parliamentary one which in his opinion
constituted a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
President Fakhruddin Ali Anmed had to sign the emergency
proclamation bill in June 1975, under Article 352, as advised
by Indira Gandhi, without a clearance from the Council of
Ministers. The decision of the Council of Ministers to advise
the President to issue a proclamation in writing has been
made essential under the 44th Amendment. However, the
Presidents have used the power under Article 111, to send
bills back for a reconsideration to the originating House of the
Parliament. President Venkatraman used this power in 1987
by sending the Postal bill back. President Shankar Dayal
Sharma sent two bills back on the eve of the 1996
parliamentary elections. The Presidents, keeping the dignity
of the office, usually act as the constitutional head.
With the rise of coalitional governments, the role of the
President in government formations has become important
after 1989, with Presidents attempting to use _ their
discretionary powers. President Venkatraman, in 1989 and
1991, President Sharma in 1996, President Narayanan in
1998, and President Abdul Kalam in 2004 faced hung
parliaments and used their powers accordingly, some trying
to develop certain precedents. It is, thus, clear that the
President of India is not just a rubber stamp, nor does he/she
sign on the dotted lines. Indeed, he/she does not rule, but he/
she does not reign either. He/She asserts when it is
necessary.
Indeed, the Constitution of India does not vest the
President with real powers of the administration, but in certain
situations, though not many; he/she uses his/her discretion,
and own wisdom without the aid and advice of the Council of
Ministers. One such situation arises when, after Lok Sabha
elections, no political party commands a majority in the
House; and another when an incumbent government loses
majority in the Lok Sabha and the Council of Ministers
recommends the President to dissolve the House. The third
situation is when the President either sends the bill back to
the originating House or withholds his/her assent. In such
situations, the President can act in his/her wisdom and can
use his/her discretion, i.e., he/she acts without the aid and
advice of the Council of Ministers.
The Presidents have usually stood away from the politics in
the states and have actually acted on the advice of the
Council of Ministers. What at the most the President can do is
to ask the cabinet to reconsider the advice given. Once the
reconsidered advice is given, the President has to act
according to the advice.
ll. THE VICE PRESIDENT OF INDIA

Article 63 of the Constitution provides that there shall be a
Vice President of India. Articles 64 and 89(1) provide that the
Vice President shall be ex-officio Chairman of the Council of
States, (Rajya Sabha) and shall not hold any other office of
profit. In the constitutional setup, the holder of the office of
Vice President is part of the executive, but as the Chairman of
the Rajya Sabha, he is a part of Parliament.
To be qualified for election as Vice President, Article 66(3)
says that a person should be citizen of India, should have
completed the age of 35 years, and should have the
qualification to be elected as a member of the Rajya Sabha.
The Vice President is elected by an electoral college
consisting of members of both Houses of Parliaments by
secret ballot in accordance with the system of proportional
representation by single transferable vote. All doubts and
disputes arising out of or in connection with the election of
Vice President can be looked into and decided only by the
Supreme Court of India whose decision is final.
The Vice President holds office for five years from the date
on which he enters upon the office. He may, however, resign
from the office by writing a resignation letter, addressed to the
President of India. He may also be removed from the office by
a resolution of the Rajya Sabha, passed, by a majority of all
members of the Rajya Sabha and agreed to by the Lok
Sabha. At least a fourteen day notice is necessary to move
such a resolution. Notwithstanding the term, the Vice
President continues in office till a successor assumes office
(Article 67).
Table 20.3 The Vice Presidents of India
Name Tenure
Dr Zakir Husain 13 May 1962-12 May

1967
Varahagiri Venkatagiri 13 May 1967-3 May

1969
Dr Gopal Swarup Pathak 31 August 1969-30

August 1974
B.D. Jatti 31 August 1974-30
August 1979
Justice Mohammad Hidayatullah 31 August 1979-30

August 1984
R. Venkatraman 31 August 1984—24

July 1987
Dr Shankar Dayal Sharma 3 September, 1987—

24 July 1992
K.R. Narayanan 21 August, 1992-24

July 1997
Krishan Kant 21 August, 1997-27

July 2002
Bhairon Singh Shekhawat 19 August, 2002-21

July 2007
Mohammad Hamid Ansari, and 10 August , 2007-till

re-elected in 2012 date
Before Dr Zakir Husain, S Radhakrishnan had occupied the

office of the Vice President.
Under Article 65 of the Constitution, the Vice President acts
as President in the event of a vacancy occurring due to death,
resignation, or removal of the President. The Vice President
reverts to his office when a new President is elected and
enters upon his office. When the President is unable to act
owing to his absence, illness, or any other cause, the Vice
President discharges the Presidents functions for a
temporary period until the President resumes his duties. In
the event of the death, removal or resignation of the
President, the Vice President acts as President and the
election of new President has to be held within six months
(Article 62).
When the Vice President acts as or discharges the
functions of the President, he has all the powers and
immunities of the President and is entitled to the same
emoluments as the President (Article 65). However, during
this period, he does not perform the duties of the office of the
Chairman of the Rajya Sabha (Article 64). The Deputy
Chairman of the Rajya Sabha acts as its Chairman.
As Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, the Vice President
presides over the meetings of the House. As the Presiding
Officer, he is the unchallenged guardian of the prestige and
dignity of the House. He is also the principal spokesperson of
the House and represents the collective voice of the House to
the outside world. He ensures that the proceedings of the
House are conducted in accordance with constitutional
provisions, rules, practices, and conventions, and decorum is
maintained in the House. He is the custodian of the rights and
privileges of the House.
As Vice President, he/she performs several other functions
— goodwill visits to foreign coun-tries; consultation on
formulation and implementation of policies; attendance at
numerous social, cultural, academic engagements; and by
convention, chancellor of some _ universities. The vice
president is usually informed of government decisions.
The Vice President is the second head of the State, as also
the ex-officio Chairman of the Council of States. As such, his
real role is a unique feature of our Constitution. He has much
in common with the Vice President of the United States of
America. Both preside over the proceedings of the second
chamber of their respective legislatures. But there are also
great dissimilarities between the two. The election of the two
differs. In the case of the Vice President of the United States
of America, the electoral college which elects the President,
also elects the Vice President. In the election of the Indian
Vice President, members of both Houses of Parliament
constitute the electoral college. In the case of vacancy of the
President in the United States of America due to death,
resignation or removal, the Vice President becomes the
President for the remaining period of the outgoing President.
But in India, the Vice President performs the duties of the
President as acting President for the maximum period of six
months within which the election of the President must be
held.
lll. THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS (THE CABINET)

AND THE PRIME MINISTER
Articles 74, 75, and, 78 of the Constitution provide for
provisions relating to the Council of Ministers ( the cabinet)
and the Prime Minister. A brief summary of Articles 74 and 75
is given as follows:
i. There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime

Minister at the head to aid and advise the President who
shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance
with such advice, provided that the President may
require the Council of Ministers to reconsider such
advice, either generally or otherwise, and the President
shall act in accordance with the advice tendered after
such reconsideration.
ii. The question whether any, and if so what, advice was
tendered by the Council of Ministers to the President
shall not be inquired into in any court.
Other provisions relating to the Council of Ministers are:
The Prime Minister shall be appointed by the President

and other ministers by him on the advice of the Prime
Minister.
. The minister shall hold office during the pleasure of the
President.
i. The Council of ministers shall be collectively
responsible to the House of the People.
Before a minister enters upon his office, the President
shall administer to him the oath of office and of secrecy
according to the form set out in the Third Schedule.
A minister who is not a member of either House of the
Parliament for six consecutive months shall at the
expiration of that period cease to be a Minister.
Vi. The salaries and allowances of ministers shall be such
as the Parliament may from time to time by law
determine and, until Parliament so determines, shall be
specified in the Second Schedule.
Article 78 prescribes the duties of the Prime Minister. They

shall be:
To communicate to the President all decisions of the

Council of Ministers relating to the administration of
affairs of the Union and proposals for legislation.
. To furnish such information relating to the administration
of affairs of the Union and proposals for legislation as
the President may call for.
If the President so requires, to submit for the
consideration of the Council of Ministers any matter on
which a decision has been taken by a minister but which
has not been considered by the Council.
Ill.(a) The Prime Minister of India

The above provisions require that there has to be a Council of
Ministers headed by a Prime Minister to aid and advise the
President in the exercise of his powers. As a custodian of the
Constitution, the President has to have a Council of Ministers
and a Prime Minister. Furthermore, the President has to take
the aid and advice and is, in fact, bound by the advice of the
prime minister in council. For the Council of Ministers, the
President has to appoint the Prime Minister and, on the
latter's advice, has to appoint other ministers, i.e., his Council
of Ministers. The President is expected to invite such a
person to be Prime Minister who has been elected as leader
of the parliamentary party that commands an absolute
majority in the Lok Sabha. But when no single political party
enjoys a majority, the President has some discretion—he may
invite the leader of a combination of parties claiming to have
majority in the Lok Sabha, and appoint him as Prime Minister,
the appointee has to be a member of one of the Houses of
Parliament or be elected so within six months of being
appointed as Prime Minister. After the Prime Minister is
appointed, he recommends to the President certain members
to be appointed as ministers. In his recommendation for
appointing ministers (i.e., the members of the Council of
Ministers), the Prime Minister is usually free. He makes,
unmakes his Council of Ministers and reshuffles the
departments of his ministers as he likes — a powerful prime
Minister does so or can do so.
Table 20.4 The Prime Ministers of India

Name Tenure
Jawaharlal Nehru 15 August 1947-27 May 1964
Gulzari Lal Nanda 27 May 1964-9 June 1964
Lal Bahadur Shastri 9 June 1964-11 January 1966
Gulzari Lal Nanda 11 January 1966—24 January

1966
Indira Gandhi 24 January 1966—24 March 1977
Morarji Desai 24 March 1977-28 July 1979
Choudhary Charan 28 July 1979-14 January 1980

Singh
Indira Gandhi 14 January 1980-31 October

1984
Rajiv Gandhi 31 October 1984—2 December

1989
Vishwanath Pratap 2 December 1989-10 November

Singh 1990
Chandra Shekhar 10 November 1990-21 January

1991
Narasimha Rao 21 January 1991-16 May 1996

Atal Bihari Vajpayee 16 May 1996-1 June 1996
H D Deve Gowda 1 June 1996—21 April 1997
Inder Kumar Gujral 21 April 1997-19 March 1998
Atal Bihari Vajpayee 19 March 1998-22 May 2004
Manmohan Singh 22 May 2004-26 May 2014
Narendra Modi 26 May 2004-ill date
The powers of the Prime Minister are enormous and his

position is paramount, especially if the office is occupied by a
strong personality. /n relation to the President, the Prime
Minister acts as his adviser and a link between the Council of
Ministers whose decisions he communicates to the President.
In relation to the Council of Ministers, the Prime Minister is
the person who makes the ministry and the one who
supervises its functioning. With his resignation, the whole
ministry stands dissolved. No wonder he is considered central
to the working of the Central Government; and described as
the captain of the ship of the state. /n relation to the
legislature (the Parliament), the Prime Minister is the leader of
the majority party of the Parliament or the majority coalition
and; as such, the head of the government, and its chief
spokesman. He leads in defending the government in the
Parliament, in running the administration, and in getting the
budget passed in the Parliament. /n relation to the nation, the
Prime Minister is the leader of the nation by virtue of his being
the leader of the Parliament. In fact, his office is the office of
power, while that of the President, is the office of honour and
of respect. Of late, the parliamentary or the cabinet (the
Westminster model) system has become the Prime-
Ministerial form of government. To assist the Prime Minister,
there is a Prime Minister's Office (PMO), headed by the
Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister. The PMO includes
an anti-corruption unit and public grievance wing. It handles
all-important matters including policy, and matters related to
defence, administration, and appointments.
Ill. (b) The Union Council of Ministers

The Union Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister
is the real executive in India. The President exercises all his
powers and performs all his functions with the aid and advice
of the Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at its head.
However, the President may ask the Council of Ministers to
reconsider its advice. But the reconsidered advice of the
Council of Ministers has to be acted upon by the President.
No court can inquire into the advice tendered to the President
by the Council of Ministers. (Articles 74(1) and 74(2) of the
Constitution).
Members of the Council of Ministers are appointed by the
President on the recommendations of the Prime Minister.
Each minister is allocated a department and works under the
supervision of the Prime Minister. In this way, their individual
and political responsibility is towards the Prime Minister; for,
no minister can remain in office without the Prime Minister’s
wish. All ministers as a body are collectively responsible to
the House of the People. This responsibility, called the
collective responsibility, implies that ministers work as one
unit, one team; they swim and sink together. The ministers
are either members of one House of the Parliament or of the
other. Most ministers are from the House of the People,
though there are also members of the Rajya Sabha (the
Council of States) as ministers. Usually, the Prime Minister is
a member of the House of the People, but there is no
constitutional requirement for him to be so. The UPA
government is headed by Dr. Manmohan Singh who is a
member of the Council of States. Initially, Indira Gandhi was
also a member of the Council of States when she took over
as the Prime Minister in 1966. For attaining political
homogenity in a parliamentary democracy, the members of
the Council of Ministers belong to the majority political party
or the majority coalition.
The Council of Ministers is a large body of ministers,
consisting of about 80-85 ministers. Among them, the top
category, called the Ministers of Cabinet Rank, consists of
about 20 members or so, who hold the charge of important
protfolios. Below this, there is a body of ministers, called the
Ministers of State, some of when hold independent charge of
relatively minor departments while others are attached to
cabinet ministers. Still below is the body of ministers called
the Deputy Ministers, each attached to ministers of the two
categories above. Parliamentary secretaries constitute still
another category of ministers who help the top ministers in
handling the affairs in the Parliament. Cabinet ministers,
among all the categories of ministers, constitute an important
group, though even in this group, there is an inner group
called the kitchen cabinet, or the “inner cabinet” whose
members are most important of all ministers. A cabinet
meeting is attended only by the ministers of but cabinet rank;
but ministers of state can also be invited to attend.
The salient features of the Council of Ministers are:
(a) ministers are members of the parliament or they
become members of either House within a period of
six months;
(b) they are collectively responsible to the lower House
of the Parliament;
(c) they work as a team;
(d) they belong to the majority party/parties;
(e) the proceedings of cabinet meetings are kept
secret;
(f) all ministers work under the leadership of the Prime
Minister, who presides over cabinet meetings.
The Council of Ministers performs very important functions:
(a) it formulates and determines all policies of the
government;
(b) it conducts the administration of the Union
Government;
(c) it recommends all major appointments;
(d) it prepares the national budget;
(e) it advises the President on all matters of
administration;
(f) it takes the final decisions of the administration;
(g) it conducts and regulates foreign relations;
(h) it helps make all government regulation.
The Council of Ministers works through its committees.
Important committees include; Political Affairs Committee,
Economic Affairs Committee, Appointments Committee,
Parliamentary Affairs Committee. There is a Cabinet
Secretariat headed by a civil service official, called Cabinet
Secretary—usually the senior-most civil servant, — who
conducts and coordinates the whole administration.
Ill. (c) The Working of the Parliamentary System: The

President, The Prime Minister, The Council of
Ministers
The parliamentary system, as adopted in India, has two
executives. The President as the head of the State is the
constitutional head, while the Prime Minister as the head of
the government is the real power head who, as the head of
the Council of Ministers aids and advises the President in the
exercise of his/her functions and whose advice is binding on
the President. The President, may ask the Council of
Ministers to reconsider the advice. However, he is obliged to
act in accordance with the advice tendered after the
reconsideration.
The functions of the Prime Minister as laid in Article 78 of
the Constitution are much less than what he really does. He is
not merely a communicator, conveying the decisions of the
Council of Ministers to the President and the proposals, if
any, of the President to the Council of Ministers with regards
to affairs of administration and the legislative policies. He is,
in fact, the chief adviser of the President; and; the chief
spokesman of the government both in and outside the
parliament. He is not there merely to furnish information
relating to the administration and leg islation which the
President may call for, or to submit to the Council of
Ministers; a matter which the President may want to be
considered but as a link between the constitutional head and
the real executive. The Prime Minister is much more than
what he/she is described in Article 78 of the Constitution.
Within a parliamentary form of executive that India has, the
Prime Minister is the official who makes and unmakes the
government; the one who supervises the functioning of all
ministries, the one who presides over modernising the
country—its policies, its innovations. The Prime Minister is not
merely a leader of the majority party, but is also the leader of
the Parliament and, through it, the leader of the nation.
The fact is that the personality of the Prime Minister makes
a lof of difference in his/her position vis-a-vis his/her
ministerial colleagues — a powerful prime minister may be
like a shining moon among less shining stars (primus
interpares), while a weak prime minister may be just the first
among equals.
Nehru was much more than a mere Prime Minister. This is
why he was able to build numerous institutions of democracy.
Supported by equally powerful personalities who presided
over numerous ministries, he was able to democratise the
system. Shastri, following Nehru, worked in true spirit of
cabinet system and allowed the ministers to work as a team.
Indira Gandhi, with her unique style of leadership, led the
nation in most, if not all, cases single-handedly. Unlike Nehru,
she was possessive. Rajiv Gandhi sought to follow the style
of both, his grandfather Nehru and mother, Indira Gandhi. All
the Prime Ministers, during the periods of coalitional
governments, had to work, and in fact, did work, under the
constraints of their supporting and participating political
parties.
Relationship between Presidents and Prime Ministers over
the years has gone well, in the sense that the Presidents
have realised their position as the constitutional head and
hence worked well with their Prime Ministers who hold their
offices as popular leaders. A Rajendra Prasad-Nehru
controversy over the Hindu Code Bill in the early years of the
republic and the Zail Singh-Rajiv Gandhi relationship over
Article 78 in 1987 may be exceptions.
The Council of Ministers as a body of different types of
ministers, within the framework of the parliamentary system of
India is the real administrator. The President appoints the
ministers, but on the advice of the Prime Minister. The
ministers are in office during the pleasure of the President,
which, in effect, means the confidence of the Parliament,
especially of the House of the People. Legally ministers are
responsible to the President and politically to the Prime
Minister; but in actual practice, to the House of the People.
The real task of the Council of Minister is
(a) to evolve policies at the ministerial level,
(b) to formulate policies at the cabinet level,
(c) to approve policies at the Parliament level, and
(d) to execute policies at the government level.
It is because of this task that the Council of Ministers helps
make laws through the Parliament, executes laws, conducts
administration, makes appointments, prepares budget, and
conducts foreign relations.
The cabinet system seldom works as the prime-ministerial
system unless there is a heavy weight Prime Minister. India
has witnessed cabinet system of various levels. Professor
M.P. Singh (The Union Executive) refers to three such levels:
(a) pluralist parliamentary level when the Prime
Minister worked ‘together with his/her ministers,
seldom dominated them and usually consulted
them, as during the times of Nehru and Shastri.
(b) neo-patrimonial parliamentary level when the Prime
Minister dominated ministers lowering the Council
of Minster into the prime minister’s office as during
the time or Indira Gandhi, especially between 1971-
70.
(c) federal parliamentary level when, as during the
coalitional era after 1989, Prime Ministers worked
with their ministers (usually imposed upon them)
under constraints of supporting and participating
political parties.
IV. THE GOVERNMENT OF STATES
IV. (a) The Governor

Article 153 says that there shall be a Governor for a state and
Article 154 vests all executive powers of the state in the
Governor who shall exercise them either himself or through
officers subordinate to him. However, the Governor's
functions can be increased and the Parliament or the State
legislature can confer by law any function on any authority
subordinate to the Governor.
The Governor is appointed by the President (Article 155).
There can be one Governor for two or more states (Article
153). Article 156 says that the term of office of the Governor
shall be five years and he may continue in office till his
successor enters upon the office. The Governor holds office
during the pleasure of the President who can also transfer
him to any other state. According to Article 157, a person
eligible for appointment as Governor should be a citizen of
India and have completed the age of thirty-five years. He
should not be a member of either House of the Parliament or
state legislature, and if he is so, his seat would be regarded
as vacant. When he enters upon the office of the Governor;
he must not hold an office of profit. His oath or affirmation
(under Article 159) prescribes that he would preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution and the law.
The Constitution vests in the Governor all the executive
powers of the state government. He or she appoints the Chief
Minister who enjoys the support of the majority in the Vidhan
Sabha. He or she also appoints other members of the Council
of Ministers and distributes portfolios to them on the advice of
the Chief Minister. He also makes other major appointments
of the state.
The Council of Ministers remains in office during the
“pleasure” of the Governor, but in the real sense it means the
pleasure of the Vidhan Sabha. As long as the majority in the
Vidhan Sabha supports the government, the Council of
Ministers cannot be dismissed. The Governor also appoints
the Advocate General (Article 165) and the chairman and
members of the State Public Service Commission (Article
316). He or she is consulted by the President in the
appointment of the judges of the High Courts and he or she
appoints the judges of the district courts. The Governor has
certain legislative powers as well. The Governor summons
the sessions of both houses of the state legislature and
prorogues them. He or she can even dissolve the Vidhan
Sabha. These powers are formal and the Governor, while
using these powers, must act according to the advice of the
Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister. He or she
inaugurates the state legislature by addressing it after
assembly elections and at the beginning of the first session
every year. His or her address on these occasions is
generally meant to outline the policies of the state
government (Articles 174, 175, 176). A bill passed by the
state legislature, can become a law only after the Governor
gives his assent. He or she can return a bill to the state
legislature, if it is not a money bill, for reconsideration (Article
200). However, if the state legislature sends it back to him or
her for the second time, he or she has to give his or her
assent to it. The Governor has the power to reserve certain
bills for the President (Article 200). When the state legislature
is not in session and the Governor considers it necessary to
enact a law, he or she can promulgate an ordinance (Article
213). These ordinances are submitted to the state legislature
at its next session. They remain valid for no more than six
weeks from the date the state legislature is reconvened. To
grant pardon, or reprieve or, remit punishment are among the
Governor's judicial powers (Article 161). A money bill which
falls under the (Governor’s financial powers) is introduced in
the Vidhan Sabha only with his prior permission.
Normally, the Governor has to act on the aid and advice of
the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister.
However, there are situations when he or she has to act as
per his or her own judgment and take decisions on his or her
own. These are called the discretionary powers of the
Governor. He or she exercises them in the following cases:
(a) In the appointment of the Chief Minister of a State
(Article 164). When no party gets a majority in the
Vidhan Sabha, the Governor exercises his or her
own wisdom and can either ask the leader of a
single largest party or the consensus leader of two
or more parties (i.e., a coalition) to form the
government. He or she then appoints such a leader
as Chief Minister.
(b) In informing the President about the failure of
constitutional machinery in a state (Article 356).
The Governor can send a report to the President
informing him or her that the governance of state
cannot be carried on as per the provisions of the
Constitution and advises him to impose a
President’s rule in the state. Such a situation has
arisen in all states at one time or another. The
Governor, then, acts as the agent of the President
and rules on his behalf.
(c) In reserving certain bills for the consideration of the
President (Article 200). The Governor can reserve
a bill even after it being passed by the state
legislature for the President’s consideration if he or
she feels the need to do so.
Like the President, it is the Governor who preserves,
protects, and defends the Constitution and the law in states.
In normal circumstances, the Governor has to act as a
constitutional or nominal head, thanks to the parliamentary
tradition. But when emergency is declared, especially under
Article 356, the Governor rules the state at the dictate of the
Union Government and in the name of the President. *
* Things worked well until the same political party ruled at
the centre and the state. But with different political parties in
power at the two levels, there arose the demand for state
autonomy and a review of the role of, Governor. The results
have been: Centre-State tensions, and the constitution of
different commissions, reviewing the Centre-State relations.
IV. (b) The State Council of Ministers (Cabinet) and the

Chief Minister
Article 163 of the Constitution says that there shall be a
Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister as its head to aid
and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions,
except those where he exercises his discretion. This Article
also says that the advice given to the Governor by the
Council of Ministers would not be questioned in any court of
law. This is clear from Article 163 that the Governor, in normal
circumstances, acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
Normal circumstances mean the situations where the
Governor has no discretion. But in situations where he has
discretionary powers, the Governor acts on his own.
Before a Council of Ministers is constituted, the Governor
has to appoint a Chief Minister (Article 164) who is usually the
person who commands the majority support in the state
legislative assembly. After the appointment of the Chief
Minister, the Governor appoints other Ministers on the
recommendations of the Chief Minister. The state Council of
Ministers exercises all executive powers in the name of the
Governor, formulates policy with regard to the state
administration, makes recommendations with regard to all
major appointments in the state, carries on the state
administration, and helps make legislation in the state. The
Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the state
legislative assembly.
The Chief Minister in a state is like the Prime Minister at the
Centre—the real executive head in the state. He presides
over meetings of the state cabinet, allocates departments
among state ministers, and supervises their functioning. He is
a link between the Governor and the state Council of
Ministers. Article 167 of the Constitution prescribes the
following duties of the Chief Minister:
i. To communicate to the Governor all decisions of the

state Council of Ministers relating to administration.
ii. To furnish such information relating to the administration
and proposal for legislation as the Governor calls for.
iii. To submit, if the Governor so requires, for the
consideration of the Council of Ministers any matter on
which a decision has been taken by a minister but which
has not been considered by the Council of Ministers.
V. Administration—National Level
In addition to the real executive, i.e., the Council of Ministers,
there are numerous committees, such as (i) the Cabinet
Committee with Cabinet Secretariat, (ii) Central Secretariat
(iii) Prime Minister's office which helps the executive
administration, thus, reducing the burden of the cabinet.
i. The Cabinet Secretariat is a staff agency, operating

under the direction and leadership of the Prime Minister,
one that does the important coordinating role in the
process of policy making. The Secretariat enjoys the
position of a Department of Government of India under
the Allocation of Business Rule, 1961. It is headed by
the Cabinet Secretary, the ex-officio Chairman of the
Civil Services Board.
The Secretariat has three wings —Civil, Military and
Intelligence. The Civil wing aids and advices the union
cabinet; the military wing assists the defence minister’s
committee; the intelligence wing deals with the matters
relating to the Joint Intelligence Committee.
Since the Bhartiya Janata Party’s dominance, the
National Democratic Alliance (2014), Narendra Modi
has taken over the reins of the government, the number
of cabinet committees have been reduced from 10 to 6.
These six cabinet committees are: Appointment
Committee, Committee on Accommodation, Committee
on Economic Affairs, Committee on Parliamentary
Affairs, Committee on Political Affairs, Committee on
Security. Each of these committees is chaired by the
Prime Minister and each committee has three to eight
cabinet ministers.
The Cabinet Secretary, as head of the Secretariat
performs certain functions which, mainly are: providing
assistance to the Council of Ministers, acting as advisor
and conscious-keeper of the civil services, handling
senior appointments, preparing the agenda of the
cabinet, attending the meetings of the cabinet, ensuring
that the cabinet decisions are implemented, advising the
Prime Minister, providing the elements of continuity and
stability.
. The Central Secretariat: The Central Secretariat is
guided by the mantra—’ minimum government and
maximum governance’ which expects every civil servant
to work every inch of his job, a five day week, even
mostly working on Saturday, seeking outcome/ result on
every work done.
The Central Secretariat is a collection of officers of
various ministries’ departments, each ministry working
with its own secretary. There are senior officials working
under its secretary holding charge of divisions, sections
and their respective offices.
The functions of the Central Secretariat are: (i)
providing data about policies to the ministers, assisting
the ministers in their legislative and administrative work,
carrying out a detailed scrutiny of the problems raised,
(iii) working as a link between the government and other
concerned agencies/bodies, (iv) making the sectoral
planning.
The Prime Minister’s Office: The PMO provides the
secretarial assistance to the Prime Minister and is
headed by the Prime Minister, and administratively by
the Principal Secretary. The PMO plays an important
role in the decision making process while providing
crucial advice to the Prime Minister. Over the years, the
PMO has emerged as a centre of power. The fact of the
matter is that the PMO controls the entire
administration. It issues directives and instructions to
various secretaries. The Prime Minister himself remains
in touch with the top officials of the government. The
PMO has become the control room of the whole
administration, controlling all the powers unto Prime
Minister himself. Mostly the ministers are ‘Yes Ministers’
who are usually ready to defend their Prime Minister.
However, the PMO is becoming an agent of change, the
change scripted by PM Modi.
Practice
Questions
1. How is the President of India elected?

(200-250 words)
2. Describe the executive, legislative,
judicial and financial powers of the
President of India. (700-800 words)
3. Write a note on the emergency
provisions as_ contained in_ the
Constitution of India. (200-250 words)
4. What is, in your opinion, the position of
the Indian President? What role does he
play in the Indian political system? (700-
800 words)
5. Write a brief note on the Vice President
of India. (200-250 words)
6. How is the Council of Ministers formed
in India? What is the role of the Prime
Minister in the composition of the
Council of Ministers? (2013) (700-800
words)
7. Describe the position of the Prime
Minister in a coalition regime in the
Indian political system. (700-800 words)
8. Examine the impact of coalition politics
on Indian political system. (2012) (700-
800 words)
9. How is the Governor of a _ state
appointed? Describe his role. (700-800
words)
10. Write a note on the Chief Minister of a
”\
U
state. (200-250 words)
The Legislature in India:
Parliament of India And
Legislatures In States
7 he function of legislature in a democratic system is to

make laws. In addition to this, the legislatures control
the executive and finances of the state. They
represent the people and provide a forum where the
grievances of the people are heard and addressed to. In
India, the legislature at the Union level consists of two
Houses: the Council of States and the House of the People.
In states, some states have two chambers —the Legislative
Assembly and the Legislative Council—others have only one
chamber, the Legislative Assembly.
|. THE INDIAN PARLIAMENT
I.(a) The Council of States

The Indian Parliament, Article 79 says, consists of the
President and two Houses: (a) the Council of States or the
upper house, and (b) the House of the People, or the lower
house.
The total strength of the Council of States can be 250
members, out of which twelve; distinguished in the field of
literature, science, art and social service are nominated by
the President and the remaining two hundred and thirty eight
are representatives of states and the Union Territories,
elected in accordance with the provisions prescribed in the
Fourth Schedule; i. e., elected by their respective state
legislative assemblies on the basis of the population of the
states. Hence, the larger the state the more _ its
representatives in the Council of States, and the smaller the
state, the less its representatives in the Council of States has
(Uttar Pradesh has 31 representatives, Maharashtra 19,
Manipur 1, Sikkim 1, for example). At present, there are 233
members in the Council of States; from the states and 12
nominated by the President (November, 2014). Article 83
makes it clear that the Council of States is not to be
dissolved, but one-third of its members retire every two years.
In accordance with Article 84, the qualifications for a Council
of States (Rajya Sabha) member are as follows.
The candidate should be
(a) a citizen of India,
(b) not less than thirty years of age,
(c) should possess such other qualifications as may be
prescribed by Parliament from time to time.
I.(b) The House of the People

The House of the People, also called the Lok Sabha, is the
lower house, of Parliament, directly elected by the people. Its
total strength is 550: 530 members elected by the people
from states, 20 from the Union Territories and two, nominated
by the President; if he is satisfied that the Anglo-Indian
community has not been properly represented. Here also, the
larger the state, the more are its members in the House of the
People (Article 80). There were, in November, 2014, 542
members. Article 83 prescribes the tenure of the House of the
People as five years, unless dissolved earlier; during air
emergency, its tenure can be extended for a period not
exceeding one year. Article 84 pre-scribes qualifications of
the members of the House of the People which are similar to
those of the Council of States except that for the candidate of
the House of the People, the minimum age has to be 25
years.
I.(c) Disqualification and Vacation of Seats

A person shall be disqualified for election as a member of
Parliament (Article 102):
i. if he holds an office of profit under the Government of

India or the Government of a state, other than an office
declared by Parliament by law not to disqualify its
holder;
ii. if he is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a
competent court;
iii. if he is an undischarged insolvent;
iv. if he is not a citizen of India, or has voluntarily acquired
the citizenship of a foreign state, or is under
acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a
foreign state;
v. if he is so disqualified by or under a law of Parliament.
Through the Representation of People Act (1951), the

Parliament has specified certain other disqualifications: one
should not be guilty of an election offence; one should not
have undergone imprisonment for two or more years: one
should not have been dismissed from government service,
one should not have been guilty of inciting communal
feelings, and should not have been preaching or practicing
untouchability.
In addition to the above, disqualification would follow if one
has violated the defection law (Tenth Schedule), absented
himself for a period of sixty days from the meetings of either
of the two Houses without permission (Article 101). The seat
of a member of Parliament is considered vacant if one has
dual membership in Parliament or if one’s election is declared
void by a court or if one is expelled by the House.
I.(d) Presiding Officers of Parliament

The Speaker presides over the meetings of the House of the
People (Article 94) and the Vice-President, as the ex-officio
chairman, presides over the meetings of the Council of States
(Article 89). The Council of States elects its Deputy Chairman
and the House of the People elects its Speaker and Deputy
Speaker for conducting the proceedings of the respective
Houses. The Deputy Chairman presides over the meetings of
the Council of States in the absence of the Chairman.
Likewise, the Deputy Speaker presides over the meetings of
the House of the People in the absence of the Speaker.
There is a provision for the office of speaker Pro Tem who is
appointed by the President and who is usually the seniormost
member of the House of the People after general elections.
After the Speaker is elected, speaker Pro Tem vacates the
office. This is done at the first sitting of the House of the
People after it is constituted following general election. The
presiding officers of the Houses of Parliament supervise the
legislative proceedings, maintain decorum and discipline in
the House, interpret the rules of procedures and
parliamentary precedents; adjourn the House in the absence
of quorum, and exercise their casting vote.
I.(e) Houses: Their Working

The two chambers of the Parliament function in a manner as
prescribed by rules and regulations. They observe traditions
and work through their officials. The usual practices in the
Parliament can be briefly describal as under:
Officials
There is a /eader of the House in the House of the People
(Lok Sabha), usually, the Prime Minister. There is a leader of
the House in the Council of States, usually a minister of
cabinet rank. Deputy Leaders of the Houses are also
nominated. These leaders help conduct business in the
House. In each House, there is a /eader of the opposition,
usually the leader of the largest opposition party, who
provides constructive criticism of the policies of the
government. Each political party in each House of the
Parliament controls its respective party members through
their officials, called the Party Whip. Party whip is charged
with the responsibility of ensuring the attendance of his party
members in large numbers and securing their support in
favour of or against particular issues. He regulates and
monitors their behaviour in the Parliament. The members are
supposed to follow the directives of the whip. Otherwise,
disciplinary action is taken.
Sessions of Parliament
The summoning of the sessions of Parliament is done by the
President (Article 85). He can prorogue either House of the
Parliament. He also has the power to dissolve the House of
the People, usually on the advice of the Prime Minister, but
not of one who has lost a confidence vote in the House. The
Constitution says that the duration of gap between meetings
of the house should not exceed six months. Adjournment
means suspension of work. When suspension of the work is
done for a specified time, say a few hours, days or weeks, it
is called adjournment, but when it is done without specifying
definite time; it is called adjournment sine die. Both types of
adjournment are ordered by the presiding officers of the
Houses. Prorogation means terminating the sittings for the
period of the session. This is done by the President, without
affecting the fate of bills pending before the House.
Dissolution is termination of the House for the period of its
regular tenure. It means new elections. This is done by the
President; only in the case of the House of the People. The
Council of States is not dissolved. In case the House of the
People is dissolved, the position with respect to the pending
bill is given as following:
i. A bill pending in the Lok Sabha lapses (whether

originating in the Lok Sabha or transmitted to it by the
Rajya Sabha).
ii. A bill passed by the Lok Sabha but pending in the Rajya
Sabha lapses.
iii. A bill not passed by the two Houses due to
disagreement and if the President has notified the
holding of a joint sitting before the dissolution of Lok
Sabha, does not lapse.
iv. A bill pending in the Rajya Sabha but not passed by the
Lok Sabha does not lapse.
v. A bill passed by both Houses but pending assent of the
President does not lapse.
vi. A bill passed by both Houses but returned by the
President for reconsideration of Houses does not lapse.
Quorum of each House is one-tenth of its total

membership.
Devices of Parliamentary Proceedings

Categories of Questions are:
i. Starred Questions: These questions have to be

answered orally on the floor of the House. They carry an
asterisk mark.
ii. Unstarred Questions: These questions are answered in
a written form. They do not carry the asterisk mark.
iii. Short Notice Questions: These questions pertain to
matters of urgent public importance and can be asked
with notice of less than ten days.
Question Hour
The first hour of sitting in both Houses of Parliament is known
as Question Hour. During the Question Hour, members of
Parliament have the right to ask questions on administrative
and governmental policies related to national and
international matters. Questions asked in the Houses are
generally addressed to ministers. These questions can be
categorised as Starred Questions, Unstarred Questions or
Short Notice Questions. A member has to give a notice to the
Secretary-General of the concerned House that he wants to
ask a question.
Zero Hour
It is the time immediately after the Question Hour in both
Houses of Parliament. It starts at 12 noon. It came to be
called an “Hour” also, because very often it continues for one
full hour, until the House rises for lunch at 1 p.m. However,
the duration of the “Zero Hour” has varied over the years. It is
not possible to predict what kind of matters might be raised
during “Zero Hour” as there is no mention of any “Zero Hour”
in the rules of Parliament. It is the press which coined the
term “Zero Hour” during the early 1960s, when the practice of
raising urgent matters of public importance without prior
notice developed.
Half-an-Hour Discussion
“Half-an-Hour Discussion” can be held on a matter of
sufficient public importance, which has been the subject of
recent questions in the Lok Sabha. Usually, the discussions
take place in the last half-an-hour on Mondays, Wednesdays
and Fridays. In one session, a member is allowed to raise not
more than two half-an-hour discussions.
Motions
A member may introduce a motion in the form of a proposal.
It is, thus, a proposal for eliciting or expressing the opinion of
the House on a matter of public importance. Every question to
be decided by the House must be proposed as ‘Motion’. The
consent of the Speaker or the Chairman is a essential to
initiate a motion.
A Motion passes through four stages:
i. Tabling of the motion

ii. Posing of questions by the Speaker/Chairperson
iii, Debate or discussion on permissibility of the motion
iv. Vote or decision of the House
Government motions generally aim at obtaining approval of
the House for some policy or action. Motions moved by
private members focus on eliciting opinion of the House on a
particular matter. Motions fall into three categories:
substance, substitute, subsidiary. A substitute
motion is moved in lieu of an original motion. It proposes an
alternative to the original motion. A subsidiary motion is a
follow-up motion on some proceeding in the House.
Subsidiary motions have no relevance independent of the
original motion. Subsidiary motions are further divided into
three categories: (i) Ancillary motion, (ii) Superseding motion,
and (iii) Amendment.
Call Attention Motion

It is the right of every member (with prior consent of the
Speaker or the Chairman) to call for the attention of a minister
on a matter of urgent public importance. This unique Indian
concept of ‘Calling Attention’ allows members to highlight
failure or inadequate action of the government on an
important matter of public importance. This procedural device
is similar to an adjournment motion without its censure
aspect. The minister is allowed to make a brief statement or
request a later date for making a statement.
Adjournment Motions
In Parliamentary parlance, “adjournment” means a break or
termination of debate on a motion/ resolution/bill in the
House. It may also mean a brief break during a sitting of the
House. Adjournment sine die means termination of the sitting
without any definite date being fixed for the next sitting.
No-day-yet-named Motion
If the Speaker admits notice of a motion but no date is fixed
for its introduction, then it is called a “No-day-yet-named
motion”. It is placed before the Business Advisory Committee,
which allots the time for discussion on the motion.
Government motions get precedence over private members’
motions, as ‘No-day-yet-named motions’ are discussed at the
government's time.
No Confidence Motion
The changing political composition of Parliament has led to a
new procedure known as the Motion of Confidence in the
Council of Ministers. This practice has evolved in recent times
and takes place whenever no single political party is in a
position to command the majority of the House. The
procedure followed is as follows: a one-line motion under
Rule 184 “that this House expresses its confidence in the
Council of Ministers” is moved by the Prime Minister on the
direction of the President. The Council of Ministers remains in
office as long as it enjoys the confidence of the Lok Sabha. If
the Lok Sabha expresses a lack of confidence in the Council
of Ministers, the Government is constitutionally bound to
resign. In order to ascertain the confidence, the rules provide
for moving a motion to this effect, which is called a
Confidence motion. A motion of Noconfidence, once
admitted, has to be taken up within 10 days of the leave being
granted. Rajya Sabha is not empowered to entertain a motion
of No-Confidence.
Censure Motion
A censure motion is a distinct type of no-confidence motion.
While a motion of a no-confidence need not specify any
ground on which it is based, a censure motion must reveal
the ground on which it is based. This type of motion is moved
for specifically for censuring the government certain policies
actions. A censure motion can be moved against the Council
of Ministers or a minister for the failure to act or not to act or
for a policy, and may express regret, indignation or surprise of
the House at the failure of the minister.
1.(f) Bills and Legislative Procedures in Parliament Bills

The draft of a legislative proposal is known as Dill. No bill,
whether it is introduced by the government or a private
member, can become a law or an Act of Parliament until it
receives the assent of the President.
Broadly, there are two types of bills:
i. Government Bill: A bill is known as a government bill if it

is initiated by the government.
ii. Private Members’ Bill: If a bill is sponsored by member
(a member who is not part of the Council of Ministers is
referred to as a private member) in either House of
Parliament, it is known as a private members’ bill.
Although most laws are made through government bills,

private members’ bill serve the purpose of highlighting
changes needed in existing laws or the need for a particular
legislation. Bills may be further classified on the basis of their
content. The classification is as follows:
(a) Ordinary Bill: Any bill which is not a Constitution

amendment bill or a money bill is classified as an
ordinary bill. The following are the different types of
ordinary bills.
i. Original bills (embodying new proposals, ideas or
policies),
ii. Amending bills (to modify, amend or revise existing
Acts),
iii. Consolidating bills (to consolidate existing law on a
particular subject),
iv. Expiring laws (Continuance) bills (to continue an
expiring Act), and
v. Bills to replace ordinances issued by the President.
(b) Money and Financial Bills : Money and financial bills

are treated separately from other bills, because of
their special features.
(c) The Constitution (Amendment) Bills : These refer to

bills that seek to amend the Constitution.
Different Types of Bills Ordinary Bill

An ordinary bill has to pass through different stages before it
becomes a law. In both the Houses, the bill goes through:
First Reading
During the first reading, the bill is introduced by the minister
in-charge of the concerned department after the Speaker
grants permission to do so. The bill is then published in the
Gazette of India. If the bill has already been published in the
gazette with the Speaker’s assent, the stage of introducing
the bill in the House can be bypassed.
Second Reading
The second reading is the most vital stage for the bill because
it is scrutinized thoroughly during this period. This reading is
divided in two stages:
The First Stage

At this stage, only the proposals of the bill are discussed.
There is no in-depth discussion about the details of the bill.
The bill may be referred to a Select Committee of the Lok
Sabha, or a Joint Committee of the Houses with the
concurrence of Rajya Sabha, and/or may be circulated for
eliciting opinion. The committees are appointed on a
temporary basis in order to consider Bill referred to them.
At this time, either of the two Houses might refer the bill to
departmentally related Joint Standing Committee of both
Houses. This committee considers the bill clause by clause
and its members can move amendments to various clauses.
The committee can also take evidence of experts,
associations or public bodies who are interested in the
subject. After each clause and schedule has been considered
and adopted by the committee, the Lok Sabha secretariat
prepares a report. This report is presented to the House for its
consideration.
Eliciting Opinion
If a motion is passed in Parliament requiring a bill to be
circulated to elicit the opinions of local bodies, associations,
individuals or institutions, the secretariat of the House
circulates letters to all state governments and Union
Territories asking them to publish the bill in their respective
local gazettes. The period for eliciting opinion is generally
mentioned in the motion. If no motion is made, the state
governments have to send the opinions within three months
of the motion adopted. The opinions are then tabled in
Parliament. The bill again goes through the committee stage.
At this point, the House can debate on the bill as reported by
the committee. The debate is confined to the bill as reported
by the committee.
The Second Stage

After the House decides to debate the bill as reported by the
committee, the members discuss each clause of the bill
separately. They can also amend the clauses. This is a long
process where each clause and amendment is discussed,
adopted or rejected by the House. If an amendment is
accepted, it becomes a part of the bill.
Third Reading
At this stage, the bill is discussed solely to determine whether
to approve or reject it. Only certain verbal, formal
consequential amendments are allowed to be moved at this
stage. In order to pass an ordinary bill, simple majority of
members present and voting is required.
Once the bill has been approved by the originating House,
it is sent to the other House. It goes through all the three
stages again. In case a bill is passed by the originating House
but rejected by the other House, the President has the power
to call a joint sitting of the two Houses. The decision to accept
or reject a bill is taken by the majority of the total number of
members of both Houses present and voting.
After both Houses of Parliament pass a bill, it is presented
to the President for his assent. If the President does not
agree to sign the bill, he can send it to the originating House
with his suggestions. If the two Houses of the Parliament
pass the bill again with or without incorporating the
suggestions of the President, he has to give his assent.
However, the President generally acts on the advice of the
Council of Ministers, so he generally does not withhold his
assent. He has the right to seek information and clarification
about the bill. If the President gives his assent, the bill
becomes an Act.
Money Bill
According to the Constitution of India (Article 110), a bill is
considered to be a Money Bill if it contains provisions dealing
with all or any of the following matters:
(a) the imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or
regulation of any tax;
(b) the regulation of money borrowed by the
Government of India or a guarantee given by the
Government of India. The bill can also consider
amendment of the law with respect to financial
obligations undertaken or to be undertaken by the
Government of India;
(c) the custody of the Consolidated Fund or the
Contingency Fund of India, the payment of moneys
into or the withdrawl of moneys from any such fund;
(d) the appropriation of moneys out of the
Consolidated Fund of India;
(e) the declaring of a new item to be expenditure
charged on the Consolidated Fund of India. Also, if
there is any increase in the amount of any such
expenditure;
(f) the receipt of money on account of the Consolidated
Fund of India or the public account of India or the
custody or the issue of such money or the audit of
the accounts of the Union or of a State; or
(g) any matter incidental to any of the matters specified
in sub-clauses (a) to (f).
A Money Bill can only be introduced in the Lok Sabha on
the recommendation of the President. However, the Speaker
of the House has the final authority to decide whether a bill is
a Money Bill or not. A Money Bill cannot be introduced in
Rajya Sabha nor can it be referred to a Joint Committee of
Houses or be considered at a joint sitting of the two
committees.
Once a Money Bill is passed in the Lok Sabha, it is sent to
the Rajya Sabha. The Rajya Sabha may not amend a Money
Bill, but can recommend amendments. A Money Bill should
be returned to the Lok Sabha within 14 days or the bill is
deemed to have been passed by both Houses in the form it
was originally passed by the Lok Sabha. The Lok Sabha has
the discretion to accept or reject the amendment
recommended by the Rajya Sabha. The President does not
have the power to return a Money Bill for reconsideration. He
has to give his assent to the Money Bill as passed by the
Parliament.
Financial Bill
A bill relating to revenue or expenditure is a financial Bill.
Those Bills which make provisions for any of the matters
specified in the Money Bills but do not contain solely those
matters are known as Financial Bills. For example, a Bill
contains taxation clause, but does not deal solely with
taxation. Financial Bill also includes matters involving
expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of India.
The difference between a Money Bill and a Financial Bill is
merely technical. All Financial Bills are not Money Bills. A
Financial Bill is considered to be a Money Bill solely when it
contains matters specified in the Constitution for a Money Bill.
Only those Financial Bills would be considered as Money
Bills, which are certified by the Speaker.
A Financial Bill, which contains any matter specified for a
Money Bill but does not deal exclusively with such matters,
has two features in common with a Money Bill:
i. It cannot be introduced in the Rajya Sabha;

ii. It cannot be introduced only with the recommendations
of the President.
But, if the bill is not classified as a Money Bill, the Rajya

Sabha has full powers to reject or amend it as it does in the
case of an Ordinary Bill. In the case of disagreement over a
bill between the Houses, the President can call for a joint
sitting to resolve the deadlock.
A Financial Bill, which involves expenditure from the
Consolidated Fund of India, is treated in the same manner as
an Ordinary Bill. Hence, it can be introduced in both Houses
and the Rajya Sabha has full power to reject or amend it. It
also does not require the recommendation of the President
for its introduction. However, the President's recommendation
is necessary before the Bill can be passed by both the
Houses.
As the name suggests, an Appropriation Bill seeks to give
legal authority to the government to appropriate expenditure
from the Consolidated Fund of India. The Constitution says
that no money can be withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund
without the enactment of a law by the Parliament. A bill that
incorporates demands for grants voted by the Lok Sabha as
well as expenditures charged on the Consolidated Fund, is
introduced in the Lok Sabha. This bill is known as the
Appropriation Bill. It is passed in the same manner as any
other bill. But no amendments can be proposed to the bill.
After the bill is passed by the Lok Sabha, the Speaker
certifies it as a Money Bill. The Rajya Sabha can make
recommendations over the bill but it does not have the power
to amend or reject the bill. Therefore, the bill is presented to
the President for his assent.
Finance Bill
A Finance Bill incorporates financial proposals of the
government for the following year. It is ordinarily introduced in
the Lok Sabha every year, immediately after the budget is
presented. Discussions on the bill are restricted to matters
relating to general administration and local grievances within
the sphere of responsibility of the Union Government. No
discussion is permitted on the details of particular estimates.
This bill has to be considered and passed by the Parliament
and assented to by the President within 75 days after its
introduction. This bill is certified as a Money Bill. Thus, Rajya
Sabha can only make recommendations to the bill. It is up to
the Lok Sabha to accept or reject such recommendations.
I.(g) Budget
A budget is an “annual financial statement” or an estimate of
receipts and expenditure of the Government of India. It is
presented for the ensuing financial year, which at present
begins on the first of April every year. The budget includes an
estimated inflows and outflow of the government for three
years. It gives the actual expenditure for the preceding year,
the revised estimates for the current year and the budget
estimates for the next year. The pre-budget Economic Survey
is prepared by the Finance Ministry. The survey studies the
overall economic development in the country. It mainly
focuses on areas like banking capital markets, prices,
industry, agriculture and infrastructure. Other topics include
trends in Gross Domestic Product (GDP), demand and supply
factors, fiscal developments, to name a few.
The overall responsibility of preparing the budget rests with
the Budget Division within the Finance Ministry. The division
takes cognizance of the availability of funds as well as
proposals from numerous departments and ministries. It also
consults the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The budget
needs the approval of the Prime Minister before it can be
presented in the Lok Sabha. The President decides on which
day the budget is to be presented. By convention, it is
presented on the last day of February.
The Budget is presented in two parts:
i. Railway Budget, pertaining to the Railway finance;

ii, General Budget, which gives an overall picture of the
financial position of the Government of India, excluding
the Railways.
The Railway Budget and the General Budget are presented

in the Lok Sabha by the Minister of Railways and the Minister
of Finance, respectively. The speech announcing the General
Budget is divided into two parts:
Part A: dealing with the general economic survey of the
country; and
Part B: containing the taxation proposals for the ensuing
financial year.
Following the budget presentation, the annual financial
statement relating to the Government of India (duly
authenticated by the Finance Minister) is laid on the table.
Also, the Finance Bill is introduced at this time.
The procedure of the approval of the general budget
involves numerous steps. These are:
(a) Presentation of Budget: The Finance Minister
introduces the budget in the Lok Sabha, in
February, with a speech giving an overview of the
budget. A copy of the budget is laid on the table of
the Rajya Sabha at the conclusion of the Finance
Minister’s speech in the Lok Sabha. There is no
discussion of the budget on the day on which it is
presented.
(b) Discussion on Budget: The Parliament allots the
time for a discussion after the presentation. The
Budget is discussed in two stages — a general
discussion followed by a detailed discussion and
voting on the demands for grants. Besides, there
are other opportunities for further discussions on
financial proposals during the consideration and
passing of the Appropriation Bill and Finance Bill.
The Rajya Sabha is restricted to discussing the
budget in general terms.
(c) Voting on Demands: After the prescribed period of
debate is over, the Speaker uses his power to stop
all discussions and puts all outstanding demands
for grants to a vote. This power is known as
“Guillotine.” A voting on demands is the exclusive
power of the Lok Sabha. the demands for grants
are subjected to Cut Motions by members of the
Lok Sabha.
(d) Appropriation Bill: This bill is introduced after all
demands for grants are passed by the Lok Sabha.
The bill paves the way for the enactment of an
Appropriation Act and is certified as a Money Bill. It
allows the government to withdraw money from the
Consolidated Fund of India.
(e) Finance Bill: This bill includes all taxation
proposals including amendments, and paves the
way for enacting the Finance Acct.
A brief description of Vote on Account, Demands for Grants
and types of Cut Motions is given below:
Vote on Account: If the budget is not approved by the

first of April or the current financial year, the Indian
Constitution allows the Lok Sabha to grant a Vote-on-
Account. Generally, the passage of budget crosses the
beginning of the financial year and it becomes
necessary for the government to have enough funds to
run the administration of the country. So, the
government uses the special provision, of vote on
Account which empowers the Lok Sabha to make a
grant in advance for a part of the financial year, pending
the completion of the budgetary process.
Normally, the Vote on Account is granted for two
months for a sum equivalent to one-sixth of the
estimated expenditure for the entire year under various
demands for grants. During an election year, the Vote
on Account may exceed that period. This provision is
invoked once a general discussion on the budget is over
and before the discussion on demands for grants is
taken up. In the case of the Railway Budget, which is
passed before 31St of March, no Vote on Account is
needed, except during an election year.
Demand for Grants: Demands for Grants can be defined
as requests by the executive to the Lok Sabha for
authority to spend the amount asked for. Thus, they are
related to the expenditure part of the budget. The
demands have to be made in the form of a motion.
Members may disapprove of a policy pursued by
ministry or suggest measures for economy in the
administration or focus attention of the ministry to
specific local grievances. Members can do so by
moving subsidiary motions, called Cut Motions.
iii. Types of Cut Motions: There are three types of Cut
Motions.
e Disapproval of Policy Cut: This is the most drastic of

them all because it says “that the amount of demand be
reduced to Re.1”. A member of Parliament has to give
precise reasons for such a cut.
e Economy Cut: This motion means that a member would
like to reduce expenditure by making a specific cut in
the grant demanded. The form of this motion is “that the
amount of demand be reduced to Rs....”.
e Token Cut: This motion is widely used by members. Its
objective is to voice a grievance for which the
Government of India is responsible. The motion says
“that the amount of the demand be reduced to Rs.100.”.
Hence, Cut Motions are tools to initiate a discussion on

Demands for Grants. Once the discussions are over, the cut
motions are disposed of. Thereafter, the demands for grants
are put to a vote of the House.
I. (nh) Powers and Functions of Parliament: Its Role

The two Houses of the Indian Parliament perform important
functions and exercise significant powers.
Legislative powers and functions of the Parliament extend
to making laws on subjects contained in the Union List,
Concurrent List and Residuary subjects. In certain cases, the
Parliament can make laws on subjects in the State List. The
two Houses have equal legislative powers: an ordinary bill
can originate in any of the Houses, but to become a law, it
must be passed by both Houses. In the event of a
disagreament between the two Houses on an ordinary bill, the
President, under Article 108, may convene joint meeting of
the two Houses (to be presided over by the Speaker of the
House of the People), and decision may be taken by a
majority of the total members of both Houses present and
voting. So far, three such joint meetings have been held. The
Council of States has the exclusive power, under Articles 249
and 312; to authorise the Parliament to make laws: (a) on a
subject in the State List, (b) to create a new All-India Service.
Executive powers and functions of the Parliament include
control over the ministers by asking questions, supplementary
questions and passing adjournment motions. During the
period of the 14th Lok Sabha (2004 -2009), as many as 85448
questions were asked. Sixty four members of the Lok Sabha
had never asked any question. Among them were members,
such as L.K. Advani, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Mamta Banerjee,
H.D. Deve Gowda, Ajit Singh and actors Govinda and
Dharmendra (see Hindustan Times, dated 26.2.2009). It is
the House of the People which can force the Council of
Ministers to resign by passing a vote of no-confidence. The
financial powers of the House of the People are more than
those of the Council of States. A money bill originates in the
House of the People and after it is passed there, it goes to the
Council of States which has fourteen days to consider the bill.
The House of the People may accept or reject the
recommendations and its decision effectively means the
passing of the money bill from both Houses (Article 109). The
electoral powers and functions of the Houses are, by and
large, equal: both participate in the elections of the President
and the Vice-President. /n amending the Constitution, the two
Houses possess equal powers as they do in approving the
emergency provisions. By way of conclusion, it may be stated
that the House of the People, by being a popularly elected
House, has an edge over the Council of States, though the
latter has exclusive powers with respect to Articles 249 and
312.
Though the Lok Sabha, as a popularly elected House,
enjoys more powers than the Rajya Sabha, it would be
injudicious to regard the Rajya Sabha as an insignificant
chamber. The Rajya
Sabha is important in so far as it acts as the second
chamber: helps reconsider hasty and rashly discussed bills,
delays when it is necessary, deliberates matters of national
importance, represents the federation units in contributing its
rule to the development of the nation, relieves the burden on
the first chamber by initiating and discussing relatively less
important bills.
The Parliament, as the legislative organ of the country, has,
as Granville Austin (Working of a Democratic Constitution: A
History of the Indian Experience) points out, united “Indians
into one mass electorate having universal adult franchise, by
providing for the direct representation of the voters in
genuinely popular assemblies”. The Parliament represents
the mass of Indians, uniting them all on one platform
irrespective of their diversities: it is one forum where all speak
as Indians. As a legislative body which makes laws on
subjects contained in the Union List and; on residuary
powers, on subjects in the concurrent list, if it finds necessary,
and on subjects in the State List during abnormal times.
However our Parliament is not as supreme a legislative body
as the British Parliament, thanks to the constraints of a quasi-
federal polity which we have adopted. The Indian Parliament
is not a sovereign legislative body because its laws can be
declared void if they are contrary to the Constitution: the
framers of the Indian Constitution did not intend making the
Parliament a supreme legislative body, but they did make the
Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The Parliament’s
authority to amend the Constitution has, of late, been
admitted by the Supreme Court, and yet it has been barred
from interfering with the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution.
The power of judicial review ‘too’ restricts the power and
position of the Parliament. The compulsions of politics have
made the executive organ of the government dominant over
the legislative organ. The ever-enhancing powers of the
executive have hijacked the powers of the legislature: the
more organized and disciplined a majority political party Is,
the more are its chances of making the legislature its annexe.
The power of delegated legislation has served to strengthen
the position of the executive at the cost of the legislature. The
legislature’s powers are, by and large, on the decline,
relegating to the stature of either debating society or a
platform ventilating the grievances of the people.
Relationship between the executive and the legislature, in
any form of polity, whether parliamentary, presidential or
semi-parliamentary, is always important in governance. The
Indian President, as the constitutional head, is part of the
Parliament (See Article 79): As such, he/ she convenes the
sessions of the Parliament, prorogues it and dissolves the
Lok Sabha (Article 85); he/she has the right to address and
send messages to Parliament (Article 86); he/she assents
bills to make them laws (Article 111); he/she promulgates
ordinances during the recess of Parliament (Article 123). But
the President does not participate in the proceedings of
Parliament, nor can he/she stop a bill from becoming a law—
at best he/she can send the bill back for reconsideration of
the Parliament, but he/she has to sign the bill when it is
presented again for his/her assent. The President cannot
refuse to give assent to a money bill, though his/her prior
permission is necessary for the introduction of the money bill
in the House of the People (Lok Sabha). The President does
have real powers relating to Parliament and legislation, but
theoretically all powers are vested in him/her as the head of
the state, i.e., as the constitutional head.
Relationship between the real executive (the Council of
Ministers headed by the Prime Minister, as in India) in the
parliamentary system of government on the one hand and the
Parliament on the other is more important. In our country, the
president appoints the Prime Minister who commands or can
command the majority support of the Parliament, especially
the House of the People, though the Prime Minister may not
be the member of the Lok Sabha as Dr. Manmohan Singh is
not. The President also appoints other members of the
Council of Ministers on the advice of the Prime Minister. As
members of the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime
Minister is collectively responsible to the House of the
People, the ministers are taken from the Parliament (those
who are not members of parliament must seek membership
of either House of the Parliament within six months of
assuming office) and are responsible, as a team, to the Lok
Sabha, and individually, to the Prime Minister. The Parliament
controls ministers by asking questions, supplementary
questions, and moving and passing adjournment motions. A
censure motion, cut-or-motion, a vote of no-confidence by the
House of the People leads to resignation of the Council of
Ministers. Thus, the real executive (i.e., the Council of
Ministers in India) is not only a part of the Parliament, but is
also accountable to it. As part of the Parliament, the Council
of Ministers with the leadership of the Prime Minister, gets
legislations and budgets passed by the Parliament with the
majority support, and ultimately makes the Parliament work in
the way it wants: instead of controlling the Council of
Ministers, the Parliament is controlled by the Council of
Ministers.
The working of Parliament in India has witnessed, broadly
speaking, three different phases:
(a) Parliament under one-party majority governments,
(b) Parliament under minority governments, and
(c) Parliament under coalitional governments.
The first phase, under Nehru and Indira Gandhi as prime
ministers, had a parliament which worked at the dictates of
the Congress Party: Parliament was Congress, and the
Congress was parliament, with the executive controlling the
proceedings of the parliament. The second phase, under
Charan Singh, Chandra Shekhar, Narasimha Rao, Deve
Gowda, and I.K. Gujral as prime ministers, found the
executive relatively weak and the parliament active, if not
assertive. The third phase, under Atal Behari Vajpayee and
Dr. Manmohan Singh as prime ministers, found the executive
working under constraints of the supporting political parties,
sometimes conciliative.
I. (i) Committees of Parliament

The two Houses of the Parliament work through committees.
There are committees in each House, and there are joint
committees of the two Houses.
Ad-hoc and Standing Committees

Parliamentary committees are of two kinds: Ad hoc
Committees and Standing Committees. Ad-hoc Committees
are appointed for a specific purpose and they cease to exist
when they finish the task assigned to them and submit a
report. Principal ad-hoc committees are Select and Joint
Committees on bills. Others like the railway convention
committee, the committee on draft five year plans and the
Hindi equivalents committee were appointed for specific
purposes. Apart the ad-hoc Committees, each House of
Parliament has standing committees, like the business
advisory committee, the committee on _ petitions, the
committee of privileges and the Rules Committee.
i. Select and Joint Committees : When a bill comes up

before a House for general discussion, it is open to that
committee to refer it to a select committee of the House
or a joint committee of the two Houses. A motion has to
be moved and adopted to this effect in the House in
which the bill is tabled for consideration. In case the
motion adopted is for a reference of the bill to a joint
committee, the decision is conveyed to the other House
requesting it to nominate members of the other House
to serve on the committee. The select or joint committee
considers the bill clause by clause just as the two
Houses do. Amendments can be moved to various
clauses by members of the committee. The committee
can also take evidence of associations, public bodies or
experts who are interested in the bill. After the Bill has,
thus, been considered, the committee submits its report
to the House. Members who do not agree with the
majority report may append their minutes of dissent to
the report.
. Committee on Estimates : This committee consists of
30 members who are elected by the Lok Sabha every
year from among its members. A minister is not eligible
for election to this committee. The term of the
committee is one year. The main function of the
committee on estimates is to report what economies,
improvements in organisation, efficiency, or
administrative reform, consistent with the policy
underlying the estimates may be effected and to
suggest alternative policies to bring about efficiency and
economy in the administration. From time to time, the
committee selects such estimates pertaining to a
ministry or a group of ministries or the statutory and
other government bodies as it may deem fit. The
Committee also examines matters of special interest
which may arise or come to light in the course of its
work or which are specifically referred to it by the House
or the Speaker.
Committee on Public Undertakings : The Committee
on Public Undertakings consists of 15 members elected
by the Lok Sabha and 7 members of the Rajya Sabha.
A minister is not eligible for election to this committee.
The term of the committee is one year, and its functions
are:
(a) to examine reports and documents of Public

Undertakings;
(b) to examine reports, if any, of the Comptroller and
Auditor General on public undertakings;
(c) to examine in the context of the autonomy and
efficiency of public undertakings whether the affairs
of the public undertakings are being managed in
accordance with sound business principles and
prudent commercial practices; and
(d) such other functions vested in the committee on
public accounts and the committee on estimates in
relation to the public undertakings as are not
covered by clauses (a), (b), and (c) above, and as
may be allotted to committee by the Speaker from
time to time. The committee does not, however,
examine matters of major government policy and
matters of day-to-day administration of the
undertakings.
i. Committee on Public Accounts: This committee

consists of 15 members elected by the Lok Sabha and 7
members of the Rajya Sabha are associated with it. A
minister is not eligible for election to this committee. The
term of the committee is one year. The main duty of the
committee is to ascertain whether the money granted by
Parliament has been spent by the government “within
the scope of the demand”. The appropriation accounts
of the Government of India and the audit reports of the
Comptroller and Auditor General mainly form the basis
for the Committes examination. Cases involving losses,
nugatory expenditure and financial irregularities come in
for severe criticism by the committee. The committee is
not concerned with questions of policy. It is concerned
only with the execution of the policy laid down by the
Parliament and its results.
i. Business Advisory Committee (Lok Sabha): The
Business Advisory Committee of the Lok Sabha
consists of 15 members including the Speaker who is
ex-officio Chairman. Members are nominated by the
Speaker. Almost all sections of the House are
represented on the committee as per the respective
strength of parties in the House. The function of the
committee is to recommend the time that should be
allotted for discussion of such government legislative
and other business as the Speaker, in consultation with
the Leader of the House, may direct to be referred to
the committee. The committee, on its own initiative, may
also recommend to the government to bring forward
particular subjects for discussion in the House and
recommend allocation of time for such discussions. The
decisions reached by the committee are unanimous in
character and representative of the collective view of
the House. The committee generally meets at the
beginning of each session and thereafter as and when
necessary.
Committee on Private Members’ Bills and
Resolutions (Lok Sabha): This committee consists of
15 members and the Deputy Speaker is its chairman
when nominated as a member of the committee. The
committee is nominated by the Speaker. The functions
of the committee are to allot time to private members’
bills and resolutions, to examine private members’ bills
seeking to amend the Constitution before their
introduction to the Lok Sabha, to examine all private
members’ bills after they are introduced and before they
are taken up for consideration in the House and to
Classify them according to their nature, urgency and
importance into two categories namely, category A and
category B, and also to examine such private members’
bills where the legislative competence of the House is
challenged. The committee, thus, performs the same
function in relation to private members’ bills and
resolutions as the business advisory committee does in
regard to government business. The committee holds
office for a term not exceeding one year.
Rules Committee (Lok Sabha): The Rules Committee
consists of 15 members including the Speaker who is
ex-Officio Chairman. Members are nominated by the
Speaker. The committee considers matters of
procedure and conduct of business in the House and
recommends amendments or additions to the Rules of
Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Lok Sabha
that are necessary.
Committee on Privileges (Lok Sabha): This
committee consists of 15 members nominated by the
Speaker. Its function is to examine every question
involving a breach of the privilege of the House or of
members of any committee thereof referred to it by the
House or by the Speaker. It determines the reference to
the facts of each case whether a breach of privilege is
involved and makes suitable recommendations in its
report.
Vi. Committee on Petitions (Lok Sabha): It consists of 15
members nominated by the Speaker. A minister is not
nominated to this committee. The function of the
committee is to consider and report on petitions
presented to the House. Besides, it also considers
representations from individuals and associations,. on
subjects which are not covered by rules relating to
petitions and gives directions for their disposal.
Vii. Committee on Subordinate Legislation (Lok Sabha):
The committee consists of 15 members nominated by
the Speaker. A minister is not nominated to this
committee. The committee scrutinises and reports to the
House whether the powers to make regulations, rules,
sub-rules and by-laws, conferred by the House or
delegated by the Parliament are being properly
exercised by the executive within the scope of the
delegation.
viii. Committee on Government Assurances (Lok
Sabha): This committee consists of 15 members
nominated by the Speaker. A minister is not nominated
to this committee. While replying to questions in the
House or during discussions on bills, resolutions, or
motions, etc., ministers at times give assurances or
undertakings either to consider a matter or to take
action or to furnish the House further information later.
The functions of this committee are to scrutinize the
assurances, promises, and undertakings, given by
ministers from time to time and to report to the Lok
Sabha on the extent to which such assurances, have
been implemented and to see whether such
implementation has taken place within the minimum
time necessary for the purpose.
Joint Committee on Offices of Profit: This committee
consists of 15 members. Ten members are elected from
the Lok Sabha and five from the Rajya Sabha. The
committee is constituted for the duration of the Lok
Sabha. The main functions of the committee are to
examine the composition and character of committees
and bodies appointed by the Central and state
governments and to recommend what offices should
disqualify and what offices should not disqualify a
person for being chosen as, and for being, a member of
either House of Parliament under Article 102 of the
Constitution.
X. Committee on Welfare of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes: The committee on welfare of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes consists of 20
members elected by the Lok Sabha and 10 members
elected by the Rajya Sabha are associated with it. The
term of the committee is one year. A minister is not
eligible for election to this committee. The main
functions of the committee are to consider all matters
concerning the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes, failing within the purview of the Union
Government and the Union Territories, to consider
reports submitted by the National Commission for
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and to
examine the measure taken by the Union Government
to secure due representation of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes in services and posts under its
control.
Xi. Railways Convention Committee: The Railways
Convention Committee is an ad-hoc committee. It
consist consists of 18 members. Out of these, 12
members are from the Lok Sabha nominated by the
Speaker and six members are from the Rajya Sabha
nominated by the chairman. By convention the Minister
of Finance and the Minister of Railways are members of
the committee. Besides, ministers of state in the
ministries of finance and railways are its members. The
main function of the Committee is to review the rate of
dividend payable by the railways undertaking to general
revenues as well as other ancillary matters in
connection with the railway finance vis-a-vis general
finance and make recommendations thereon.
Xil. Committee on Empowerment of Women: This
committee came into being on April 29, 1997, as a
consequence of identical resolutions adopted by both
the Houses of Parliament on the occasion of
International Women’s Day on March 8, 1996. The
committee consists of 30 members, 20 nominated by
the Speaker from among members of the Lok Sabha
and 10 nominated by the Chairman, Rajya Sabha, from
among members of the Rajya Sabha. The term of the
committee is one year. The committee has been
primarily mandated with the task of reviewing and
monitoring the measures taken by the Union
Government in the direction of securing women
equality, status and dignity in all matters.
xiii. Departmentally related Standing Committees: A full
fledged system of 24 departmentally related standing
committees came into being in April 1993. These
committees cover under their jurisdiction all
ministries/departments of the Government of India.
These committees include committees on commerce,
home affairs, industry and energy. Each of these
standing committees consists of not more than 45
members - 30 nominated by the Speaker from among
members of the Lok Sabha and 15 nominated by the
Chairman, Rajya Sabha, from among members of the
Rajya Sabha. A minister is not eligible to be nominated
to these committees. Each committee has a term of one
year. With reference to the ministries/departments
under their purview, the functions of these committees
are: (a) consideration of demands for grants, (b)
examination of bills referred to by presiding officers of
the two Houses.
ll. STATE LEGISLATURES IN INDIA

In every state in India, there is a provision for a legislature
(Article 168) which consists of the Governor and a legislative
assembly or legislative council or both. In the states of
Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana,
Uttar Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir, there are two
Houses (the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council),
and in all other states, there is the one House (the Legislative
Assembly). Article 169 provides for the abolition or creation of
a legislative council in a state by a Parliament resolution
passed by a simple majority in each House on a
representation by the concerned state to the President
(Article 3). There is proposal to have a legislative council in
the State of Punjab.
Article 170 says that the maximum strength of a state
legislative assembly can be 500 and the minimum 60. It is this
House which is directly elected by the people whose tenure
(Article 172) is five years, unless dissolved earlier; the tenure
can be extended for a maximum period of one year during
emergency. Qualification, privilege, and disqualifications
measures of members of the legislative assembly are by and
large, the same as those of the members of the Lok Sabha.
Article 171 says that the maximum strength of a legislative
council shall be one-third of the strength of the legislative
assembly of the state, and the minimum 40. The Jammu and
Kashmir Legislative Council has 36 members, while Andhra
Pradesh, Bihar, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Telengana and
Uttar Pradesh have 50, 75, 63, 78, 50 and 108 members
respectively. The legislative council is constituted as follows:
i. One-third of members are elected by the members of

local bodies in the state (by municipalities, district
boards, etc.)
ii. One-twelfth are elected by graduates of three years
standing and residing within the state,
iii. One-twelfth are elected by teachers of three years
standing in the state, not lower in standard than
secondary school,
iv. One-third are elected by members of the legislative
assembly of the state from among persons who are not
members of the assembly; and
v. The remainder are nominated by the Governor from
among persons who have a special knowledge or a
practical experience of literature, science, art,
cooperative movement and social service (Article 171).
Article 172 says that the legislative council is a permanent

House and is not dissolved. Its members are elected for a
period of six years, one-third retire every two years. The
qualifications, privileges and the disqualifications measures of
the members of the legislative council are, by and large, the
same as are of the members of the Rajya Sabha.
The powers and functions of the state legislature extend to
making laws on subjects enumerated in the State List and the
Current List. In case, there is a law passed on a subject of the
Concurrent List by both the Parliament and the state
legislature, the Union law prevails and the State law becomes
void to the extent it goes contrary to the Union law. A bill has
to be passed by the state legislature before it is presented to
the Governor who either gives assent, or withholds the bill or
sends it back to the originating House or sends it to the
President for his consideration. The bill can be sent to the
President for his consideration for a second time (Article 201).
The legislative assembly has more financial powers: a money
bill is presented first in the assembly, the Council has a 14-
day period to consider it. The executive powers of the
assembly are more than those of the council: the assembly
can force the state Council of Ministers to resign by passing a
vote of no-confidence. The legislative assembly also has
special powers, as follows:
i. A motion of no confidence against the government in

the state can only be introduced in the Vidhan Sabha
legislative assembly. If it is passed by a majority vote,
then the Chief Minister and his Council of Ministers
must collectively resign.
ii. A money bill can only be introduced in Vidhan Sabha.
After it is passed in the Vidhan Sabha, it is sent to the
Vidhan Parishad legislative council, where it can be kept
for a maximum time of 14 days. Unless the Vidhan
Parishad rejects it or 14 days lapse or suggestions
made by the Vidhan Parishad are not accepted by the
Vidhan Sabha, the bill is considered passed. The
budget of the state is presented in the Vidhan Sabha by
the finance minister of the state in the name of the
Governor of that state.
iii. If a bill is passed by the assembly for a see and time
and sent back to the council, and. If the Council does
not pass it within one month or the assembly does not
accept its recommendations for the second time, it is
considered passed by both Houses. There is a
mechanism of joint meeting of the two Houses to
resolve the deadlock only on those bills originating in
the assembly and the council not agreeing to them, but
not for those bills, originating in the council, the
assembly rejecting them.
The state legislature works through its committees in the

same manner as the Parliament. does. There are almost the
same sort of officials in state legislature as in the Parliament.
There is some kind of similarity between the powers of the
Parliament and state legislature.
When a deadlock between the two Houses of Parliament
takes place when the Council of States rejects the bill, or its
proposed amendments are not acceptable to the House of
the People or the latter does not pass the bill within six
months the bill is considered passed. In the case of state
legislatures, the time period is three months. The provision for
a joint sitting of the two Houses of Parliament does not relate
to the fact as to where the bill originated first, but in the case
of state legislature, the provision for a joint sitting relates to
the fact that the bill has originated in the assembly.
Practice
Questions
1. How is the Council of States organised?

Who presides over its meetings? (200-
250 words)
2. Account for the changes in the socio-
economic profile of legislatures during
the last one decade in India. (2014)
(700-800 words)
3. How does an ordinary bill become a
law? What are the stages through which
it passes? (700-800 words)
4. What is a money bill? How is budget
passed in the Parliament? (700-800
words)
5. Compare the powers of the Council of
States with those of the House of the
People. (700-800 words)
6. Describe the powers and functions of
the Parliament. What is the role of the
Parliament in the Indian Political
system? (700-800 words)
7. Explain the role of the Council of States.
(200-250 words)
8. Write a note on the Public Accounts
Committee or the Estimate Committee.
(200-250 words)
9. Explain the powers and functions of the
State Legislatures in India. (200-250
words)
10. Write a short note on the Decline of
Indian Parliament. (2013) (200-350
”\
U
words)
The Judiciary in India: The
Supreme Court, The High
Courts, etc.
7 he government's first great job is to control the people

and thereafter itself. Unbridled government is a threat
both to the individual as well as to the society.
Controlling itself amounts to keeping its organs in balance
with one another. Montesquieu’s theory of separation of
powers had a point: when the three organs are separately
managed, they are, then, well-handled: give any of the two
powers to one person or assembly of persons, the system not
only slider into, tyranny but also endangers the peoples’
liberties. The separation of judiciary from legislature and the
executive ensures justice on the one hand and the balance of
power, on the other.
A balanced polity is one where the three organs of the state
—legislature, executive and = judiciary +§=—function
independently and in so doing ensure the balance between
them: legislature acts in such a manner that it keeps the
executive in check; the executive functions in such a way that
it Keeps a balance with the legislature; judiciary operates in
such a fashion that it keeps both the executive and the
legislature in their mandated role.
Of the three organs, the role of judiciary is important. The
test of a democratic polity depends, Bryce had once
remarked, on the functioning of the judiciary. Speaking on the
occasion of golden Jubilee Celebrations of the Supreme
Court of India on January 28, 2000, the President of India
said: “The judiciary in India has become the last refuge for the
people and the future of the country will depend upon the
fulfillment of the high expectations reposed by the people in
it.”
|. THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
I.(a) Introduction
Chapter IV of Part V (Articles 124 to 147) of the Constitution
deals with the Union judiciary which largely relates to the
Supreme Court of India. Article 124 of the Constitution says
that there shall be a Supreme Court of India consisting of the
Chief Justice and other judges whose number is prescribed
by the Parliament through law passed from time to time. In
1950, the
Supreme Court of India consisted of a Chief Justice and
seven judges. This number increased to 11 in 1956, 14 in
1960, 18 in 1978, and 26 in 1986. The Supreme Court, at
present, consists of one Chief Justice and 30 Judges. Each
judge, including the Chief Justice, has a tenure until he
attains the age of sixty-five years. He can resign or can be
removed as per clause 4(a) of Article 124 which reads:
A judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from
his office except by an order of the President passed after an
address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority
of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not
less than two-thirds of the members of that House present
and voting has been presented to the President in the same
session for such removal on the ground of proved
misbehaviour or incapacity.
Clause 3 of this Article prescribes qualification for the
appointment of a judge.
(a) He shall be a citizen of India,
(b) has been for at least five years a Judge of a High
Court or of two or more such courts in succession;
or
(c) has been for at least ten years an advocate of a
High Court or of two or more such courts in
succession; or
(d) is, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished
jurist.
A judge who has served in the Supreme Court is barred to
plead in any court within the territory of India after retirement.
Judges of the Supreme Court are paid salaries and are
entitled to such privileges as determined by Parliament by law
passed from time to time (Article 125).
The Supreme Court came into being on January 28, 1950;
and its inauguration took place in the Chamber of Princes in
the Parliament.
The judges of the Supreme Court (as also of high courts)
are appointed as per the 99th Amendment Act, 2014 by the
National Commission on Appointment of Judges of higher
judiciary, consisting of six members: Chief Justice of India,
two senior most judges(next to the chief justice) of the
Supreme Court, Union Law and Justice minister and two
other eminent members for a three year term, one of them
belonging to the SC, ST, OBC, minorities and women. The
transfer of the judges of higher courts is conducted by the
judicial commission. The Supreme Court has declared the
99th amendment as invalid in 2015. The judges of the higher
judicary and their transfer are done as earlier which follows as
under:
The Judges Enquiry Act (1965) regulates the procedure
relating to the removal of a judge of the Supreme Court and
the procedure is:
1. A removal motion signed by 100 members of the Lok
Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha is to be given
to the Speaker/Chairman.
2. The Speaker/Chairman may admit the motion or refuse
to admit it.
3. If it is admitted, then the Speaker/Chairman is to
constitute a three-member committee to investigate into
the charges.
4. The committee should consist of the Chief Justice or a
judge of the Supreme Court, a Chief Justice of a High
Court and a distinguished jurist.
5. If the committee finds the judge guilty of misbehaviour or
suffering from incapacity, the House can take up the
consideration of the motion.
6. After the motion is passed by each House of the
Parliament by special majority, an address is presented
to the President for removal of the judge. Special majority
means two-thirds of the members present and voting and
which must have a simple majority of the total
membership of each House.
7. Finally, the President passes an order removing the
judge.
No Supreme Court judge has been impeached so far. The
first and the only case of impeachment is that of Justice V.
Ramaswami of the Supreme Court (1991-93). Though the
enquiry committee found him guilty of misbehaviour, he could
not be removed as the impeachment motion was defeated in
the Lok Sabha. The Congress Party abstained from voting.
I.(b) Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has original, appellate and advisory
jurisdiction.
Original jurisdiction : The Supreme Court has an

exclusive, original jurisdiction Under article 131, over
any dispute between the Government of India and one
or more States or between the Government of India and
any state or states on one side and one or more states
on the other or between two or more states; if and in so
far as the dispute involves question (whether of law or
of fact) on which dependes the existence of extent of a
legal right. In addition, Article 32 of the Constitution
grants an extensive original jurisdiction to the Supreme
Court in regard to enforcement of the Fundamental
Rights. It is empowered to issue directions, orders or
writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus,
mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, to
enforce them.
. Appellate jurisdiction : The appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court can be invoked by a certificate granted
by High Court under Articles 132(1), 133(1) or 134 of
the Constitution in respect of a judgment, decree or final
order, passef by it in civil or criminal cases, involving
substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of
the Constitution. The Supreme Court can also grant
special leave to appeal against judgment or order of a
nonmilitary court. The parliament has the power to
enlarge the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
and has exercised this power in case of criminal
appeals by enacting the Supreme Court (Enlargement
of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970.
Appeal can also be filed to the Supreme Court in civil

matters if the High Court concerned certifies: that the case
involve a substantial question of law of general importance,
and that, in the opinion of the High Court, the said question
needed to be decided by the Supreme Court. In criminal
cases, an appeal can be filed to the Supreme Court if the
High Court has:
(a) On appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an
accused person and sentenced him to death or to
imprisonment for life or for a period of not less than
10 years, or
(b) withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any
court subordinate to its authority and has in such
trial convicted the accused and sentenced him to
death or imprisonment for life or for a period of not
less than 10 years, or
(c) certified that the case is fit for appeal to the
Supreme Court.
Parliament is authorised to confer on the Supreme Court
any further powers to entertain and hear appeals from
judgment, final order or sentence in criminal proceeding of a
High Court.
i. Advisory Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court has a
special advisory jurisdiction in matters which may
specifically be referred to it by the President of India
under Article 143 of the Constitution. However, the
President is not bound to accept the advice. Some of
the cases where the advice of the Supreme Court was
sought included: Delhi Laws Act (1954), Kerala
Education Bill (1958), Berubari Union (1960), Customs
Act (1963), Special Courts Bill (1978), Jammu and
Kashmir Resettlement Act (1982), Cauvery Water
Dispute Tribunal (1992), Ram Janma Bhumi case
(1994).
ii. The Supreme Court has the power to grant special
leave to appeal againts any judgment by any court
(Article 136).
iii. The Supreme Court is empowered to review its own
judgment (Article 137).
Under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution, the

Supreme Court has been vested with power to punish anyone
for contempt of any law court in India. The Supreme Court
performed an unprecedented action when it directed a sitting
minister of the State of Maharashtra to be jailed for one
month on a charge of contempt of court on May 12, 2006.
This was the first time that a serving minister was ever jailed.
Judicial Review
Judicial review is a process through which the judiciary
examines the constitutionality of a legis-lative act and/or
executive order. If on examination it is found that there has
been a violation of the Constitution, the judiciary declares it to
be unconstitutional and invalid. Though the word ‘Judicial
review’ has nowhere been used in the Constitution, numerous
provisions (such as Articles 13, 32, 131, 132, 133, 134, 226,
246 etc.) explicitly confer the power of the judicial review on
the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has used the power
of judicial review in various cases, such as the Golaknath
case (1967), the Bank Nationalisation case (1970), the Privy
Purses Abolition case (1971), and the Kesavananda Bharati
case (1973), and the Minerva Mills case (1980). When the
judicial review power is exercised, the following three grounds
are referred to by stating that the law or the order:
(a) infringes the Fundamental Rights (Part III),
(b) is outside the competence of the authority which
has framed it, and
(c) is repugnant to the constitutional provisions.
The Constitution seeks to ensure the independence of
Supreme Court Judges in various ways. Judges are generally
appointed on the basis of seniority and not on political
preferences. A judge of the Supreme Court cannot be
removed from office except by an order of the President
passed after an address in each House of Parliament
supported by a majority of the total membership of that House
and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of members
present and voting, and presented to the President in the
same session for such removal on the ground of proved
misbehaviour or incapacity. The salary and allowances of a
judge of the Supreme Court cannot be reduced after
appointment. A person who has been a judge of the Supreme
Court is barred, after retirement from practising in any court of
law or before any authority in India.
I. (Cc) The Supreme Court: The Role of Judiciary

The intention of the Constituent Assembly, in so far as the
Supreme Court was concerned, was to make the apex court
as the custodian of
(a) the federal scheme which the framers had
visualised;
(b) the Constitution they had so fondly formulated, and
(c) the Fundamental Rights granted to the people as
enshrined in the Constitution.
The framers had no intention to put one organ of the
government against the other; the idea was to check the
arbitrariness of both the legislature and the executive, rather
than making it as the battleground for settling scores. They
did wish to project it as impartial as possible and had sought
to keep the judiciary away from the pressure of the
government, legislature including. There was, in fact, no
intention to make the judiciary override the wishes of the
legislature, either. Happily, the provisions relating to the
Supreme Court were so designed that it acted as the
guardian of the Constitutional and administrative system of
the. The idea of state independent as well as impartial
judiciary was what the framers of the Constitution sought to
establish in the country. Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayyar had
rightly pointed out in the Constituent Assembly: “While there
can be no two opinions on the need for the maintenance of
judicial independence, both for the safeguarding of the
individual liberty and the proper working of the Constitution, it
is also necessary to keep in view one important principle. The
doctrine of independence is not to be raised to the level of a
dogma so to enable the judiciary to function as a kind of
superlegislature or super-executive.”
The Supreme Court, over the years, has served its role
remarkably well. Though Article 131 restricts the Supreme
Court to take up issues relating to treaties prior to the
commencement of the Constitution as also matters under
Articles 280 and 290, it did decide disputes between the
Union Government and the governments of states or between
states. In the case, State of West Bengal vs. Union of India,
1963, the Supreme Court declared the unconstitutionality of
the Coal Bearing Areas Act, 1957. In the State of Bihar vs.
Union of India case, 1970, the Supreme Court held that
disputes of constitutional and legal and not of political nature
be taken up. (see also State of Rajasthan vs. Union of India,
1978), In yet another case, the State of Karnataka vs. Union
of India, (1978), the government of Karnataka challenged the
power of the Union Government to appoint an enquiry
commission under Article 131, though the Supreme Court had
interpreted the said Article generously. Another two cases,
State of Karnataka vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2001 and
the State of Haryana vs. State of Punjab, 2002, related to the
distribution of river water between the concerned states and
thus did not constitute part of the dispute arising under Article
131 (the two cases were related to Article 262 and were,
hence, not taken up for hearing by the apex court.
Although the issue in the S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India
case, 1994, was not one of doubting India’s federal scheme
as was asserted. “The fact that the Supreme Court declared
under the scheme of our Constitution, greater power is
conferred upon the Centre vis-a-vis the states does not mean
that the states are mere appendages of the Centre. The
states have an independent constitutional existence. They are
not satellites or agents of the Centre. Within the sphere
allotted to them, the States are supreme, ... let it be said that
the federation in the Indian Constitution is not a matter of
administrative convenience, but one of principle—the
outcome of our own process and a recognition of ground
realities”.
The Supreme Court of India has protected the fundamental
rights, rather overzealously. The Right to Life under Article 21
is not merely the right to live; it is the right to live with dignity,
to live in a healthy environment: its scope extending to all civil
human rights. Endorsing the view taken in the Motiram vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh case, 1978, the Supreme Court, in
the Hussainara Khatoon case, 1979, sought to include
“reasonable, fair and just’ conditions when acting on “the
procedure established by law under Article 21. Condemning
the practice of using handcuffs and fetters as torture of the
prisoners, defiling their dignity, vulgarising the society, and
fouling the soul of the country’s culture, the Supreme Court, in
the Prem Shankar Shukla vs. Delhi Administration case; 1980
invoked Articles 14, 19 and 21 declaring the handcuffing as
the violation of one’s personhood, a decision which was
reiterated in the Citizens for Democracy vs. State of Assam
case, 1995. In Icchu Devi Choraria vs. Union of India, 1980,
the Supreme Court declared personal liberty (Article 21) as
most precious without which life would be worth nothing. In
yet another case, Nilabati Behera vs. State of Orissa, (1993),
the Supreme Court declared judiciary as the “protector of civil
liberties”. In Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum vs.
Union of India, 1995, the Supreme Court asserted that
“speedy trial is one of the essential requisites of law’ giving a
meaning to the guarantee of “equal protection of law” under
Article 14. The People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs. Union of
India, 1997, D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, 1997, and
Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan, 1997, the Supreme Court
sought to prohibit arbitrary interference and custodial torture
as a naked violation of human dignity, and sexual harassment
as against the civil rights of the people (Articles 14, 15, 19).
The Supreme Court has done no less in expressing its
concern about the impact of pollution on ecology and
environment in numerous cases. Some of these cases are
M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, 1988, Indian Council for
Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India, 1996, Vellore Citizen’s
Welfare Forum vs. Union of India, 1996, S. Jagannath vs.
Union of India, 1997, M.C. Mehta (Taj Trapezium
Matter) vs. Union of India, 1997, M.C. Metha (Badkhal and
Surajkund Lakes Matter) vs. Union of India, 1997, Bittu
Sehgal vs. Union of India, 2001, and M.C. Mehta vs. Union of
India, 2002.
In the field of education and especially relating to the rights
of the minoritiasy, the Supreme Court has given historic
decisions, contributing immensely to these fields. Some such
cases are Kerala Education Bill, 1957 (1959), The
Ahmedabad St. Xavier Society vs. State of Gujarat, 1974, St.
Stephen’s College vs. University of Delhi, 1992, Mohini Jain
vs. State of Karnataka, 1992, Unni Krishnan vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh, 1993, T.M.A. Pai Foundation vs. State of
Karnataka, 2002, Islamic Academy of Education vs. State of
Karnataka, 2003, and P.A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra,
2005.
The judicial review power of the Supreme Court together
with that of High Courts has enhanced the position of the
Indian judiciary. The Supreme Court of India, being the
highest judicial organ, is an important institution in our polity.
Over the years, it has proved its merit by being the custodian
of the Constitution, protector of our federal system and the
defender of the fundamental rights of our people.
Indeed, the Supreme Court has been able to attain and
keep its grandeur; although it is not as powerful as the
American supreme Court. The American Supreme Court has
empowered itself through what is called “due process of law”
which has given it wide scope of power, including the power
to protect the rights of the people and the Constitution. The
Indian Supreme Court works within what has been described
as “procedure established by law; which has relatively
restricted it scope of power.” The American Supreme Court
goes by the law as well as by its spirit, while the Indian
Supreme Court goes more by the law than by its spirit.
ll. THE HIGH COURTS IN INDIA

Chapter V of Part VI, from Articles 214 to 231, deal with
High Courts in the states. Article 214 says that there shall be
a High Court for each state, though some states may have a
common High Court together (Guwahati High Court, for
example, has its jurisdiction over the States of Arunachal
Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Tripura,
Mizoram; and Punjab and Harayana High Court has its
jurisdiction over the states of Punjab and Harayana). Among
the Union Territories, Delhi has a High Court, but other Union
Territories are attached to their neighbouring states. Like the
Supreme Court of India, each High Court is a court of record
(Article 215) and as such has the power to punish for
contempt of the court. Each High Court, Article 216 says,
consists of a Chief Justice and such other judges as the
President may from time to time deem it necessary to
appoint. Article 217 prescribes the appointment, tenure and
qualification of judges. It reads, thus:
(1) Every Judge of a High Court shall be appointed by the
President by warrant under his hand and seal after
consultation with the Chief Justice of India, and the Governor
of the State. In the case of appointment of a Judge other than
the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of the High Court shall be
consulted. The judges shall hold office, in the case of an
additional or acting Judge, as provided in Article 224; and in
any other case, until he attains the age of sixty-two years:
Provided that:
(a) a judge may, by an application written in his hand
addressed to the President, resign from his office;
(b) a judge may be removed from his office by the
President in the manner provided in clause (4) of
Article 124 for the removal of a judge of the
Supreme Court.
(c) the office of a high court judge shall be vacated by
his being appointed by the President to be a judge
of the Supreme Court or by his being transferred by
the President to any other High Court within the
territory of India.
(2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a
judge of a High Court unless he is a citizen of India; and
(a) has for at least ten years held a judicial office in the
territory of India; or
(b) has not for at least ten years been an advocate of a
High Court or two or more such courts in
succession.
The Calcutta High Court is the oldest High Court in the
country, established on July 2, 1862. High Courts which
handle a large number of cases of a particular region, have
permanent benches (or a branch of the court) established
there. Benches exist also in states which come under the
jurisdiction of a court outside its territorial limits. Smaller
states with few cases may have circuit benches. Circuit
benches (known as circuit courts in some parts of the world)
are temporary courts which hold proceedings for a few
months in a year. Thus, cases built up during the interim
period are judged when the circuit court is in session.
The judges of High Courts are paid salaries and are entitled
to privileges as are determined by a Parliament through law.
The jurisdiction of the High Court can be summed up as
follows:
Original: The High Court hears all disputes

(a) relating to matters of admiralty, will, marriage,
company laws, contempt of court;
(b) relating to the elections of Parliament and state
legislatures;
(c) relating to revenue matters;
(d) relating to enforcement of the fundamental rights.
. Writ: The High Court has the power to issue writs such
as habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrant,
certiorari (Article 226)
Appellate: Civil appeals against orders and judgments
of district courts, additional courts; criminal appeals
against sentences of more than seven years: death
sentences awarded by lower court have to be confirmed
by the High Court, where the lower court itself certifies
that the appeal against its judgment can be made.
Control over Subordinate Courts: The High Court has
the power to superintend over all courts and tribunals
with regard to the compliance of rules and procedures,
and service conditions.
Judicial Review: The High Court has the power to
examine the constitutionality of a law or an executive
order and declare the same void if it is against the
Constitution. The 42"4d Amendment (1976) restricted
this power to state laws within its preview, but the 434
Amendment (1977) restored the jurisdiction of the High
Court to include state Union laws and orders as well.
lll. JUDICIAL REVIEW

Judicial review is the power of the judiciary to declare the
laws of the legislature and the orders of the executive
unconstitutional if the judiciary finds such laws/orders contrary
to the Constitution. Judiciary has this power because it, as
compared to the other two organs of the state—the legislature
and the executive—is usually and relatively impartial and non-
political. It also has this power because it, as compared to the
other two organs, is more capable to see through what is
being overdone by some organs that is not due to them. Who
else should be given the power to judge it except the one
whose intentions are never in doubt? A legislature, because
of its electoral compulsions, can usurp the power it does not
have; an executive because of the power it can possibly
assert, can go beyond its specified limits, but the judiciary,
attuned to administer justice and committed to the statute
book, would only seek to keep the balance in the system.
That is one reason why the judiciary is empoweres to uphold
the Constitution and keep all laws/orders passed or issued
within the parameters of the supreme law of the land, for, no
judiciary is politically ideologised, at least not at its highest
level. The power of judicial review, vested in judiciary, is
based simply on the logic that the Constitution should remain
the supreme law of the land and that all other laws and
authorities need not venture to go beyond the limitations laid
down by the Constitution.
The concept of judicial review is the American contribution
to the world when the Chief Justice Marshall, while
pronouncing the verdict in Marbury vs. Madism (1803),
declared that it was judiciary, among the organs of the state,
which can decide on the constitutionality of a law or a decree,
and if found violating the Constitution, can declare it void. The
judicial review in India differs from the way it exists in the
USA. In the USA, the notion of judicial review is rooted in the
doctrine of ‘due process of law, while in India it is derived
from a relatively lenient doctrine— “process established by
law.” In the State of Madras vs. V.G. Row (1952) case,
Justice Patanjali Shastri stated: “Our Constitution contains
express provision for judicial review of legislation as to its
conformity with the Constitution,.... This is especially true as
regards the Fundamental Rights, to which this court has been
assigned the role of sentinel. While the court naturally
attaches great weight to the legislative judgment, it cannot
desert its own duty to determine finally the constitutionality of
an impugned statute.”
There are specific provisions in our Constitution which
provide for judicial review, especially the provisions relating to
Articles 13, 32, 131-136, 226, 245 and 246. But the Supreme
Court had specified certain rules for applying the doctrine of
judicial review. H.C. Seervai (Constitutional Law of India)
refers to such rules:
(1) There is a presumption in favour of constitutionality
and a law will not be declared unconstitutional unless
the case is free of all doubts, and the onus to prove
that it is unconstitutional lies with the petitioner who
has challenged it.
(2) When the validity of a law is questioned, it should go
to protect and promote parliamentary sovereignty.
(3) The court will not consider constitutional questions if a
case can be decided on other grounds.
(4) The court will not decide a larger constitutional
question if it is required by the case before it.
(5) The court will not hear an objection as to the
constitutionality of a law by a person whose rights are
not affected by it.
(6) A statute cannot be declared unconstitutional merely
because it is not consistent with the spirit of the
Constitution.
(7) In assessing the constitutionality of a statute the court
is not concerned with the motives - bonafides or
malafides - of the legislature, but the law must be
upheld whatever a court may think of it.
(8) Courts should not pronounce on the validity of an Act
or part of an Act which has not been brought into
force; because till then the question of validity would
be merely academic.
Numerous laws and amendments have gone through
judicial scrutiny from the time of the Constitution’s enactment,
though Nehru had emphatically stated: “No Supreme Court
and no judiciary can stand in judgment over the sovereign will
of the Parliament, representing the will of the entire
community.” The Kamesneshwar Singh vs. State of Bihar
(1951), Ramesh Thapur vs. State of Madras (1950) and
Motilal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1950) were the cases
where the Supreme Court, using the power of judicial review,
has declared the abolition of zamindari through amendment.
The amendment act was challenged in Shankari Prasad case
(1951) and the Sajjan Singh case (1965) (in the latter case
the 17th Amendment act was challenged). In both cases, the
Supreme Court held the view that the Parliament was
empowered to amend the Constitution, including provisions
relating to the Fundamental Rights. But in the Golaknath case
(1967), which challenged the 17 Amendment on the ground
that it had violated the Right to Property (Article 31A
especially); the Supreme Court, reviewed its decision and
declared that the Parliament can not amend the Constitution
which is violative of Article 13(2). The court’s activism was
witnessed in the 1969 Bank Nationalisation and in the 1970
Abolition of Privy Purses ordinances when both ordinances,
using the power of judicial review, were declared
unconstitutional. The 24th, 25th and 26th amendments (all in
1971) defended the government's action. The apex court
waited till 1973 when through the Kesavananda Bharati case
(1973) it upheld the Parliament's power to amend the
Constitution but did not allow the basic structure of the
Constitution to be destroyed by the Parliament. The 42nd
Amendment (1976) enhanced the power of the Parliament
immensely but in the Minerva Mills case (1980), the Supreme
Court endorsed the decision made in the Kesavananda
Bharati case, with Justice Bhagwati making a point: “It is for
the judiciary to uphold constitutional values and to enforce
constitutional limitations.”
IV. JUDICIAL ACTIVISM

There is no statutory definition, nor is there any consensual
connotation, given to the notion of “judicial activism.” is
usually described as a pro-active role played by the judiciary.
Justice J.S. Verma says that judicial activism means “the
active process of implementation of the rule of law, essential
for the preservation of a functional democracy.” Being an
astrictive term, it is described differently by different persons.
While some extol it as ‘judicial creativity and dynamism of
judges” which brings revolution in the field of human rights
and social welfare through enforcement of public duties, the.,
others criticized it by describing it as “judicial extremism,
judicial terrorism, transgression into the domains of the other
organs of the state negating the constitutional spirit”. The two
extreme views appear to have originated due to the role
judiciary has played in different cases. Any amount of
additional active role may lead to either judicial creativity or
judicial extremism.
Governance is not merely a law-making process; it is also
law-execution, together with the establishment of justice. The
three organs of the state perform three different functions. It is
always impossible to put these three different departments
separately and then expect a normal functioning. That is why
the legislature, while doing its major job of making legislation,
performs certain administrative and judicial functions, so do
other organs. Fusion, and not separation of functions is the
key to good governance. And if in such a situation, the
judiciary does perform relatively a more active role, judicial
activism may not be given any more importance than what it
deserves. What is important is that judiciary in its role should
not abuse either its powers or its position.
Governance, being something of a whole, has not to leave
any ambiguity anywhere. What wrong is done when the
judiciary fills up a vacuum? What wrong is done when any
organ, other than the judiciary, is supported by the judiciary.
Judicial activism operates in a situation of some ‘vacuum’,
when it is required. Judiciary does not begin making laws on
its own, nor does it carry out the administration. Justice
Verma rightly says: “Judicial activism is that which ensures
proper functioning of all organs and the best kind of judicial
activism is that which brings about results with the least
judicial intervention. If everyone else is working, we do not
have to step in.” Judicial activism is the judiciary acting, i.e.,
judiciary-in-action and not judiciary-in-intervention.
Judicial activism is not one where judiciary takes up an
activity but it is one where it is asked to take action on
someone’s else stance, public interest litigation including. In
S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India (1982) case the Supreme Court
granted accessibility to persons to invite judicial action
against the abuse of power or misuse or inaction of the
government — both the legislature and the executive. It may
be said that the Supreme Court had come to the rescue of
workers (People’s Union for Democratic Rights vs. Union of
India, 1982), bonded labour (Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs.
Union of India, 1984), prisoners (Sunil Batra vs. Delhi
Administration, 1978), pavement dwellers (Olga Tellis vs.
Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985), under-trial détentes
(Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar, 1979), inmates of
protection homes (Upendra Baxi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,
1983), and victims of Bhopal Gas Disaster (Union Carbide
Corporation vs. Union of India, 1991). In Ratlam Municipality
vs. Virdichand (1980), the Supreme Court sought to activate
administrative machinery when it failed to perform its legal
obligations. In Common cause vs. Union of India, (1996), the
Supreme Court cancelled the allotment of petrol pumps made
on grounds of nepotism and malafide and passed severe
strictures against the then minister of Petroleum and Natural
Gas. All these cases indicate that judicial activism has its own
importance.
A word of caution with regard to judicial activism comes
from Dr. A.S. Anand, former Chief Justice of India, he says:
“Courts have to function within the established parameters
and _ constitutional bounds. Decisions should have a
jurisprudential base with clearly discernible principles. Courts
have to be careful to see that they do not overstep their limits,
because to them is assigned the sacred duty of guarding the
Constitution. “Courts cannot “create rights” where none exists
nor can they go on making orders which are incapable of
enforcement or violative of other laws or settled legal
principles. With a view to seeing that judicial activism does
not become “judicial adventurism’”, the courts must act with
caution and proper restraint. They must remember that
judicial activism is not an unguided missile; the failure to bear
this in mind would lead to chaos. Public adulation must not
sway judges and personal aggrandisement must be
eschewed. It is imperative to preserve the sanctity and
credibility of the judicial process. It needs to be remembered
that courts cannot run the government. The judiciary should
act only as an alarm bell; it should ensure that the executive
has become alive to perform its duties.”
V. SUBORDINATE COURTS
The structure and functions of subordinate courts are more
or less uniform throughout the country. Their designations
denote their functions. They deal with all disputes of civil or
criminal nature as per the powers conferred on them. Their
power is derived principally from two important codes
prescribing procedures, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and further
strengthened by local statutes. As per the direction of the
Supreme Court (WP (Civil), 1022/1989 in the All India Judges
Association case) a uniform designation has been given to
the subordinate judiciary’s judicial officers all over the country,
viz., District or Additional District Judge, Civil Judge (Senior
Division) and Civil Judge (Junior Division) on the civil side
and on criminal side, Session Judge, Additional Sessions
Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrate and Judicial Magistrate, etc.,
as laid down in the Cr.PC.
Under Article 235 of the Constitution of India, administrative
control over members of the subordinate judicial service rests
with the concerned High Court. Further, in exercise of powers
conferred under proviso to Article 309 read with Articles 233
and 234 of the Constitution, state government frames rules
and regulations in consultation with the High Court in their
state to administer subordinate courts. Members of the state
judicial services are governed by these rules and regulations.
The next set of courts is described as courts of district and
sessions judge which also include courts of additional judge,
joint judge or assistant judge. The court of the district and
sessions judge at district level is the principal court of original
jurisdiction.
In addition, there are courts known as small causes courts.
These are set up either under the Provisional Small Causes
Act at the district level or under the Presidency Town Small
Causes Courts Act in presidency/metropolitan towns.
The Family Courts Act, 1984, aims at promoting conciliation
and securing speedy settlement of disputes relating to
marriage and family affairs and related matters. It envisages
that courts shall be set up in a city or town with a population
of more than 10 lakh and at such other places as the state
government may deem necessary. Family courts have been
set up in Andhra Pradesh (seven), Assam (one), Bihar (two),
Karanataka (five), Kerala (five), Maharashtra (sixteen),
Manipur (one), Orissa (two), Pondicherry (one), Punjab (two),
Rajasthan (five), Sikkim (one), Tamil Nadu (six), Uttar
Pradesh (sixteen) and West Bengal (one). Besides,
necessary notifications extending the jurisdiction of the Family
Courts Act have been issued by the Government of India in
respect of Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and the Union Territory
of Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
VI. LOK ADALAT

Lok Adalat (People’s Courts), established by the
government, settles disputes through conciliation and
compromise. The first Lok Adalat was held in Chennai in
1986. Lok Adalats accept cases which could be settled by
conciliation and compromise, pending in regular courts within
their jurisdiction.
The Lok Adalat is presided over by a sitting or retired
judicial officer as chairman, with two other members, usually
a lawyer and a social worker. There is no court fee. If the
case is already filed in a regular court, the fee paid is
refunded if the dispute is settled at the Lok Adalat. Procedural
laws and the Evidence Act are not strictly followed by the Lok
Adalats while assessing the merits of claims. main condition
of the Lok Adalat is that both parties in dispute should agree
for settlement. The decision of the Lok Adalat is binding on
the parties to the dispute and its order is capable of execution
through the legal process. No appeal lies against the order of
the Lok Adalat.
Lok Adalat is very effective in settlement of money claims.
Disputes, like partition suits, damages and matrimonial cases,
can also be easily settled in Lok Adalats, as chances
compromise through give and take approach stand high in
such cases.
Lok Adalat is a boon to the litigant public, where they can
get their disputes settled fast and free of cost.
Lok Adalats have proved to be an effective mechanism for
resolution of disputes through conciliatory methods. Up to
2010, about 25,000 Lok Adalats had been held in different
parts of the country where about 160 lakh cases were settled.
In about 80 lakh motor vehicles accident claim cases,
compensation amounting to over one billion dollar was
awarded. Under the Legal Services Authorities Act, the Lok
Adalat has been given the status of a Civil Court and every
award made by the Lok Adalat is final and binding on all
parties and no appeal lies to any court against its award.
Benefits which accrue to litigants through Lok Adalats are:
There is no court fee and if the case is already filed in a

regular court, the fee paid is refunded if the dispute is
settled at the Lok Adalat.
. There is no strict application of procedural laws and the
Evidence Act while assessing the merits of the claim by
the Lok Adalat. Parties, to the dispute though
represented by their advocate, can interact with the Lok
Adalat judge directly and explain their stand in the
dispute, and the reasons thereof. This is not possible in
a regular court of law.
Disputes can be brought before the Lok Adalat directly
instead of going to a regular court first and then to the
Lok Adalat.
The decision of the Lok Adalat is binding on the parties
to the dispute and its order is capable of execution
through the legal process. No appeal lies against the
order of the Lok Adalat, whereas verdicts of regular law
courts can be challenged in higher forums on—a proess
which causes delay in the settlement of the dispute.
Rationale behind the non-appealapitety or Lok Adalat
decisions is that they are based on mutual settlement
and, hence, no case for appeal shall arise. In every
respect, the scheme of Lok Adalat is a boon to the
litigant public, where they can get their disputes settled
fast and free of cost.
Vil. FREE LEGAL AID AND PUBLIC INTEREST

LITIGATION
Article 39A of the Constitution provides for free legal aid to
the poor and weaker sections of the society. The Legal
Services Authorities Act, 1987, (as amended by the Act of
1994) which came into force on November 9, 1995, aims at
establishing a nation-wide network for providing free and
comprehensive legal services to the weaker sections. A
National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) has been set up
for implementing and monitoring legal aid programmes in the
country and a Supreme Court Legal Services Committee
constituted under the Act. In High Courts also, High Court
Legal Services Committees are being established to provide
free legal aid to eligible persons in matters coming before the
High Courts. The Legal Services Authorities Act also provides
for constitution of state legal services committees, high court
legal services committees, district legal services committees
and taluk legal services committees.
Under the Legal Services Authorities Act, every citizen
whose annual income does not exceed Rs.9,000 is eligible
free legal aid in cases before subordinate courts and High
Courts. In cases before the Supreme Court, the limit is
Rs.12,000. This limit can be increased by state governments.
Limitation as to the income does not apply in the case of
persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes, women, children and, handicapped. Legal aid
programmes adopted by NALSA include promoting legal
literacy, setting up of legal aid clinics in universities and law
colleges, training of para-legal personnel and holding legal
aid camps and Lok Adalats.
The government had sanctioned Rs.4 crore as grant-in-aid
for NALSA in 1998-99 to implement its programmer at various
levels. The NALSA also monitors and evaluates the
implementation of the legal aid programmes in the country.
Up to March, 2009 about 97 lakh persons ben efited through
court-oriented legal aid programmes provided by state legal
aid and advice boards/state legal services authorities. Of
them, 25.1 persons belonged to the Scheduled Castes, more
than 2 lakhs to the Scheduled Tribes, 24.6 were women and
1.6 lakh children.
In 1981, Justice P.N. Bhagwati in S.P. Gupta vs. Union of
India, 1981; articulated the concept of Public Interest
Litigation (PIL) as follows:
“Where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a person
or to a determinate class of persons by reason of poverty,
helplessness or disability or socially or economically
disadvantaged position unable to approach the court for relief,
any member of public can maintain an application for an
appropriate direction, order or writ in the High Court under
Article 226 and in case any breach of fundamental rights of
such persons or determinate class of persons, in this court
under Article 32 seeking judicial redress for the legal wrong or
legal injury caused to such person or determinate class of
persons.”
The rule of /ocus standi has been relaxed and a person
acting bonafide and having sufficient interest in the
proceeding of Public Interest Litigation will have a locus
standi and can approach the court to challenge the violation
of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory
provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or
political motive or any oblique consideration (Ashok Kumar
Pandey vs. State of West Bengal, 2004).
In Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee vs. C.K.
Rajan (2003), the apex court held, “The Courts exercising
their power of judicial review found to their dismay that the
poorest of the poor, the depraved, the illiterate, the urban and
rural unorganised labour, women, children, handicapped by
“ignorance, indigence” and illiteracy’ and other downtrodden
have either no access to justice or had been denied justice. A
new branch of proceedings known as “Social Interest
Litigation” or ‘Public Interest Litigation’ was evolved with a
view to rendering complete justice to the aforementioned
classes of persons. It expanded its wings in course of time.
The courts in pro bona publico granted relief to inmates of the
prisons, provided legal aid, directed speedy trial, maintained
human dignity and covered’ several other areas.
Representative actions, pro bona publico and test litigations
were entertained in keeping with the current accent on justice
to the common man and a necessary disincentive to those
who wish to bypass real issues on the merits by reliance on
peripheral procedural shortcomings. Pro bona_ publico
constituted a significant page in the present day judicial
system.
Public Interest Litigation, in Indian law, means litigation for
the protection of public interest. It a is litigation introduced in a
court of law, not by the aggrieved party but by the court itself
or by a private party. It is not necessary, for the exercise of
the court’s jurisdiction, that the person who is the victim of the
violation of his or her right should personally approach the
court.
Such cases may occur when the victim does not have the
necessary resources to commence litigation or his freedom to
move court has been suppressed or encroached upon. The
court can itself take cognizance of the matter and proceed
suo motu or cases can commence on the petition of any
public-spirited individual.
Numerous aspects of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) may be
stated as:
(1) The nature of Public Interest Litigation is remedial, as
that the traditional Jocus standi rules are not followed
in such cases.
(2) A third party, not concerned with the case, can file a
petition on the ground that the injured party cannot
approach the court.
(3) PIL makes the court change its position—from
protector to the guardian of the rule of law.
(4) PIL makes the case one of collaborative nature where
all concerned—the claimant, the court, the
government—seek human rights as meaningfuly as
possible.
(5) PIL makes the litigation investigative as it works on
reports of registrar, district magistrate, and comments
of experts, and the like.
(6) An attempt is made to wipe tears from some eyes in
PIL cases when PIL cells are opened to help the
needy. This is called the epistolary jurisdiction.
PIL is working as an important instrument of social change.
It is working for the welfare of every section of the society. It’s
a sword that can be used by everyone for securing justice.
The innovation of this legitimate instrument citizen has proved
beneficial for a developing country, like India. PIL has been
used as a strategy to combat atrocities in the society. It’s an
institutional initiative for the welfare of the needy in the
society. In Bandhu Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India, the
Supreme Court ordered the release of bonded labourers. In
Murli S. Dogra vs. Union of India, the court banned smoking
in public places. In a landmark judgment of De/hi Domestic
Working Women’s Forum vs. Union of India, (1995), the
Supreme Court issued guidelines for rehabilitation and
compensation for raped working women. In Vishaka vs. State
of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court laid down exhaustive
guidelines for preventing sexual harassment of working-
women in their place of work.
We may, thus, conclude by quoting Cunningham, “Indian
PIL might rather be a Phoenix, a whole new creature arising
out of the ashes of the old order”. It is, indeed, something like
the American PIL (Public Interest Law), or rather better in the
sense that it does not touch the spirit of social change. PIL in
India is related to environmental cases (M.C. Mehta cases
are such examples).
Vill. JUDICIAL REFORMS

There are, at present, over 14,000 courts throughout the
country handling about four crores of cases. with the working
strength of about 12,500 judge, each judge handles nearly
4,000 cases. Is it not a sufficient ground for initiating judicial
reforms in the country?
Working on the judicial management system, our National
Judicial Academy is doing its job seriously. Though, there
large a number of cases before courts, the fact is that only
about 40 per cent of the cases are one-year old, while 90 per
cent of the delayed cases are those pending in subordinate
courts.
An array of long-term and short-term reforms may be
suggested. With regard to the long-term reforms, we need to
have
legislative reforms to remove the bottlenecks which

adversely affect the adjudication,
. to strengthen the bar,
. to strengthen legal education,
legislative reforms to expend the power of judges to
control judicial pressures to ensure just and efficient
outcomes in line with international reforms, and
V. a satisfactory framework for judicial accountability.
With regard to short-term reforms, the following can be

suggested:
If certain administrative reforms are made, a large

number of cases pending in courts can be reduced. In
most cases, the government is a party in the case
(either defendant or appellant). If the decision-making
authorities take firm, independent and impartial steps in
time, citizens would not be driven to litigations.
. A weak and inefficient revenue administration is another
reason for a large number of civil cases. If the revenue
administration is streamlined and every one is given
proper title deeds with computerised diagrams, a large
number of land disputes could be avoided. In states
where the revenue administration is poor, there are
large numbers of civil cases and these disputes relate
either to title or boundaries of their properties. These
cases could be avoided, if proper re-survey operations
are done and proper revenue records are maintained by
the authorities.
There are a large number of financial institutions which
are trying to recover money through criminal
proceedings by making use of the provisions of the
Negotiable Instruments Act. The courts have become
collecting agents for these financial institutions. Most of
them are privately owned by people who engage in the
practice of giving usurious loans. Because of these
types of cases, the trial of ordinary criminal cases is
seriously hampered. Why does not the government
build its own infrastructure and in the process reduce
the number of cases in the courts?
A large number of motor accident claims are pending in
various tribunals. In some states, it takes more than
four-five years to settle a claim despite the fact that
large number of cases are settled through Lok Adalats.
The Insurance Companies should have proper
settlement method whereby they must acknowledge
their liability and disburse the amount to the claimant
even before he/she comes to the courts. Such a
streamlined procedure is not available in our system.
When the claimants are before the courts, insurance
companies are not in a position to settle the claims even
in cases where they admit their liability.
The situation is not different in respect of land
acquisition cases. In many cases amount awarded by
land acquisition officers are not reasonable or proper,
driving parties to resort to litigation were. If there were
district-level high power committees to fix
compensations at reasonable amount, most claimants
might possibly accept them leaving only a few to move
to courts for enhancement.
vi. Most criminal cases get delayed intentionally. Inept
policing and weak prosecution are largely responsible
for the slow-pace of trials in many courts. There is
always a planned approach to delay the criminal cases.
In conclusion, we may say that there is a need for National

Minimum Court Performance Standards in the country so that
disposal of the cases is increased, courts do not delay the
adjudication unnecessarily, and cases should have their serial
numbers together with the starting dates.
Practice
Questions
1. How is the Supreme Court organised in

India? (200-250 words)
2. How is a judge of the Supreme Court of
India removed?(200-250 words)
3. Explain the jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court of India.(700-800 words)
4. Examine the role of Supreme Court as
the final interpreter of the Indian
Constitution (2013) (700-800 words)
5. Write a brief note on the High Court of a
State. (200-250 words)
6. Write a detailed essay on “Judicial
Review” in India. (700-800 words)
7. Comment on judicial activism and social
change. (2012)
8. Write brief notes on the following:
(a) Subordinate Courts
(b) Lok Adalat
(c) Free Legal Aid
(d) Public Interest Litigation (200-250
words each)
9. What reforms would you suggest in the
Indian judicial system? (700-800 words)
10. Examine the debate on_ the
appointment procedure of judges to the
higher judiciary in India. (200-250
aA
VU
words)
Grassroots Democracy:
Urban And Rural Government
(Municipal Administration and
Panchayati Raj)
[) ecentralisation of the power is a salient feature of a

democratic polity. The more a political system is
decentralised down to the local level, the greater are
the chances of grassroot democracy _ flourishing:
responsiveness and educative values are the added
advantages of a de-centralised system. A local government is
always good, as it relieves the higher administration of its
burden, but a local self-government is still better, as it
awakens and involves the local people and gives them their
experience of administration at their doorsteps.
Decentralisation can be in operation both at the urban as
well as rural levels. In a country like India, rural governance
assumes importance, because the people still live in villages,
though there have developed urban administrative institutions
such as municipal corporations for bigger towns,
municipalities for smaller populations, notified area
committees for especially specified areas, town area
committees for small towns, and cantonment boards
managed by military officials. Rural areas have institutions
such as gram panchayats, panchayat samitis and the zilla
parishads. With the passage of time, names and functions of
these local institutions, both urban and rural have undergone
changes: the 73' and 74th amendments (1993) were the
latest enactments with regard to nagar and village institutions.
I. URBAN LOCAL ADMINISTRATION IN INDIA

The history of urban bodies, both cities and towns, is fairly old
in India and can be traced to the Indus Valley Civilization
where emphasis was laid on planned roads, houses and town
meetings. Kautilya in his work, Arthasastra, has given a
graphic description of the city of Patliputra. The Mauryas, the
Guptas, the Turks and the Mughals helped city
administrations to flourish, laying emphasis on sanitation,
roads, inns, water supply, market-places, public utility works.
Sher Shah Suri built the Grand Trunk Road connecting the
far-western town of Peshawar with the far-eastern town of
what is known as Kolkata today.
During the British colonial rule, towns and cities developed:
the first municipal corporation was established in Madras in
1688. Calcutta and Bombay followed in 1772 and 1793,
respectively. The number of corporations in India rose rapidly
in independent India: in 1975, there were 34 municipal
corporations, it rose to 170 in 2014, 2100 municipalities and
over 2100 nagarpalika (2014). So has the number of other
local urban institutions in the country. The total number of
towns in the country are around 5,000, while the percentage
of villages in India is around 80 per cent of the total
population, i.e. more than 600,000 (2005-06).
Corporations, municipalities, notified area committees, town
area committees, and cantonment boards are other urban
local institutions in India. The organisation of each such
institution varies from state to state, so do their functions as
well.
Usually, a municipal corporation is headed by an elected
mayor while the administration of the city is carried out by an
elected council. The power of the municipal corporation is
usually exercised by a general council, a standing committee
and the municipal chief executive officer. Councillors are
elected by the people for a specified period. Alongwith
councillors, there are certain aldermen, elected by councillors.
The council, consisting of councillors and aldermen, elects
the mayor and deputy mayor. The mayor, and, in his
absence, the deputy mayor, presides over meetings of the
council. The mayor is the ceremonial head of the council, and
hence the first citizen of the city. The general council makes
laws, byelaws, passes budget, appoints committees, and
supervises the functioning of various departments of the
corporation. There are various standing committees in the
corporation, elected by the council, to carry out most of the
administrative activities, including taxation, finance, health
and_ sanitation, and water and electricity supply. The
municipal commissioner, as the chief executive officer of the
corporation, who is appointed by the state government
usually, supervises the administrative work. The business of
the corporation relates to functions such as public health,
education, construction and the maintenance of waterworks,
sewerage, streets and bridges, parks, recreation grounds,
markets, and shopping centres. For doing these things,
corporations can raise taxes, such as property tax, tax on
buildings, education cess, tax on profession and the like.
Municipalities are established in smaller towns through the
Acts of the state . Their organisation varies from state to
state. Municipalities differ from corporations, because they
are set up for smaller areas and smaller populations and they
have lesser sources of revenues. Like corporations,
municipalities have three authorities: the council and its
committees, Chairman/President of the council and Chief
Executive Officer or Chief Municipal Officer. The strength of
the municipal councils differs from state to state depending
upon their population. Members of the council are elected by
voters on the basis of universal adult franchise for a period
which ranges from three to five years. The council decides
such issues as policy matters, prepares budgets, imposes
taxes, makes rules and regulations, laws and byelaws. Most
of the functions of municipal councils are carried out by
committees. The Chairman or the President of the council is
the ceremonial head and performs the function of the
presiding officer, though in some states he does the executive
and administrative tasks as well. The function of the municipal
officer relates to the conduct and supervision of the
administration in the concerned area. Municipalities have to
do almost the same function as corporations; i.e., civic
functions, some compulsory or obligatory and some optional,
but almost all dealing with tasks such as public health and
public sanitation, education, especially of primary level, public
utility works, water and electricity supply maintenance of
street, roads, parks, sewerage system. Most of their
expenditure is met by levying taxes and receiving grants from
the state and central governments.
Small urban areas such as notified areas, town areas and
cantonment boards are bodies where administration is done
through appointed officials with government’s supervision and
control. They do the local level functions as do the
municipalities and corporation.
ll. URBAN ADMINISTRATION AND THE 74TH

AMENDMENT: MUNICIPAL BODIES
With the passage of the 74th Amendment (1993), the entire
local urban administration has acquired a new structure with a
new orientation relating to their organisation, functions and
finances. The amendment has added 12th schedule to the
Constitution. Part IX A, dealing with Articles from 243P to
243ZA deal with municipal bodies. Articles 243P defines
municipalities, committees etc: ‘committee’ means a
committee constituted as under Article 243S; ‘metropolitan’
area means an area having a population of 1,000,000 or
more comprised in one or more districts and consisting of two
or more municipalities or panchayats; ‘municipal area’ means
the territorial area of municipalities; ‘municipalities’ mean
institutions of self-government; ‘nagar panchayat’ means a
transitional area, an area in transition from a rural area to an
urban area; ‘municipal council’ for a smaller urban area and
‘corporation’ for a larger urban area.
Other Articles dealing with municipal bodies as enumerated
in the Constitution are as follows:
243Q. Constitution of Municipalities - There shall be
constituted in every state,
(a) a Nagar Panchayat (by whatever name called) for a
transitional area, i.e. , an area in transition from a
rural area to an urban area;
(b) a Municipal Council for a smaller urban area; and
(c) a Municipal Corporation for a larger urban area, in
accordance with the provisions of this Part:
243R. Composition of Municipalities—
1. Same as provided in clause (2), all seats in a
municipality shall be filled by persons chosen by direct
election from territorial constituencies in the Municipal
area and for this purpose each municipal area shall be
divided into territorial constituencies to be known as
wards.
2. The legislature of a state may, by law, provide
(a) For the representation in a municipality of
i. persons having special knowledge or experience in

municipal administration;
ii, members of the House of the People and members of
the Legislative Assembly of the State representing
constituencies which comprise wholly or partly the
municipal area;
iii member of the Council of States and members of the
Legislative Council of the State registered as electors
within the municipal area;
iv. Chairpersons of committees constituted under clause
(5) of Article 243S provided that persons referred to in
paragraph shall not have the right to vote in the
meetings of the municipality;
(b) the manner of election of the chairperson of a

municipality.
243S. Constitution and composition of ward committees,
etc.—
1. There shall be constituted ward committees, consisting
of one or more wards, within the territorial area of a
municipality having a population of 300,000 or more.
2. The legislature of a state may, by law, make provision
with respect to:
(a) the composition and the territorial area of a ward
committee;
(b) the manner in which the seats in a ward committee
shall be filled.
3. A member of a municipality representing a ward within
the territorial area of the ward committee shall be a
member of that committee.
4. Where a ward committee consists of:
(a) One ward, the member representing that ward in
the municipality; or
(b) Two or more wards, one of the members
representing such wards in the municipality elected
by the members of the ward committee, shall be
chairperson of that committee.
243T. Reservation of Seats —
1. Seats shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes in every municipality and the
number of seats so reserved shall bear, as nearly as may
be, the same proportion to the total number of seats to
be filled by direct election in that municipality as the
population of the Scheduled Castes in the municipal area
or of the Scheduled Tribes in the municipal area bears to
the total population of that area and such seats may be
allotted by rotation to different constituencies in a
municipality.
2. Not less than one-third of the total number of seats
reserved under clause (1) shall be reserved for women
belonging to the Scheduled Castes or, as the case may
be, the Scheduled Tribes.
3. Not less than one-third (including the number of seats
reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes) of the total number of seats to
be filled by direct election in every municipality shall be
reserved for women and such seats may be allotted by
rotation to different constituencies in a municipality.
4. The office of the chairperson in municipalities shall be
reserved for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes
and women in such manner as the Legislature of a State
may, by law, provide.
5. The reservation of seats under clause (1) and (2) and the
reservation of offices of chairpersons (other than the
reservation for women) under clause (4) shall cease to
have effect on the expiration of the period specified in
Article 334.
6. Nothing in this part shall prevent the legislature of a state
from making any provision for reservation of seats in a
municipality or the office of chairperson in municipalities
in favour of the backward class of citizens.
243U. Term of Municipalities, etc.—
Every municipality, unless dissolved sooner than its term
under any law for the time being in force, shall continue for
five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no
longer than that, provided that a municipality shall be given a
reasonable opportunity of being heard before its dissolution.
No amendment of any law for the time being in force shall
have the effect of causing the dissolution of a municipality at
any level, which is functioning immediately before such
amendment, till the expiration of its term specified in clause
(1).
1. An election to constitute a municipality shall be
completed:
(a) before the expiry of its term specified in clause (1);
(b) before the expiration of a period of six months from
the date of its dissolution, provided that where the
remainder of the period for which the dissolved
municipality would have continued is less than six
months, it shall not be necessary to hold any
election under this clause for constituting the
municipality for such period.
2. A municipality constituted upon the dissolution of a
municipality before the expiration of its term shall
continue only for the remainder of the period for which
the dissolved municipality would have continued under
clause (1) had it not been so dissolved.
243V. Disqualification for Membership.
243W. Powers, Authority and Responsibilities of
Municipalities.
Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the legislature
of a state may, by law, endow:
(a) Municipalities with such powers and authority as
may be necessary to enable them to function as
institutions of self-government and such law may
contain provisions for the devolution of powers and
responsibilities upon municipalities, subject to such
conditions as may be specified therein, with respect
to:
i. the preparation of plans for economic development and

social justice;
ii. the performance of functions and the implementation of
schemes as may be entrusted to them including those
in relation to the matters listed in the 12th Schedule;
(b) Committees with such powers and authority as may
be necessary to enable them to carry out
responsibilities conferred upon them including
those in relation to matters listed in the 12th
Schedule.
243X. Power to impose taxes and _ functions of
municipalities—The legislature of a state may, by law,
authorise a municipality to levy, collect and appropriate taxes,
duties, tolls and fees in accordance with procedure and limits
laid down the legislature; or, assign to a municipality certain
taxes, duties, tolls and fees levied and collected by the State
Government subject to conditions and limits laid down by the
government;
(a) provide for making such_ grants-in-aid to
municipalities from the Consolidated Fund of the
State; and
(b) provide for constitution of such funds for crediting
all moneys received, respectively, by or on behalf
of municipalities and also for withdrawal of such
moneys therefrom, as may be specified in the law.
243Y. Finance Commission
1. A finance commission constituted under Article 2431 shall
review the financial position of municipalities and make
recommendations to the Governor as to:
(a) principles which should govern:
i. the distribution between the state and the municipalities

the net proceeds of taxes, duties, tolls and fees leviable
by the state, which may be divided between them under
this Part and allocation between the municipalities at all
levels of their respective shares of such proceeds;
ii. the determination of taxes, duties, tolls and fees which
may be assigned to, or appropriated by municipalities;
iii. the grants-in-aid to municipalities from the Consolidated
Funds of the State;
(b) measures needed to improve the financial position

of municipalities;
(c) grants-in-aid by the Governor in the interests of
sound finances of municipalities.
2. The Governor shall cause every recommendation made
by the Commission under this Article together with an
explanatory memorandum as to the action taken thereon
to be laid before the legislature of the state.
243Z. Audit of Accounts of Municipalities.
243ZA. Elections to Municipalities—
1. The superintendence, direction and control of the
preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all
elections to municipalities shall be vested in the State
Election Commission referred to in Article 243K.
2. Subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the
legislature of a state may, by law, make provision with
respect to matters relating to, or in connection with,
elections to municipalities.
From the above description of the Articles, one can
describe the organisation, functions and other details of the
municipal bodies as follows.
The Constitution, as amended, provides for the
establishment of Nagar Panchayats for transitional areas (that
is to say, an area in transition from a rural area to an urban
area), Municipal Councils for smaller urban areas and
Municipal Corporations for larger urban areas. However, no
municipality can be constituted in areas that come under the
jurisdiction of an industrial establishment that provides or
proposes to provide municipal services therein.
All seats in municipal bodies are filled by persons chosen
by direct election from the territorial constituencies in the
municipal area. However, the legislature of a state may, by
law, provide for the representation in a municipal body of
persons having special knowledge or experience of municipal
administration, members of the Rajya Sabha, Lok Sabha,
Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly of the State,
representing constituencies which comprise wholly or partly
the municipal area and chairpersons of ward committees.
There are wards committees, consisting of one or more
wards, within the territorial area of a municipal body having a
population of 300,000 or more. The Legislature of a State
may, by law, make provisions with respect to the composition
and the territorial area of a ward committee and the manner in
which seats in a ward committee may be filled. The
legislature of a state can also make provisions for the
constitution of other committees in addition to ward
committees.
Seats are reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes in every municipal body in proportion to
their population. Out of these reserved seats (for Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes), one-third are reserved for
women belonging to these communities.
Similarly, not less than one-third of the total number of
seats to be filled by direct election in every municipal body
are reserved for women (including their reservation in the
quota of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes).
Similarly, the offices of chairpersons in municipal bodies
are reserved for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes
and women in such a manner as the legislature of a state
may, by law, provide. The legislature of a state may also
make provisions for the reservation of seats in municipal
bodies or offices of chairpersons, for other Backward
Classes.
A person who has attained the age of 21 years is eligible to
be elected as a member of a municipal body. The
superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of
electoral rolls for and the conduct of elections to municipal
bodies is vested in the State Election Commission,
constituted with reference to elections for Panchayati Raj
institutions. The term of a municipal body is five years.
Municipalities can, however, be dissolved earlier after giving
them reasonable opportunity of being heard. Election of a
new municipal body is to be held before the expiry of its term
or within six months of its dissolution, as the case may be.
The legislature of a state may extend the powers and
authority of municipal bodies, if necessary, to enable them to
function as institutions of self-government. It may authorise a
municipal body to levy, collect and appropriate such taxes,
duties, tolls and fees as it thinks fit. It may also assign a share
in those taxes, duties, tools and fees that are levied and
collected by the State Government itself. It may also make
provisions for making grants-in-aid to municipal bodies from
the Consolidated Fund of the State. It may also provide for
constitution of such funds for crediting all money received by
municipal bodies and their withdrawal.
The Finance Commission, constituted with reference to
Panchayati Raj institutions, is charged with the responsibility
of reviewing the financial position of municipal bodies and
make recommendations to the Governor, as to the principles,
which would govern the distribution between the state and the
municipal bodies of the net proceeds of the taxes.
The structure envisaged by the 74th Amendment is
elaborate. For a total of 101 city corporations, 1,430
municipalities and 2,091 Nagarpalikas in the country (2007),
so far elections have been held two to three times. The
number of elected representatives for all urban local bodies is
about 70,000. Of the 3,640 chairpersons of these bodies at
least one-third are women. The All India Council of Mayors is
also presently headed by a woman. These are all visible
signs of a significant arithmetical change in the representative
structure of the Nagarpalikas. But the question remains
whether this amounts to the functioning of an effective
democracy. Available evidence indicates several deficits.
Decentralisation ‘deficit’ is one such deficit. Indeed,
Schedule 12th identifies as many as 18 functions for
nagarpalikas, such as urban planning regulation of land-use,
construction of buildings, planning for economic and social
development, roads and bridges, water supply, public health,
sanitation, fire services, urban forestry, slum improvement,
urban poverty alleviation, urban amenities aesthetics aspects,
burials and burial grounds, cattle ponds and prevention of
cruelty to animals, public amenities such as lighting, bus
stops and public conveniences, and regulation of slaughter
houses. However, these are not mandatory but common with
the work area of state government between (for example,
water supply and urban planning), sometimes generating
conflict between the state and urban municipal administration.
Another serious deficit may be the state government’s
control over urban institutions. The government control is
always pervasive, state’s finances which flow as routine
sometimes stop as willed by the state government.
The accountability factor in urban institutions is always
weak though the structure of the institution is elaborate,
provisions with regard to the decentralization in cities and
towns are always vague: ward committees have not been
effective, nor do they participate in their zonal committees
effectively. There is a lack of proximity between the elected
representatives and the people who elect them.
Power sharing between the Union government and state
governments has not been a happy exercise in India. The
same has been the case between the state governments and
local bodies more or less.
lll. PANCHAYATI RAJ: HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

The Panchayati Raj system, in India, has existed from the
time as far back as we can imagine. Evidences from the time
of the Rig Veda suggest the existence of self-governing
bodies in villages. With the passage of time, these bodies
became panchayats (council of five persons). Panchayats
constituted functional institutions of grassroots governance in
villages: They used to distribute land among farmers and
collect revenue (in kind earlier and in cash later, especially
during the British rule). Thus, with the passage of time and
particularly during the British colonial rule, the village self-
sufficiency gave way to feudalism and the zamindari system
leading to the exploitation of farmers, rural poverty,
unemployment, and backwardness. The British
commercialisation of agriculture destroyed all that was good
in the villages of India. Gandhi's village (gram) swaraj was an
attempt to give back to village panchayats what was lost
during the British rule, though during the period of national
movement much was not resolved by the leadership in this
regard. (Gandhi favoured the village swaraj and Dr. B.R.
Ambedkar opposed the idea.) During the drafting of the
Constitution, the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP),
under Article 40, provided for the state effort to organise
village panchayats as units of self-governance, though the
complete Part IV dealing with Directive Principles of State
Policy was made non-justiciable.
Panchayati Raj, as an institution, has gone through
numerous stages. The first five-year plan failed to bring about
active participation of the people in the plan process. The
second five-year plan sought to cover the entire countryside
with National Extensive Service Blocks through officials and
locally elected people, but this too failed to attain the desired
results relating to grassroots democracy. The Balwantrai
Mehta Committee (1957) studied the Community
Development Projects and the National Extension Service.
The committee held the view that community development
would come up if the community, especially the village one,
was involved in the’ planning, decision-making and
implementation. The suggestions given by the Balwantrai
Mehta Committee were:
1. an early establishment of elected local bodies and
devolution to them of necessary resources, power and
authority,
2. that the basic unit of democratic decentralization was at
the block/samiti level since the area of jurisdiction of the
local body should neither be too large nor too small. The
block was large enough for efficiency and economy of
administration, and small enough for sustaining a sense
of involvement of citizens,
3. such a body must not be constrained by too much
control by the government or government agencies,
4. the body must be constituted for five years by indirect
elections from village panchayats, its functions should
cover the development of agriculture in all its aspects,
the promotion of local industries and services such as
drinking water, road building, etc., and
5. the higher level body, Zilla Parishad, should play an
advisory role.
The structure of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs), which
developed subsequently, did not yield requisite democratic
momentum. Hence, the expected rural development did not
occur. Political and bureaucratic interferences by the state,
lack of adequate financial resources, pathetic awakening at
the rural level, domination by the rural elite and the like were
major factors responsible for the dismal result.
A prime reason for the non-realisation of the results of the
rural development was fiscal. In 1963 the K. Santham
Committee was appointed to study the PRI finances. The
committee recommended the following:
(a) panchayats should have special powers to levy
special tax on land revenues and home taxes, etc.,
(b) people should not be burdened with too many
demands (taxes),
(c) all grants and subventions at the state level should
be mobilised and sent in a consolidated form to
various PRIs,
(d) a Panchayati Raj Finance Corporation should be
set up to look into the financial resource of PRIs at
all levels, provide loans and financial assistance to
these grassroots level governments and also
provide non-financial requirements of villages.
These issues have been debated over the last three
decades and have been taken up by the State Finance
Commissions which are required to select taxes for
assignment and sharing, identifying the principles for such
sharing and assignment, determine the level of grants and
recommend the final distribution of state’s transfers to local
authorities.
The Janata Party rule at the Centre (1977) found numerous
weaknesses in the functioning of the Panchayati Raj. The
government decided to appoint a high-level committee under
the chairmanship of Ashok Mehta (1978) to examine
measures to strengthen PRlis. The recommendations of the
Ashok Mehta Committee were:
i. the district is a viable administrative unit for which

planning, coordination and resource allocation are
feasible and technical expertise available,
ii. PRIs as a two-tier system, with Mandal Panchayat at
the base and Zilla Parishad at the top,
iii. the PRls are capable of planning for themselves with
resources available to them,
iv. district planning should take care of the urban-rural
continuum,
v. representation of SCs and STs in the election to PRIs
on the basis of their population,
vi. four-year term of PRIs,
vii. participation of political parties in elections,
viii. any financial devolution should be committed to
accepting that much of the developmental functions at
the district level would be played by the panchayats.
The states of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal

passed new legislations based on this report. However,
politics at the state level did not allow these institutions to
develop their own political dynamics.
The G.V.K. Rao Committee was appointed in 1985 to look
at various aspects of PRIs once again. The committee was of
the opinion that a total view of rural development must be
taken in which PRIs must play a central role in handling
people’s problems. It recommended the following:
(a) PRIs have to be activated and provided with all
required support to become effective organizations,
(b) PRIs at the district level and below should be
assigned the work of planning, implementation and
monitoring of rural development programmes, and
(c) The block development office should be the spinal
cord of the rural development process.
The L.M. Singhvi Committee studied the Panchayati Raj
system in 1986. The Gram Sabha was considered as the
base of a decentralized democracy, and PRIs were viewed as
institutions of self-governance which would actually facilitate
the participation of the people in the process of planning and
development. It recommended
(a) Local self-government should be constitutionally
recognised, protected and preserved by the
inclusion of a new chapter in the Constitution.
(b) Non-involvement of political parties in Panchayat
elections.
The suggestion of giving panchayats the constitutional
status was opposed by the Sarkaria Commission, but the idea
gained momentum in the late 1980s when the late Prime
Minister Rajiv Gandhi introduced the 64th Constitutional
Amendment Bill in 1989. The 64th Constitutional Amendment
Bill was prepared and introduced in the Lower House of
Parliament. But it got defeated in the Rajya Sabha as non-
convincing. He lost the general elections. In 1989, the
National Front government introduced the 74th Constitutional
Amendment Bill, which could not become an Act because of
the dissolution of the Ninth Lok Sabha. All these various
suggestions and recommendations and means_ of
strengthening PRIs were considered again while formulating
the new Constitutional Amendment Act.
IV. RURAL ADMINISTRATION AND THE 73RD

AMENDMENT: PANCHAYATI RAJ INSTITUTIONS
Part IX, from Articles 243 to 2430, deals with institutions of
the Panchayati Raj. Article 243 defines Panchayats to include
Gram Sabha, Gram Panchayat, a Panchayat at the
intermediate level as also one at the district level. The
constitutional provisions relating to panchayats can be stated
as follows:
243A. Gram Sabha—A Gram Sabha may exercise such
powers and perform such functions at the village level as the
legislature of a state may, by law, provide.
243B. Constitution of Panchayats
(1) There shall be constituted in every state, a Panchayat
at the village, intermediate and district level in
accordance with the provisions of this Part.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in clause (1), Panchayats at
the intermediate level may not be constituted in a
state having a population not exceeding 2,000,000.
243C.Composition of Panchayats:
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part, the legislature of
a state may, by law, make provisions with respect to
the composition of Panchayats, provided that the ratio
between the population of the territorial area of a
Panchayat at any level and the number of seats in
such Panchayat to be filled by election shall, so far as
practicable, be the same throughout the state.
(2) All seats in a Panchayat shall be filled by persons
chosen by direct election from _ territorial
constituencies in the Panchayat area and, for this
purpose, each Panchayat area shall be divided into
territorial constituencies in such a manner that the
ratio between the population of each constituency and
the number of seats allotted to it shall, so far as
practicable, be the same throughout the panchayat
area.
(3) The legislature of a state may, by law, provide for the
representation
(a) of chairpersons of Panchayats at the village level,
Panchayats at the intermediate level or, in the case
of a_ state not having Panchayats at the
intermediate level, Panchayats at the district level;
(b) of chairpersons of Panchayats at the intermediate
level, and the district level;
(c) of members of the House of the People and the
Legislative Assembly of the state representing
constituencies which comprise wholly or partly a
Panchayat area at a level other than the village
level, in such Panchayats;
(d) of members of the Council of States and the
members of the Legislative Council of the State,
where they are registered as electors within a
Panchayat area at the intermediate level, and at the
district level.
(4) The Chairperson of a Panchayat and other members
of a Panchayat whether or not chosen by direct
election from _ territorial constituencies in the
Panchayat area shall have the right to vote in the
meetings of the Panchayats.
(5) The Chairperson of
(a) a Panchayat at the village level shall be elected in
such manner as the legislature of a state may, by
law, provide; and
(b) a Panchayat at the intermediate level or district
level shall be elected by, and from amongst, the
elected members thereof.
243D. Reservation of Seats:
(1) Seats shall be reserved for:
(a) the Scheduled Castes; and
(b) the Scheduled Tribes.
(2) Not less than one-third of the total number of seats
reserved under clause (1) shall be reserved for
women belonging to the Scheduled Castes or, as the
case may be, the Scheduled Tribes.
(3) Not less than one-third (including the number of seats
reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes) of the total number
of seats to be filled by direct election in every
Panchayat shall be reserved for women and such
seats may be allotted by rotation to different
constituencies in a Panchayat.
243E. The term of panchayats has to be five years unless
dissolved earlier than that; the election for a new Panchayat
to be completed within six months before the expiration of its
normal term; no election for a new panchayat if there remains
six months of its normal term. 243F. Deals’ with
disqualifications for membership (to be stated by law).
243G. Powers, Authority and Responsibilities of
Panchayats
Subject to provisions of the Constitution, the legislature of a
state may, by law, confer on panchayats such powers and
authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as
an institution of self-government, and such law may contain
provisions for the devolution of powers and responsibilities to
panchayats at the appropriate level, subject to such
conditions as may be specified therein, with respect to:
(a) the preparation of plans for economic development
and social justice;
(b) the implementation of schemes for economic
development and social justice as may be
entrusted to them including those in relation to the
matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule.
243H. Powers to impose taxes, and funds for Panchayats
The legislature of a state may, by law:

(a) authorize a panchayat to levy, collect and
appropriate such taxes, duties, tolls and fees in
accordance with procedures and limits laid down by
the state legislature;
(b) assign to a panchayat such taxes, duties, tools and
fees levied and collected by the state government
for such purposes, subject to conditions and limits
specified;
(c) provide for making grants-in-aid to panchayats from
the Consolidated Fund of the State; and
(d) provide for constitution of such funds for crediting
moneys received, by or on behalf of Panchayats
and also for the withdrawal of such moneys
therefrom, as may be specified in the law.
243/. Constitution of Finance Commission to review
financial position:
1. The Governor of a state shall, as soon as possible, may
be within one year from the commencement of the
Constitution (734 Amendment) Act, 1992 and thereafter
at the expiration of every fifth year, constitute a finance
commission to review the financial position of Panchayat
and to make recommendations to the Governor as to:
(a) principles which should govern:
i. the distribution between the state and panchayats of the

net proceeds of the taxes, duties, tolls, and fees leviable
by the state, which may be divided, between them
under this Part and the allocation between the
panchayats at all levels of their respective shares of
such proceeds.
ii. the determination of the taxes, duties, tolls and fees
which may be assigned to, or appropriated by
panchayats.
iii. the grants-in-aid to panchayats from the Consolidated
Fund of the State.
(b) measures needed to improve the financial position
of panchayats;
(c) any other matter referred to the finance commission
by the Governor in the interests of sound finance of
panchayats.
2. The legislature of a state may, by law, provide for the
composition of the commission, the qualifications which
shall be requisite for appointment as members thereof
and the manner in which they shall be selected.
3. The commission shall determine its procedure and shall
have such powers in the performance of their functions
as the legislature of the state may, by law, confer on
them.
4. The Governor shall cause every recommendation made
by the commission under this article together with an
explanatory memorandum as to be action taken thereon
to be laid before the legislature of the state.
243J. Audit of Accounts of Panchayats
243K. Elections to Panchayats
1. The superintendence, direction and control of the
preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of all
elections to panchayats shall be vested in a State
Election Commission consisting of a State Election
Commissioner to be appointed by the Governor.
2. Subject to the provisions of law made by the legislature
of a state, the conditions of service and tenure of office of
the State Election Commissioner shall be such as the
Governor may by rule determine, provided that the State
Election Commissioner shall not be removed from his
office except in the manner and on ground provided for a
judge of a High Court, and the conditions of service of
the State Election Commissioner shall not be varied to
his disadvantage after his appointment.
3. The Governor of a state shall, when so requested by the
State Election Commission, make available to the State
Election Commission such staff as may be necessary for
the discharge of the functions conferred on the State
Election Commission by clause (1).
4. Subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the
legislature of a state may, by law, make provisions with
respect to matters relating to, or in connection with,
elections to panchayats.
243LMNO. Details regarding Panchayats, largely not
important for our purposes.
From the above, certain features relating to Panchayati Raj
Institutions are:
1. The Gram Sabha or village assembly as a deliberative
body to decentralised the governance has been
envisaged as the foundation of the Panchayati Raj
System having a population of over 2,000,000 .
2. A uniform three-tier structure of panchayats at village
(Gram Panchayat— GP), intermediate (Panchayat
Samiti—PS) and district (Zilla Parishad—ZP) levels. It
applies to all states.
3. All seats in a panchayat at every level are to be filled
by elections from respective territorial constituencies.
4. Not less than one-third of the total seats for
membership as well as the office of chairpersons of
each tier has to be reserved for women.
5. Reservations for the scheduled castes and tribes (SCs
and STs) have to be provided at all levels in
proportion to their population in the panchayat.
6. To supervise, direct and control regular and smooth
elections to panchayats, a State Election Commission
has to be constituted in every state and the Union
Territory (UT).
7. The Act has ensured the constitution of a State
Finance Commission in every state/UT, for every five
years, to suggest measures to strengthen the
finances of PRIs.
8. To promote bottom-up planning, a District Planning
Committee (DPC) in every district has been accorded
a constitutional status.
9. An indicative list of 29 items has been given in the
Eleventh Schedule of the Constitution. Panchayats
are expected to play an effective role in planning and
implementation of works related to 29 items, which
include, among others, agriculture, land improvement,
animal husbandry, fisheries, a rural social forestry,
khadi and village industries, rural housing, drinking
water, fuel and fodder, bridges, ferries, waterways,
rural electrification, poverty alleviation, and public
distribution system.
At present, there, were in 2014, about 3 lakh elected
representatives at all levels of the panchayati system, one-
third of which are women. These members represent more
than 2,37,426 Gram Panchayats, 6,326 intermediate level
tiers and 593 district panchayats. Spread over the length and
breadth of the country, the panchayats cover about 96 per
cent of India’s more than 5.8 lakh villages and nearly 99.6 per
cent of the rural population. This is the largest experiment in
the decentralization of governance in the history of humanity.
The Scheduled Castes number 521,522, and the Scheduled
Tribes 317,479 at all levels. .
A lack of funds, apathy at the rural level, unclear division of
power resulting in duplication and sometimes triplication of
responsibility, and frequent state interference in one form or
another slows down the work of PRIs and renders them
inefficient. Other drawbacks of PRIs are:
1. The uniformity of the system undermines each state’s
unique history, traditions and consequent structures of
local government.
2. Representation of members of parliament and state
legislatures are often counter-productive. There are
clashes of interests between legislators and PR
representatives particularly for getting votes.
3. The Act does not define the role of political parties
clearly. It doesn’t mention that political parties can enter
the election arena in their formal capacity.
4. The Act is silent about the relationship between PRIs
and local bureaucracy.
5. The Act doesn’t spell out specific grounds for a
dissolution of PRIs by states. This gives scope for states
to dissolve PRIs on political considerations.
Though the PRI system has so many positive features, the
elite control over the system, the apprehensions of state level
leaders of challenge to their power and the lukewarm attitude
of the bureaucracy have not allowed the PRIs to function as a
real democratic institution with the people’s participation.
Studies from different states in India clearly prove that even
though some states have shown political activism to
implement PRIs the unequal social structure and rigid caste
system prevalent in Indian villages coupled with power-
hungry local bureaucracy kill the spirit of the system.
V. DISTRICT AND METROPOLITAN PLANNING

The 73" and the 74th amendments bestow planning tasks on
local, rural and urban bodies. The Constitution makes
elaborate provisions.
243ZB. Committee for District Planning:
1. There shall be constituted in every state at the district
level a District Planning Committee to coordinate plans
prepared by panchayats and municipalities in the district
and to prepare a draft development plan for the district as
a whole.
2. The legislature of a state may, by law, make provisions
with respect to:
(a) the composition of the District Planning Committee;
(b) the manner in which the seats in such a committee
shall be filled up, provided that not less than four-
fifths of the total number of members of such a
committee shall be elected by and from amongst,
the elected members of the panchayat at the
district level and of municipalities in the district in
proportion to the ratio between the population of
rural areas and of urban areas in the district;
(c) the functions relating to district planning which may
be assigned to such committees;
(d) the manner in which the chairpersons of such
committees shall be chosen.
3. Every District Planning Committee shall, in preparing the
draft development plan, (a) have regard to:
i. matters of common interest between the panchayats

and municipalities;
ii. matters of common interest between the municipalities
and panchayats, including coordinated spatial planning
of the area, sharing of water and other physical and
natural resources, the integrated development of
infrastructure and environmental conservation;
iii. the overall objectives and priorities set by the
Government of India and the Government of the State;
iv. the extent and nature of investments likely to be made
in the Metropolitan area by agencies of the Government
of India and the Government of the State and other
available resources whether financial or otherwise.
(b) consult such institutions and organisations as the

Governor may, by order, specify.
4. The chairperson of every Metropolitan Planning
Committee shall forward the development plan, as
recommended by the committee, to the Government of
the State.
The above articles can be summed up in simple words as
thus:
Committees for District Planning are to be constituted in
every state at the district level to coordinate the plans
prepared by panchayats and municipal bodies in the district
and to prepare a draft development plan for the district as a
whole. The committee needs to, in preparing the draft
development plan, have regard for matters of common
interest between panchayats and municipal bodies. The
chairperson of every District Planning Committee has to
forward the development plan to the Government of the State.
An area having a population of 1,000,000 or more,
comprised in one or more districts and consisting of two or
more municipal bodies or panchayats may be declared by the
Governor of the State as a Metropolitan Area. Every
Metropolitan Area has a Metropolitan Planning Committee to
prepare a draft development plan for the metropolitan area as
a whole.
The legislature of a state may, by law, make provisions with
respect to: the composition of the Metropolitan Committees
and the manner in which seats in such committees are to be
filled; the representation in such committees of the Union and
state governments; and the manner in which the chairpersons
of such committees should be chosen. However, not less
than two-thirds of the members of such committees are
elected by, and from amongst, the elected members of
municipal bodies and the chairpersons of panchayats in the
metropolitan area in proportion to ratio between population of
municipal bodies and panchayats in that area.
Every Metropolitan Planning Committee has to, in
preparing the draft development plan, have regard for the
plans prepared by municipal bodies and panchayats in the
metropolitan area and also to matters of common interest
between municipal bodies and panchayats. The chairperson
of every Metropolitan Planning Committee shall forward the
development plan to the Government of the State.
Practice
Questions
1. Trace the history of urban local
government in India. (700-800 words)
2. Write a detailed note on the 74th
Amendment of the Constitution. (700-
800 words)]
3. What are the major drawbacks of the
Nagarpalika system with reference to
74th Amendment? (200-250 words)
4. Trace the history of the Panchayati Raj
system in India.(700-800 words)
5. Write a detailed note on the 73"
Amendment of the Constitution. (700-
800 words)
6. What are the major drawbacks of the
Panchayati Raj system with reference to
the 73d Amendment? (200-250 words)
7. Write an essay on _ district and
metropolitan planning. (200-250 words)
8. Explain how has the participation of
women impacted the functioning of rural
local bodies in India. (2014) (700-800
words)
9. Examine the changing structure of
Panchayati Raj institutions with special
reference to the 73rd Constitutional
Amendment Act. (2013) (700-800
words)
The Statutory Institutions/
Commissions
7 here are numerous commissions, some provided in

the Constitution and some through the laws of
Parliament. Each such commission or institution exists
for some purpose. Discussed below are these commissions.
|. THE ELECTION COMMISSION

The Election Commission of India is an autonomous, quasi-
judicial and a constitutional body established for the purpose
of conducting fair and free elections to representative
institutions as they exist in the country. Set up on January 25,
1950, under Article 324 of the Constitution, the Election
Commission may rightly be described as one of the pillars of
our polity.
The Election Commission, until 1989, was a one-person
institution, called the Chief Election Commissioner. In 1989,
two additional members, called Election Commissioners,
were appointed, making the Election Commission a three-
official body. But the two were removed in January 1990.
Now, under a law of the Parliament, of 1991, the Election
Commission consists of the Chief Election Commissioner and
such other members as the President may fix. At present
there are two eElection commissioners, besides the Chief
Election Commissioner.
The President of India appoints the Chief Election
Commissioner and other election commissioners. All of them
enjoy a term of six years or upto the age of 65 for the Chief
Election Commissioner and 62 years’ for election
commissioners whichever is earlier. The — election
commissioner’s status is equivalent to that of a judge of the
Supreme Court. The Chief Election Commissioner can be
removed on grounds as those of a judge of the Supreme
Court and other election commissioners may be removed on
the recommendations of the Chief Election Commissioner.
The powers and functions of the Chief Election
Commission relate mainly to the conduct of elections in the
country. Its functions can be summed up as under:
1. Conduct of elections to Parliament.
2. Conduct of elections to the state legislatures including
the union territories.
3. Conduct of elections to offices of the President and Vice-
President.
It also does the work connected with the following functions
like
(a) the preparation of electoral rolls
(b) fixing the dates of elections
(c) supervising the elections
(d) arranging for the counting of votes and declaring
the results and
(e) advising the President in regard to disputes like
whether a member of Parliament or a _ state
legislature has become subject to any
disqualification or not.
4. Demarcation of constituencies
5. Recognition of political parties and allotment of election
symbols
6. Scrutiny of election expenses of candidates
Thus, the responsibility of conducting the elections is that of
the Election Commission. During the elections, the entire
central and state government machinery including para-
military forces and the police is deemed to be on deputation
to the Election Commission which takes effective control of
personnel, movable and immovable government properties it
deems necessary for successful completion of the electoral
process.
The Election Commission is independent of government
control so as to allow it to act impartially. The Commission’s
independence is ensured by provisions as given below:
(a) The appointment of an election commissioner is not
based on the pleasure of any body. It is an
appointment for a term of 6 years or till the person
attains the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier.
(b) An election commissioner may be removed on the
same grounds and by the same method as
applicable to a judge of the Supreme Court.
(c) Conditions of service of a commissioner shall not
be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment.
(d) An election commissioner shall not be removed
from office except on the recommendation of the
Chief Election Commissioner.
(e) The Union and the state governments are under
obligation to make available to the commission
such staff as may be necessary for the discharge of
its functions.
The Election Commission is autonomous and independent
in the sense that it separates itself from every kind of
executive interference. It is quasi-judicial in matters relating to
electoral disputes. It may be stated here that its
recommendations and opinions are usually binding on the
governments. The Commission gives its annual report to the
President.
The fact that the Election Commission has performed its
task in the most efficient and honest manner is a testimony of
our successful experiment with democracy. The difference
between a genuine and pseudo democracy depends mainly
on the independent functioning of the Election Commission.
Notwithstanding political controversies surrounding the office
and composition of the Election Commission in India, our
election machinery working under the Election Commission
has done its job remarkably well.
ll. COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR-GENERAL OF

INDIA
Article 148(1) of the Constitution says that there shall be a
Comptroller and Auditor-General of India who is to be
appointed by the President for a period of six years or till he
attains the age of 65 years whichever is earlier. He can be
removed from office in the same manner and on the same
grounds as a judge of the Supreme Court. The Parliament
determines his salary and other conditions of service and until
it does so, he is to be governed by conditions as specified in
the Second Schedule. His oath or affirmation is prescribed in
the Third Schedule of the Constitution.
As an important pillar of the state, the Comptroller and
Auditor-General of India has a dual role: (i) to ensure that the
executive complies with laws passed by the legislature in
letter and spirit. He does so on behalf of the Parliament; (ii)
on behalf of the executive (i.e., government), he ensures
compliance by subordinate authorities with rules and orders
issued by the executive. The Comptroller and Auditor-General
is neither a part of the Parliament nor that of the Council of
Ministers (executive), but his office is so important that he has
to see the diverse authorities act in regard to all financial
matters in accordance with the Constitution and the laws
framed under it.
Under the Comptroller and Auditor-General Act, 1971, his
duties and powers can be summed up as under:
1. To make rules for carrying out the provisions relating to
the maintenance of accounts.
2. To make regulations for carrying out the provisions
relating to the scope and extent of audit, including laying
down for the guidance of government departments
general principles of government accounting and broad
principles in regard to the audit of receipts and
expenditure.
3. To requisition of all records of the auditee
departments/organisations.
4. To access computer systems of the auditees and to
download and use electronic data if necessary.
5. To review the development of computer systems of
auditees and suggest/enforce controls.
6. To approve the appointment of external auditors
engaged by auditees for meeting any _ statutory
requirements, but only with reference to government
companies.
7. To supervise and regulate external auditors’ work under
the Indian Companies Act.
8. To dispense with, when circumstances so warrant, any
part of the detailed audit of any account or class of
transactions and to apply such limited check in relation to
such accounts or transactions as he may determine.
As per the Act of 1971, the jurisdiction of the Comptroller
and Auditor-General of India extends to:
(a) All the Union and state government departments,
including departmental commercial undertakings
such as the Indian Railways, and Posts and
Telecommunications.
(b) Public commercial enterprises controlled by the
Union and state governments i.e. government
companies and corporations.
(c) Non-commercial autonomous’ bodies and
authorities owned or controlled by the Union or
States.
(d) Authorities and bodies substantially financed from
Union or state revenues.
(e) Companies where the equity participation by
government is 51 per cent or more.
(f) Any authority or body, not being a foreign state or
international organisation, which gets grant or loan
for any specific purpose from the Consolidated
Fund of India or of a state or union territory having
a legislative assembly.
(g) Audit of all receipts which are payable into the
Consolidated Fund of India or state or union
territory having a legislative assembly.
(h) Audit of regulatory bodies such as Telecom
Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), Central
Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC), State
Electricity Regulatory Commissions (SERCs) and
Insurance Regulatory Authority and Development
Authority. However, the role of audit of regulatory
authorities is at present confined only to the extent
of certifications of their accounts, as audit scrutiny
over regulatory functions is still somewhat
nebulous.
The Comptroller and Auditor-General of India follows audit
procedures and performs his functions accordingly. He has to
follow specific standards, practices and guidelines in
conducting the audit and reporting. He can engage
consultants and/or obtain professional services in conducting
the audit. He can also consult and collaborate with other
countries/SAls and international organisations on matters
relating to audit.
Apart from certificates of appropriation and _ finance
accounts of the Union and states and submission of separate
audit reports on statutory corporations and other autonomous
bodies for which he is the sole auditor, the Comptroller and
Auditor-General of India brings out a large number of reports
relating to the Union Government and the state governments.
These reports incorporate important audit findings and
performance reviews of systems, projects and programmes
and comprehensive appraisals of public enterprises and other
bodies and authorities.
He also reports on acts that infringe upon the state
economic interest like embezzlement of state assets, serious
losses and wastes. These reports are laid before the
Parliament and state legislatures concerned, every year. He
can share his audit reports with public and media only after
laying them in the Parliament and the state legislatures.
Some of these reports are selected by the Public Accounts
Committee of Parliament and state legislatures for detailed
discussions and recommendations. The Comptroller and
Auditor-General of India assists the Public Accounts
Committee by vetting the “Action Taken” notes on selected
reports.
Though India is a federal type of polity, the Constitution
provides for a unitary audit by the Comptroller and Auditor-
General of India who conducts the audit of the accounts of
both the Union and state governments.
For ensuring his independent functioning, the Constitution
provides particularly the following:
i. He is appointed by the President of India by warrant

under his hand and seal and his oath of office requires
him to uphold the Constitution of India and laws made
there-under.
ii. He shall hold office for a term of six years from the date
on which he assumes office, provided that where he
attains the age of 65 years before the expiry of the said
term of six years, he shall vacate such office on the date
on which he attains the said age and that he may, at
any time, by writing under his hand addressed to the
President, resign from his office.
iii, He can be removed from office only on grounds of
proven misbehaviour or incapacity after an address by
both Houses of Parliament supported by a two-thirds
majority.
iv. His salary and conditions of service can not be varied to
his disadvantage after appointment.
v. He shall not be eligible for further office under the
Government of India or of any state after retirement.
vi. His administrative powers and the conditions of service
of persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts
Department shall be prescribed by rules made by the
President only after consulting him.
vii. The administrative expenses of his office are charged
upon the Consolidated Fund of India and are not subject
to being voted by Parliament.
lll. FINANCE COMMISSION

The Constitution of India provides for, under Article 280, the
establishment of a Finance Com-mission for the purpose of
allocation of certain resources of revenue between the Union
and state governments. Qualifications, powers and
procedures of the commission are regulated by the
commission itself under Finance Commission (Miscellaneous
Provisions) Act, 1951. Such commissions are deemed to be
civil courts for the purpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure
1898. Finance Commission is appointed every fifth year. The
President appoints the chairman of the commission and four
other members whose qualifications are determined by the
Parliament.
Under Article 280 of the Constitution, the Finance
Commission is required to make recommendations to the
President in respect of the following:
1. The distribution of net proceeds of taxes to be shared
between the Centre and states, and the allocation
between states the respective share of such proceeds.
2. Principles to govern the grants-in-aid by the Centre to
states out of the Consolidated Fund of India.
3. Measures needed to augment the Consolidated Fund of
a state to supplement the resources of panchayats and
municipalities in the state on the basis of the
recommendations made by the State Finance
Commission.
4. Any other matter referred to it by the President in the
interests of sound finance.
The major recommendations of the 14th Finance
Commission appointed for 2015-2020 as reported by Prof.
Y.U. Reddy are:
1. The share of states in the net proceeds of the shareable
Central taxes should be 42%. This is 10% higher than
the recommendation of 13th Finance Commission.
2. Revenue deficit to be progressively reduced and
eliminated.
3. Fiscal deficit to be reduced to 3% of the GDP by 2017-
18.
4. A target of 62% of GDP for the combined debt of centre
and states.
5. The Medium Term Fiscal Plan (MTFP) should be
reformed and made the statement of commitment rather
than a statement of intent.
6. FRBM Act need to be amended to mention the nature of
shocks which shall require targets relaxation.
7. Both centre and states should conclude ‘Grand Bargain’
to implement the model Goods and Services Act (GST).
8. Initiatives to reduce the number of Central Sponsored
Schemes (CSS) and to restore the predominance of
formula based plan grants.
9. States need to address the problem of losses in the
power sector in time bound manner.
10. Sector-specific grants be stopped.
IV. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

The Constitution, under Article 315, provides for a Public
Service Commission for the Union and a Public Service
Commission for each state. There is a provision stipulating
that, if the legislatures of two or more states request so, a
joint public service commission (JPSC) can be set up for two
or more states. The Union Public Service Commission
(UPSC), with the approval of the President, can serve the
needs of any state if required by the concerned Governor.
The President appoints the chairman and other members of
the UPSC and JPSC, while the chairman and other members
of the Public Service Commission of a state are appointed by
the Governor of the state. In each commission, half the
members have to be persons who would have served the
Government of India or the government of the state, as the
case may be, for at least ten years. The term of each member
of any commission is six years, unless he has attained the
age of 65 years in the case of a UPSC member and 62 years
in the case of a state of joint public service commission
member (Article 316). A member may resign from his office or
may be removed from office by the President if he is
adjudged an insolvent, or engages in any paid employment
outside the duties of his office or, is in the opinion of the
President infirm in mind or body. He cannot be removed from
office on any other ground, except if the Supreme Court finds
him guilty of a proven misbehaviour on a reference made to it
by the President.
The word ‘misbehaviour has been explained in the
Constitution. A member shall be deemed to be guilty of
misbehaviour if (i) he is interested or concerned in any
contract or agreement made on behalf of the Government of
India or of a state, or (ii) if he participates in any way in the
profit of such contract or agreement in tandem with other
members of an incorporated company.
The powers and functions of the Union Public Service
Commission (UPSC) can be classified as (1) Regulatory, (2)
Executive, and (3) Quasi-judicial. These functions may be
explained as follows:
1. Regulatory: Among the regulatory functions, the UPSC
advises the government in matters relating to (i) methods
of recruitment, and (ii) principles to be followed in making
appointments, promotions and transfers from one service
to another. The UPSC’s jurisdiction is purely advisory.
Article 320 (3) of the Constitution merely states that it is
the duty of the commission to advise the government on
all matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil
services, promotions and transfers.
2. Executive: The commission has a specific constitutional
duty of conducting examinations for appointments to the
services of the Union. Under this provision, the UPSC
conducts written examinations for different categories of
posts annually, besides holding interviews for selection of
candidates for specialised and other categories of
positions. It may be noted that the commission’s
jurisdiction is narrowly restricted to gazetted officers who
constitute an insignificant portion of the total number of
government employees. This means that the executive
jurisdiction of the commission extends to only 1.9 per
cent of the total employees of the Central Government.
Another executive function of the UPSC is to present
annually to the President a report of the work done by the
commission during the preceding year. The President is
obliged to place the report before both Houses of Parliament
with a memorandum explaining the cases, if any, where the
advice of the commission was not accepted and reasons for
such non-acceptance.
3. Quasi-judicial: The quasi-judicial jurisdiction of the
UPSC is limited both in scope and ex-tent. In fact it has
no true appellate jurisdiction. It can only advise on
disciplinary actions taken against employees. According
to the constitution, the government should consult the
commission on the following matters:
i. All disciplinary actions affecting a government employee

like censure, withholding of increments or promotion,
demotion to a lower grade, compulsory retirement,
removal or dismissal from service, etc.
ii. Claims for reimbursement of costs incurred by an
employee in legal proceedings instituted against him in
respect of acts done in the execution of his duty.
iii. Claims for the award of pension in respect of injuries
sustained by an employee and any question as to the
amount of any such award (Constitution of India, Article
320 (3)(C)).
The UPSC derives its functions, apart from the Constitution

of India as discussed above, from other sources like (a) the
laws made by the Parliament, (b) rules, regulations and
orders of the executive, and (c) conventions.
Under Article 321 of the Constitution, the Parliament
through legislations can confer additional functions on the
UPSC pertaining to the services of the Union or states. If
necessary, the Parliament can place the personnel system of
any local authority, corporate body or public institution within
the jurisdiction of the commission.
According to Articles 318 and 320 of the Constitution, the
Central Government through certain regulations and orders
entrust certain functions to the commission. Also the
President may define from time to time through regulations,
matters in which the commission need not be consulted.
The commission also discharges certain functions, such as
conducting written tests for the selection of scientists and
technicians for the pool of highly qualified scientists and
technologists, who are deputed to the Central Government,
scientific institutions, national laboratories, universities etc.
These functions are being discharged by the UPSC on the
basis of conventions only.
The independence of the UPSC has been ensured by the
Constitution. The method of removal of a member of the
UPSC is not easy. Lest any member is taken to corrupt
practices, the Constitution provides for prohibitions after a
member ceases to be a member on the commission: the
chairman of the UPSC becomes ineligible for further
employment under the Government of India or the
government of a state; the chairman of a state public service
commission becomes ineligible for appointment in the same
commission; the member of the UPSC can become eligible to
be the chairman of the UPSC but ineligible for any other
appointment under the Government of India; the member of
any state public service commission is eligible to be the
chairman of the same public service Commission or a
member of the UPSC or the chairman of any other Public
Service commission, but ineligible for the same position in the
same public service commission.
The UPSC has performed its role fairly well over the years.
The executive’s interference is limiting the scope of certain
vacancies or the number of vacancies make the UPSC rather
ineffective or neglected. In certain other cases, the
government interferes in delaying or deferring appointments
or putting the recommendations of the commission in
abeyance. The UPSC is charged with observing too much
secrecy in its functioning.
V. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED

CASTES
The 89th Amendment Act, 2003, bifurcated the erstwhile
National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes into two separate and independent commissions.
Article 338 provides for a National Commission for the
Scheduled Castes. The Article reads:
1. There shall be a commission for the Scheduled Castes
to be known as the National Commission for Scheduled
Castes.
2. Subject to provisions of law made in this behalf by
Parliament the commission shall consist of a
chairperson, vice-chairperson and three members.
Conditions of service and tenure of office of the
chairperson, vice-chairperson and members shall be
such as the President may by rule determine.
3. The chairperson, vice-chairperson and members of the
commission shall be appointed by the President by
warrant under his hand and seal.
4. The commission shall have the power to regulate its own
procedure.
5. It shall be the duty of the commission:
(a) to investigate and monitor all matters relating to the
safeguards provided for the Scheduled Castes
under the Constitution or under any order of the
government and to evaluate the working of such
safeguards;
(b) to enquire into specific complaints with respect to
the deprivation of rights and safeguards of the
Scheduled Castes;
(c) to participate and advise on the planning process of
socio-economic development of the Scheduled
Castes and to evaluate the progress of their
development in the Union and states;
(d) to present to the President, annually and at such
other times as the commission may deem fit,
reports upon the working of those safeguards;
(e) to make in such reports recommendations as to
measures that should be taken by the Union or a
state for the effective implementation of those
safeguards and other measures for the protection,
welfare and socio-economic development of the
Scheduled Castes; and
(f) to discharge such other functions in relation to
protection, welfare and development and
advancement of the Scheduled Castes as the
President may, subject to the provisions of law
made by Parliament, by rule specify.
6. The President shall cause all such reports to be laid
before each House of Parliament along with a
memorandum explaining the action taken or proposed to
be taken on recommendations relating to the Union and
reasons for the non-acceptance, if any, of any such
recommendation.
7. Where any such report, or any part thereof, relates to a
matter with which a state government is concerned, a
copy of such report shall be forwarded to the Governor of
the state who shall cause it to be laid before the
legislature of the state along with a memorandum
explaining the action taken or proposed to be taken on
recommendations relating to the state and reasons for
the non-acceptance, if any of any such recommendation.
8. The commission shall, while investigating any matter
referred to in sub-clause (a) or inquiring into any
complaint referred to in sub-clause (b) of clause (5) have
all powers of a civil court trying a suit, particularly in
respect of:
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any
person from any part of India and examining him on
oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of any
document;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;
(d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof
from any court or office;
(e) issuing summons for the examination of witnesses
and documents;
(f) any other matter which the President may, by rule,
determine.
9. The Union and every state government shall consult the
commission on all major policy matters affecting
Scheduled Castes.
The National Commission for the Scheduled Castes
(NCSC) investigates and monitors the implementation of
safeguards to the Scheduled Castes, covering activities such
as the implementation of laws, provisions relating to
reservations in recruitments, promotions and admissions
relating to educational institutions and economic
development. The first report of NCSC was placed before the
Parliament, i.e., report of 2004-05 only in 2008. In addition to
NCSC, the Stand ing Committee of Parliament on Social
Justice and Empowerment also helps the welfare of the
Scheduled Castes.
The National Commission for the Scheduled Castes is
doing its job remarkably well, especially in investigating the
complaints of the violations of reserved quotas, though the
participation of the Scheduled Castes themselves in fields
relating to them is relatively low. Consequently, atrocities on
the weaker sections and their low-level participation in
educational institutions keep mounting.
VI. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED

TRIBES
Article 338A was inserted as a result of the 89th Amendment
Act, 2003, through which the National Commission for the
Scheduled Tribes (NCST), after the bifurcation of the earlier
National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Tribes, was
to be constituted. The National Commission for the
Scheduled Tribes consists of a chairperson, vice-chairperson,
and three members. The President appoints these officials
and determines their conditions of service and tenure of
office. The duties of the NCST includes:
i. Investigation and monitoring of all matters relating to the

safeguards provided for the Scheduled Tribes;
ii. Inquiry into specific complaints with respect to the
deprivation of rights and safeguards of the Scheduled
Tribes;
iii. Participating and advising on the planning process of
socio-economic development of the Scheduled Tribes
and evaluating the progress achieved;
iv. Submitting reports to the President with regard to the
working of the safeguards relating to the Scheduled
Tribes;
v. Making recommendations for the improvement of the
Scheduled Tribes; and (vi) discharging such other
functions which may help protect, develop and promote
the welfare of the Scheduled Tribes.
The commission, while investigating any matter relating to

the safeguards provided to the Scheduled Tribes, has all
powers of a civil court and can act accordingly.
The report of NCST, when submitted to the President, is
placed before the Parliament by the President.
The Scheduled Tribes in India constitute about 8.2% of the
population and 15% of the country’s areas (their literacy rate
is 47.10%, with the female literacy at 34.76%) and in
numerous ecological and geo-climatic conditions ranging from
plains to forests. These groups are on different stages of
social, economic and educational development, about 75% of
them are characterised by pre-agricultural level of technology,
a stagnant or declining population, extremely low literacy and
subsistence level of economy. About 500 such tribes have
been notified under Article 342 of the Constitution. The
government has to accord top priority to promote their
allround development, much more than what has been done
for the Scheduled Tribes in the country. The Constitutional
provisions for the safeguards of the Scheduled Tribes have to
be operationalised and laws enacted to promote their welfare.
Happily, efforts are already on to improve the lot of the people
belonging to the Scheduled Tribes.
Vil. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR WOMEN

Women in India do not constitute a minority. They are not
regarded as backward. In a patriarchal society as India is,
women have always suffered numerous social disabilities.
Indeed, certain steps are necessary to help improve the
conditions of women in the traditionally maledominated Indian
society. The Constitution does not make specific provisions in
favour of women, though Article 15(3), 21 and 14 refer to
some general provisions so as to provide for specific
considerations for women. The Supreme Court through
interpretive processes has tried to extend some safeguards to
women. Through judgments in cases such as Bodhisattwa
Gautam v. Subra Chakraborty (1996) and the Chairman Rly
Board v. Chandrima Das (2000) case, where rape was
declared a heinous crime, and a landmark judgment in
Visakha v. State of Rajasthan (1997), courts have tried to
improve the social conditions of Indian women. But these
have hardly sufficed to improve the position of women in
India. Thus, in the light of these conditions, the Committee on
the Status of Women (India) as well as a number of NGOs,
social workers and experts, who were consulted by the
government in 1990, recommended the establishment of an
apex body for women. The National Commission for Women
Act, 1990 (Act No. 20 of 1990 of Parliament) constituted the
National Commission for Women as a statutory body. The
first commission was constituted on 31st January 1992 with
Mrs. Jayanti Patnaik as chairperson. The Act of 1990 under
Section 3 provides for the c onstitution of the commission.
This section lays down that the commission will consist of a
chairperson, who is committed to the cause of women, five
members from various fields and a member-secretary who
shall be an expert in the fields of management, organisational
structure, sociological movement or a member of the civil
service of the Union. All the members of the commission are
nominated by the Central Government. Each person holds
office for a period of five years or till he or she attains the age
of seventy. At least one member each of the commission
must belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes each.
In addition to the above-mentioned members of the
commission, the commission has power to set up committees
with members from outside the commission.
Section 10(1) of the Act of 1990 provides for a fourteen-
point mandate i.e. functions for the National Commission for
Women (NCW). The functions are:
1. investigate and examine all matters relating to
safeguards provided for women under the Constitution
and other laws;
2. present to the Central Government, annually and at such
other times as the commission may deem fit, reports
upon the working of those safeguards;
3. make in such reports recommendations for the effective
implementation of those safeguards for improving the
conditions of women by the Union or states;
4. review, from time to time, the existing provisions of the
Constitution and other laws affecting women and
recommend amendments thereto so as to suggest
remedial legislative measures to meet any lacunae,
inadequacy or shortcoming in such legislations;
5. take up cases of violation of provisions of the
Constitution and of other laws relating to women with the
appropriate authorities;
6. look into complaints and take suo moto notice of matters
relating to:
(a) Deprivation of women’s rights;
(b) Non-implementation of laws enacted to provide
protection to women and also to achieve the
objectives of equality and development;
(c) Non-compliance of policy decisions, guidelines or
instructions aimed at mitigating hardships and
ensuring welfare and providing relief to women, and
take up the issues arising out of such matters with
7. call for special studies or investigations into specific
problems or situations arising out of discrimination and
atrocities against women and identify the constraints so
as to recommend strategies for their removal;
8. undertake promotional and educational research so as to
suggest ways of ensuring due representation of women
in all spheres and identify factors responsible for
impeding their advancement, such as lack of access to
housing and basic services, inadequate support services
and technologies for reducing drudgery and occupational
health hazards and for increasing their productivity;
9. participate and advise on the planning process of socio-
economic development of women;
10. evaluate the progress of the development of women
activities under the Union and states;
11. inspect or cause to be inspected a jail, remand home,
women’s institution or other place of custody where
women are kept as prisoners or otherwise, and take up
with the concerned authorities for remedial action, if
found necessary;
12. fund litigation involving issues affecting a large body of
women;
13. make periodical reports to the government on any
matter pertaining to women and in particular various
difficulties under which women toil; and
14. any other matter which may be referred to it by Central
Government.
The Union Government consults NCW on all policy matters
affecting women. During the period between April 2003 and
March, 2004, NCW processed 5462 complaints through its
complaints and investigation cell. Workshops and seminars
are organised by NCW to discuss and suggest steps for
improving the conditions of women.
NCW’s achievements over the years have’ been
commendable. Some of these achievements can be
mentioned. Due to efforts of NCW, Rupali Jain was reinstated
as a teacher. Smt. Savitri had approached the NCW
regarding the exploitation of her deaf and dumb daughter,
who, along with her child, had been deserted by her husband
and in-laws, allegedly due to her disabilities. The commission
took up the matter and the husband was located and
counseled. He agreed to rehabilitate with his wife and
daughter. The commission was also successful in securing
the release of Mrs. Sudha Bala (name changed) who was
allegedly gang-raped by BSF personnel in
2002. The victim along with her young daughter was
wrongly detained in Presidency Jail in Kolkata, after the
alleged rape. The matter was taken up by the
commission, which resulted in the release of the rape
victim and safe custody with her brother.
Besides these achievements, the commission has
proposed amendments to a number of Acts such as the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Medical Termination of Pregnancy
Act, 1971, and the Indian Penal Code, 1960. The commission
has also proposed bills such as the Marriage Bill of 1994, the
Domestic Violence to Women (Prevention) Bill of 1994 and
the Prevention of Barbarous and Beastly Cruelty Against
Women Bill, 1995, amongst others. Some of these bills, such
as the Domestic Violence to Women (Prevention) Bill, have
recently been passed. The commission has also intervened in
a number of court cases, which have been mentioned in a
chapter dealing with functions of the commission.
Despite these achievements, it may be noted that NCW
does not possess any concrete legislative powers. It does not
select its own members: they are appointed by the Union
Government. For its financial functioning, NCW depends on
grants from the Union Government. There is a need to make
NCW more effective than what it is now.
Vill. NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of India is
an autonomous body established on October 12, 1993 under
the provision of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
The commission is in conformity with the Paris Principles
(October, 1991). The NHRC consists of a chairperson and
four members. Chairperson of the National Commission for
Minorities and National Commission for Women are its ex-
officio members. The chairperson and members of the NHRC
are appointed by the President on the recommendations of a
committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Speaker of
the House of the People, the Home Minister, the Leader of
the opposition in the Council of States and the Deputy
Chairman of the Council of States. The functions of NHRC
are:
1. proactively or reactively inquire into violations of human
rights or negligence in the prevention of such violation by
a public servant.
2. intervene in any proceeding involving allegation of
violation of human rights pending before a court.
3. visit any jail or other institution under the control of a
state government, where persons are detained or lodged
for purposes of treatment, reformation or protection, for
the study of the living conditions of the inmates and make
recommendations.
4. review safeguards provided by or under the Constitution
or any law for the time being in force for the protection of
human rights and recommend measures for their
effective implementation.
5. review factors, including acts of terrorism, that inhibit the
enjoyment of human rights and recommend appropriate
remedial measures
6. study treaties and other international instruments on
human rights and make recommendations for their
effective implementation.
7. undertake and promote research in the field of human
rights
8. spread literacy among various sections of the society
and promote awareness of safeguards available for the
protection of these rights through publications, the media,
seminars and other available means.
9. encourage efforts of NGOs, and institutions working in
the field of human rights.
The NHRC is not only an investigation body; it is also a
body that holds inquiry into complaints. For this purpose, the
commission broadly divides cases in these categories:
i. custodial deaths;
ii. police excesses (torture, illegal detention/ unlawful
arrest, false implication etc.;
iii. fake encounters;
iv. cases related to women and children;
v. atrocities on Dalits/members of the minority community/
disabled;
vi. bonded labour;
vii. Armed Forces/para military forces; and
viii. other important cases.
Since its establishment in October 1993, the commission

has directed compensation of Rs.9,76,68,634 in 559 cases. In
the year 2002-03 the commission recommended
compensation amounting to Rs.31,40,000 in 39 cases. The
commission during the period beginning from April 1, 2002 to
March 31, 2003 registered 68,779 cases. Out of 68,779 cases
registered in the year 2002 to
2003, 67,354 complaints were of human rights violations,
1340 related to custodial deaths, 2 concerned custodial rapes
and 83 related to police encounters. As on March 31, 2003,
the total number of cases before the commission was 43,010,
which included 9,763 cases awaiting preliminary
consideration and 33,247 cases in respect of which reports
were either awaited from the authorities concerned or the
reports had been received and are pending further
consideration within the commission.
It is worthwhile to illustrate National Human Rights
Commission vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh case (1996) in
which the Supreme Court directed the Government of
Arunachal Pradesh to ensure the life and personal liberty of
each and every Chakma residing within the state. The
significance of this judgment also lies in clearing the doubts
regarding the applicability of fundamental rights to refugees.
This decision rules that foreigners are entitled to enjoy the
protection of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution. There is yet another illustration. Two writ
petitions (Paramjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab and Committee
for Information on Punjab vs. State of Punjab) were filed in
the Supreme Court in 1995 containing serious charges. The
apex court observed that 585 dead bodies were fully
identified, 274 partially identified and 1,238 unidentified and
that there was flagrant violation of human rights on a large
scale. On 12 December 1996 the Supreme Court requested
the HR Commission to have the matter examined in
accordance with law and determine all issues related with the
case. During the year of its inception (199394), the NHRC
received 496 complexity which figures reach now 74,444 in
2005-06. According to the commission, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh,
and Haryana topped the Human Rights Violation in 2011,
Delhi’s figures were 5,228 in 2009-10 which jumped in 5,929
in 2010, 7,865 in 2011-12.
IX. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR MINORITIES

The Government of India has set up a commission to protect
the rights of the minorities. It consists of a chairperson, a vice-
chairperson and four members—all appointed by the
President. Functions of the National Commission of Minorities
(NCM) are:
(a) to evaluate the progress of the development of the
minorities under the Union and in states;
(b) to monitor the working of safeguards provided in
the Constitution and in the laws enacted by
Parliament and state legislatures;
(c) to make recommendations for the effective
implementation of safeguards for the protection of
the interests of the minorities by the Central
Government or state governments;
(d) to look into specific complaints regarding the
deprivation of rights and safeguards of the
minorities, and take up such matters with the
(e) to cause studies to be undertaken into problems
arising out of discrimination against the minorities,
and recommend measures for their removal;
(f) to conduct studies, research and analysis on issues
relating to socio-economic and_ educational
development of the minorities;
(g) to suggest appropriate measures in respect of any
section of the minorities to be undertaken by the
Central Government or state governments;
(h) to make periodical or special reports to the Central
Government on any matter pertaining to the
minorities and in particular difficulties confronted by
them;
(i) any other matter which may be referred to it by the
Central Government.
Powers of the NCM, acting as a civil court are:
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any
person from any part of India and examining him on
oath;
(b) requiring production of any document;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavit;
(d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof
from any court or office;
(e) issuing commissions for the examination of
witnesses and documents;
(f) any other matter which may be prescribed.
Reports of NCM are to be placed in the Parliament and in
state legislature, if necessary.
The constitution of the NCM, as a statutory body, augurs
well for the protection of the minorities in the country. But its
functions do not allow it to be an effective champion of the
minorities’ rights in so far as it has to go alongwith the
government of the day: a favourable government helps
encourage the NCM while a hostile one makes the NCM
dormant.
X. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR BACKWARD
CLASSES
The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 16.11.1992, in a
writ petition (Civil) (No. 930 of 1990) — Indira Sawhney & Ors
vs. Union of India and Ors. — directed the Government of
India, state governments and UT administrations to constitute
a permanent body in the nature of a commission or tribunal
for entertaining, examining and recommending upon requests
for inclusion and complaints of over-inclusion and under-
inclusion in the list of OBCs.
In pursuance of the direction of the Supreme Court, the
Government of India enacted the National Commission for
Backward Classes Act, 1993 (Act No. 27 of 1993) and set up
a National Commission for Backward Classes at the Centre to
investigate conditions of backward classes. Article 340 of the
Constitution provides:
1. the President may by order appoint a commission
consisting of such persons as he thinks fit to investigate
conditions of the socially and educationally backward
classes within the territory of India and difficulties under
which they labour, to make recommendations as to steps
to be taken by the Union or a state to remove such
difficulties to improve their conditions, and as to grants
that should be made for the purpose by the Union or
state and the conditions subject to which such grants
should be made, and the order appointing such
commission shall define the procedure to be followed by
the commission.
2. A commission so appointed shall investigate matters
referred to it and present to the President a report setting
out the facts as found by it, and make such
recommendations as it thinks proper.
3. The President shall cause a copy of the report presented
together with a memorandum explaining the action taken
thereon to be laid before each House of Parliament.”
At present, there is a chairman of the National Commission
for Backward Classes (NCBC), one member-secretary and
three other members (2009).
Under Section 9(1) of the National Commission for
Backward Classes Act, 1993, the Commission shall
examine requests for inclusion of any class of citizens as
a backward class in the Central List of Backward Classes
and hear complaints of over-inclusion or under-inclusion
of any backward class in the list and tender such advice
to the Central Government as it deems appropriate.
Under Section 9(2) of the Act, “The advice of the
commission shall ordinarily be binding upon the Central
Government.”
Under Section 11(1) of the Act, the Central Government
may at any time, and shall, at the expiration of ten years from
the Act coming into force and every succeeding period of ten
years thereafter, undertake revision of the list with a view to
excluding from such list those classes who have ceased to be
backward classes or for including in such list new backward
classes.
Under Section 11(2) of the Act, the Central Government
shall, while undertaking any revision referred to in sub-section
(1), consult the commission.
The primary function of NCBC is two-fold:
(a) to consider request for the inclusion of any class of
citizens as a backward class in the central list —
this function makes the NCBC as a commission to
work on a permanent basis;
(b) to act as a complaint authority — this function
makes the commission an important statutory body
to go into the details of every incoming request,
determine the claims of a class of people to be
included or excluded in the list of backward
classes.
Though the recommendations of the NCBC are binding on
the government, yet the latter remains the ultimate authority
to accept or reject the recommendations of the commission.
Xl. OTHER COMMISSIONS
(a) NITI Aayog

NITI Aayog (National Institution for Transforming India Aayog
—NITI) is a policy aayog, established as its predecessor,
Planning Commission, by a Cabinet resolution on January 1,
2015. It comprises (i) Prime Minister of India as the
chairperson (ii) Governing Council comprising the chief
ministers of all the states and the union territories with
legislatures and lieutenant governors of the other union
territories, (iii) Regional Councils will be formed to address
specific issues impacting more than one state or region; (iv)
experts, specialists and practitioners with relevant domain
knowledge as special invitees nominated by the Prime
Minister; (v) full time organisational framework comprising (a)
vice chairperson (Arvind Panagaria) (b)three full time
members (Bibek Debroy, V.K. Saraswat, Ramesh Chander—
economist, former DRDO chief and agricultural expert
respectively ; (c) part-time members —one_ university
professor another relevant institution head; (d) ex-officio
members — four members of the union cabinet; (e) chief
executive officer—to be nominated by the Prime Minister for a
fixed tenure; and (f) secretariat.
Aims and Objectives of NITI Aayog

NITI Aayog seeks to provide a critical directional and strategic
input into the development process.
The centre-to-state one-way flow of policy, that was the

hallmark of the Planning Commission era, is now sought
to be replaced by a genuine and continuing partnership
of states.
The NITI Aayog will emerge as a “a think-tank “that will
provide governments at the central and state levels with
relevant strategic and technical advice across the
spectrum of key elements of policy.
The NITI Aayog also seeks to put an end to slow and
tardy implementation of policy, by fostering better inter-
ministry coordination and better centre-state
coordination. It helps evolve a shared vision of national
development priorities, and foster cooperative
federalism, recognizing that strong states make a strong
nation.
The NITI Aayog develops mechanisms to formulate
credible plans to the village level and aggregate these
progressively at higher levels of government. It ensures
special attention to the sections of society that may be
at risk of not benefitting adequately from economic
progress.
The NITI Aayog creates a knowledge, innovation and
entrepreneurial support system through a collaborative
community of national and international experts,
practitioners and partners. It offers a platform for
resolution of inter-sectoral and inter-departmental
issues in order to accelerate the implementation of the
development agenda.
The NITI Aayog monitors and evaluates the
implementation of programmes, and focusses on
technology upgradation and capacity building.
Through the above, the NITI Aayog will aim to accomplish

the following objectives and opportunities:
An administrative paradigm in which the government is

an “enabler “rather than a “provider of first and last
resort”.
Progress from “food security “to focus on a mix of
agricultural production, as well as actual returns that
farmers get from their produce.
Ensure that India is an active player in the debates and
deliberations on the global commons.
Ensure that the economically vibrant middle-class
remains engaged, and its potential is fully realised.
Leverage India’s pool of entrepreneurial, scientific and
intellectual human capital.
Incorporate the significant geo-economic and geo-
political strength of the Non-Resident Indian
Community.
Use urbanization as an opportunity to create a
wholesome and secure habitat through the use of
modern technology.
Use technology to reduce opacity and potential for
misadventures in governance.
The NITI Aayog aims to enable India to better face complex

challenges, through the following:
e Leveraging of India’s demographic dividend, and

realisation of the potential of youth, men and women,
through education, skill development, elimination of
gender bias, and employment
e Elimination of poverty, and the change for every Indian
to live a life of dignity and selfrespect
e Redressal of inequalities based on gender bias, caste
and economic disparities
e Integrate villages institutionally into the development
process
e Policy support to more than 50 million small businesses,
which are a major source of employment creation
e Safeguarding of our environmental and ecological
assets.
NITI Aayog is an advisory body, a think tank, a sort of

policy and not a planning commission. To some extent it is to
replace the Nehruvian Soviet centalised planning body by
Americanised neo-liberal body to give India a developmental
look. Obviously, it is different than the Planning Commission.
(a) Unlike the planning body, the NITI Aayog is an
advisory body: it does not allocate funds, this job
has been given to the finance ministry. The
Planning Commission had the power to allocate
funds to ministries and state government.
(b) NITI Aayog has two full-time members, while the
Planning Commission had eight fulltime members.
(c) NITI Aayog includes chief ministers of states and
union territories whereas the Planning Commission
had chief ministers in the National Development
Council (NDC) which is now extinct.
(d) NITI Aayog has part-time members; whereas
planning commission had no part-time members.
(e) NITI Aayog’s organisation differs from the
organisation of Planning Commission.
(f ) the states will be consulted in formulating policy
matters while the National Development Council, a
body consisting of all the chief ministers(now
defunct) was to be consulted in Planning
Commission.
(g) The Planning Commission was a Soviet sponsored
centralized body making plans and projects for the
whole country whereas NITI Aayog is _ neo-
liberalised more open body, and a_ bottom-up
institution which takes into account as open-policy
making process as possible.
NITI Aayog, hopefully, seeks to put an end to slow
implementation of policy by fostering inter-ministerial and
centre-state coordination.
(b) Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)

Central Vigilance Commission is an apex vigilance institution,
free of control from any executive authority, monitoring all
vigilance activities under the Government of India, and
advising various authorities in Central Government
organisations in planning, executing, reviewing and reforming
their vigilance work. It was set up by the Government in
February 1964 on the recommendations of the Committee on
Prevention of Corruption (K. Santhanam Committee) to
advise and guide Central Government agencies in the field of
vigilance. Consequent upon promulgation of an ordinance by
the President, the Central Vigilance Commission has been
made a multi-member commission with “statutory status” with
effect from August 25, 1988. The commission consists of a
chief vigilance commissioner and_ two _ vigilance
commissioners.
(c) Central Information Commission (CIC)

Under provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the
Central Government has constituted a body, known as the
Central Information Commission. The commission includes a
chief information commissioner (CIC) and not more than 10
information commissioners (ICs) who are appointed by the
President of India. The Central Information Commission has a
duty to receive complaints from any person who does not
receive a decision within the time specified by the Act, or is
aggrieved by a decision of the central public information
officer or state public information officer, and to conduct
necessary enquiry and provide with remedy. For this purpose,
the commission has the powers of a civil court.
(d) Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)

The Indian Atomic Energy Commission was first set up in
August 1948 in the then Department of Scientific Research,
which was created a few months before in June 1948. Later,
a Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) was set up on August
3, 1954, under the direct charge of the Prime Minister through
a Presidential Order. Subsequently, in accordance with a
Government Resolution dated March 1, 1958, the Atomic
Energy Commission (AEC) was established in the
Department of Atomic Energy. The Secretary to the
Government of India in the Department of Atomic Energy is
ex-officio chairman of the AEC. Other members of the AEC
are appointed for each calendar year on the recommendation
of the chairman after approval by the Prime Minister.
(e) National Commission for Religious and Linguistic

Minorities (NCRLM)
NCRLM was established on March 21, 2005 to address the
Government of India’s concern about the welfare needs of
socially and economically backward sections among religious
and linguistic minorities. The commission has a three-fold
mandate: (a) to suggest criteria for identification of the
socially and economically backward sections among the
religious and linguistic minorities; (b) to recommend
measures for the welfare of such identified backward
sections, including reservation in education and government
employment, and (c) to suggest necessary constitutional,
legal and administrative modalities required to implement the
recommendations.
(f) National Commission for Economically Backward

Classes
The Centre constituted a commission for economically
backward classes in July 2006. The commission elicits the
views of state governments and Union Territories, suggests
criteria for identification of the economically backward classes
and recommends welfare measures and quantum of
reservation in education and government employment.
Recommendations of the commission are applicable to those
“not covered under the existing reservation policy.”
(g) National Knowledge Commission

The National Knowledge Commission is a high-level advisory
body to the Prime Minister, with the objective of transforming
India into a knowledge-based society. It covers sectors
ranging from education to e-governance, focusing on
knowledge paradigm. Terms of references of the National
Knowledge Commission (NKC) are to build excellence in the
educational system to meet the knowledge challenges for the
21st century and increase India’s competitive advantage in
the field of knowledge; promote creation of knowledge in
scientific and technology laboratories; improve the
management of institutions engaged in intellectual property
rights; promote knowledge applications in agriculture and
industry; promote the use of knowledge capabilities in making
government an effective, transparent and accountable service
provider to citizens, and promote widespread sharing of
knowledge to maximise public benefit.
Practice
Questions
1. Examine the structure and functions of

the National Commission for the
Scheduled Castes. (700-800 words)
2. Explain the structure, functions and
rationale for the National Commission
for the Scheduled Tribes. (700-800
words)
3. Why was the National Commission for
backward classes been set up? Give
reasons. (200-250 words)
4. Why has the National Commission for
women been established? What are its
functions? State some of its
achievements. (700-800 words)
5. Explain the functions of the Election
Commission. (200-250 words)
6. State the composition and functions of
the Union Public Service Commission.
What is its role? (700-800 words)
7. Discuss’ the organisation and
functioning of the National Human
Rights Commission. (700-800 words)
8. “The National Commission for Minorities
is a commission with a major role’.
Elucidate. (200-250 words)
9. Write a detailed note on the Finance
Commission of India. (700-800 words)
10. Examine the role of the Comptroller
and Auditor-General of India in
promoting good governance. (2014)
(200-250 words)
11. Discuss the working of the National
Commission for Scheduled Castes curb
violence. (2014) (700-800 words)
12. Examine the scope and limitations of
women’s movements in India. (2014)
(200-250 words)
13. Write a detailed note on NITI Aayog. 4
A,
U
(700- 800)
Federalism In India
A federation is an agreement among regional polities surrendering their sovereignty in

favour of a national government without sacrificing their autonomy. It is not the division of
a larger national state into smaller units, giving each its constitutional existence.
Integrative and disintegrative forces may lead to one form or another of federalism, as federalism,
today, is essentially not conflictive in nature (i.e. the national government seeking to override the
powers of constituent units or the federating units seeking more autonomy). Federal forms differ ,
such as the American form, which represents a model of strong federation like that of
Switzerland, and the Canadian form, which represents a model of a weak federation like that of
India. Yet there is a tendency among all forms of federations to strengthen the federal
government as against the governments of federating units.
William S. Livingston (Federalism and Constitutional Change) defines federation as “a form of
political and constitutional organization that unites into a single polity a number of diversified
groups as component polities so that personality and individuality of the component parts are
largely preserved while creating ... a separate and distinct unit.” Federation implies a dual polity, a
division of powers between the two polities, each limited in its own sphere and independent of
one another and yet coordinating with each other.
I. NATURE OF THE INDIAN FEDERALISM

In a country full of diversities as India has been, it is only the federal scheme, which can suit its
requirements. Our country, with numerous castes, uneven and underdeveloped regions, a variety
of religions and the languages and dialectics, no other system would have been as suitable as is
the federalisation of India. The size of the country with its large population, again, could
necessitate a federal machinery in our system. India’s history has not witnessed a one-bloc entity
until the British came to build it administratively as one polity, but even they also, again for
purposes of administration, classified it into numerous provinces, though headed by a central
government, once controlled from Calcutta (now Kolkata) and later from Delhi. The division of
powers, under the Government of India Act 1919 first and later, under the Government of India
Act 1935 was a clear indication of an intentional federal idea for India. The Act of 1935 had also
proposed an All-India federation, though this part of the Act could not be made practical because
of a lack of cooperation from princely states to join it. The Nehru Committee of 1928 had also
suggested the federal idea for India. The Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946 did mention ‘union’ of
India as the country’s federal system.
The resolution of objectives of December 1946 sought to propose a federal system with
autonomous units having residuary powers. But the fast-changing conditions of 1946-47 leading
to the partition of the country followed by large-scale migration with violent catastrophic changes
deliberately transformed the mood of the members of the Constituent Assembly. The idea of
having ‘autonomous units’ was changed into the idea of a strong union government: the word
‘union’ of India was preferred to the word ‘federalism’ of India.
In the Constituent Assembly, the Draft Committee decided in favour of describing India as a
Union. Moving the Draft Constitution for the consideration of the Constituent Assembly on 4
November 1948, Ambedkar explained the significance of the use of the expression “Union”
instead of the expression “Federation”. He said “.... What is important is that the use of the word
“Union” is deliberate. Though the country and the people may be divided into different States for
convenience of administration, the country is one integral whole, its people a single people living
under a single imperium derived from a single source.” Explaining the use of the word ‘union’,
Ambedkar indicated two things:
i. that India is not a federation in the sense that it is not the result of some erstwhile sovereign
states agreeing to have their sovereignties and coming together to form a new sovereign
state;
ii. that in India, the states do not have the right to secede from the federation. The word
‘Union’ suggests a relatively more powerful Centre. Our system differs from the American or
Swiss federation in so far as it does not give the federating units equal representation in the
second chamber of the national legislature, nor does it put them at par in the amendment
process. In fact, our system is more akin to the Canadian model where also the word
‘Union’ has been used for federation.
Finally, the Constitution was adopted on 26 November 1949, it provided for India being a Union
of States and its States and territories being as specified in the First Schedule. The Schedule
specified four types of units—Part ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ States and Part ‘D’ territories. Later, on the
recommendations of the State Reorganisation Commission (1956), and with subsequent
amendments, India, now stands, according to Article 1 of the Constitution, as a “Union” of States:
29 States and seven union territories. In all these structural changes, the unity and integrity,
without sacrificing the diversities of the country, was never compromised. The State
Reorganisation Commission (SRC) had pointed out early, way back in 1956:
“It is the Union of India which is the basis of our nationality. States are but limbs of the Union,
and while we recognise that the limbs must be healthy and strong. it is the strength and stability of
the Union and its capacity to develop and evolve that should be governing consideration of all
changes in the country.”
The SRC, in fact, saw no dichotomy between a strong union and strong states. The
relationship, the SRC felt, between the Union and the States is a relationship between the whole
body and its parts. For the body being healthy, it is necessary that its parts are strong. It is felt
that the real source of many of our problems is the tendency of centralisation of powers and
misuse of authority.
India’s federal scheme is not as federal as is that of either the United States of America or of
Switzerland or of even Australia. It is more close to that of Canada.
That India is not a federation but a union of states means that our system is more centralising:
the national government is more powerful than the governments of the States in numerous
respects and that the framers of the Constitution, themselves favoured a system, which would be
integrative. Wheare (Modern Constitutions) describes the Indian system ( ‘quasi-federal’, a unitary
state with subsidiary federal features rather than a federal state with subsidiary unitary features.
K. Santhanam (Union-States Relations in India) refers to two major factors which are, one, that
the Union, has more financial powers; second, that the Union controls the States’ development
projects. However, there are scholars who highlight the federal aspects of the Indian Constitution.
Paul Appleby (Public Administration) characterizes Indian system as ‘extremely federal’, and
Jennings (Some Characteristics of the Indian Constitution) observes: ‘Indian Constitution is
mainly federal with unique safeguards for enforcing national unity and growth’. Alexandrowicz
(Constitutional Developments in India) says that India’s federal case is unique in character while
Granville Austin (The Indian Constitution-Cornerstone of a Nation) describes India as a
‘cooperative federation’.
ll. FEDERAL FEATURES OF INDIA’S UNION OF STATES

That India is a federal state in form is a fact hard to deny. It is not a unitary state with federal
features, but is a federal state with unitary features. The idea is that India is, structurally, a federal
system in which we find certain federal elements:
In any federation, a written constitution is a necessity: there can be no federation without a
written constitution. A written constitution specifies, in black and white, the domain of both the
federal government and also of the states’ governments. Some federal countries have separate
constitutions for each federating unit. In India, we have only one Constitution—the Constitution of
India which contains the features common for the States as well. The original Indian Constitution
had 395 Articles.
The Constitution, in every federal state, has a rigid method of amendment. This is so because
no amendment can be made without seeking the approval of the federating units. In India, the
approval of the amendment of every Article is not sought from the States, yet, under Article 368,
the approval of the States is sought for amending Articles specified in Article 368: half of the
states which constitute the union have to ratify such amendment after they have been passed by
the Parliament. In all federations, it is the constitution which is supreme. Both the federal
government and the governments of states have to work within the framework of the Constitution.
Any law contrary to the Constitution is declared as void, whether it is passed by the Union
Government or a state government. The power to declare a law as void rests with the judiciary. In
India, the Supreme Court and High Courts, with such a power of declaring law as void, (i.e., the
judicial review power) are rightly regarded as the custodian of the Constitution.
In all federations, it is the Constitution which is supreme. Both the federal government and the
governments of the States have to work within the framework of the Constitution. Any law
contrary to the Constitution is declared void, whether it is passed by the Union Government or the
State government. The power to declare a law as void rests with the judiciary. In India, the
Supreme Court and the High Courts, with such a power of declaring law as void, (i.e., the judicial
review power) are rightly regarded as the custodian of the Constitution.
In all federations, there is a division of power on the basis of which every government (federal
as well as federating) makes laws in its own domain. The division of power limits the powers and
allows the governments to work independent of each other. In India, the Union List with 97 items
authorises the Union Government to make laws; the State List with 66 items authorizes the state
governments to make laws; the Concurrent List with 47 items authorizes both the federal and
federating governments to make laws. The residuary powers, in India, lay with the union
government to make laws on. Though the division of powers favours the union government, yet
there is a clear-cut division of power in India.
All federal systems give to the judiciary relatively a powerful status by making it the custodian of
the Constitution, rights of the people, the federal system. In India, the Supreme Court does enjoy
such a position.
In all federations, the second chamber represents the states and gives each state (federating
unit) equal representation in the upper chamber of the national legislature. In India, the Rajya
Sabha represents the states, but the representation is not equal: larger the state in population,
more is its representation in the Rajya Sabha (the Council of States).
lll. ASYMMETRICAL FEDERAL FEATURES IN INDIA

Federal features, in India, are asymmetrical, asymmetrical in the sense that the federating units
are not equal in respect to each other. That they are not equal in respect of the union government
is a different thing. That they, in relation to each other do not enjoy equal status is what makes
the Indian federal scheme asymmetrical.
India’s federation is asymmetric. By asymmetric federation it is meant a federalism based on
unequal powers and relationships in political, administrative and fiscal arrangements between the
units constituting a federation: the units are not seen to exist on the basis of equality. Some of the
arguments expressing such asymmetric tendencies are as follows:
The federating units forming federations are usually equal and at least made equal socially,
politically, financially. In India’s case, the federating units, when formed with federation, were not
equal after India gained independence: they were, then, classified as ‘A’ states, ‘B’ states, ‘C’
states or ‘D’ states. After the State Reorganization Report (1956), the 14-States were equal only
because each had a different language. Even the language formula was set aside when the
process from 14 States to 29 came into operation from time to time.
The inclusion of the princely states (around five hundred at the time of independence) into India
was done by integrating them into India, integration through bargain, and bargaining through the
promises of ‘privy purses’. ‘B’ and ‘C’ states were the product of privy purses, except the
exceptions.
The Constitution of India, as enacted in 1950, gave to the State of Jammu and Kashmir an
advantage over the other states constituting the federation. Article 370 provided the state of
Jammu and Kashmir a unique position in the Indian Union: it gave the state its own Constitution
and residuary powers to the state legislature. No other state of India had such privileges.
The north-eastern states such as Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram,
Nagaland, Sikkim, Tripura are with the exception of Assam, too small units to be considered as
equal to any other Indian state. Many of them were raised to the status of states more on political
reasons than on other usual reasons, with various clauses of Article 371 giving each such state
some special powers.
In matters relating to the amendment of the Constitution, especially those articles affecting the
powers of the Union and the States as specified in Article 368, the requirement is the ratification
of the states and that too half of the states agreeing to the proposed amendment. As the states
forming the federation are both too large (Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal) and too
small (mostly concentrated in north-eastern India) form the federation, it is always easy for the
union government to manage 50 per cent of the small states and get the Constitution amended
the way the Union government likes.
The federating units are not equal in their representation in the Council of States: Uttar Pradesh
is, for example, not equal to Nagaland; nor is Arunachal Pradesh equal to West Bengal. Where is
the equality?
The wide differences in the economic characteristics between the states in Indian federation
can be highlighted. It is seen that in terms of area the biggest state, Rajasthan is 90 times bigger
than the smallest state, Goa. Similarly, in terms of population, Uttar Pradesh, the state with the
largest population is 308 times bigger than the smallest state, Sikkim. The density of population
varies from 13 in Arunachal Pradesh to 901 in West Bengal. The state with the highest Net State
Domestic Product (NSDP) (Maharashtra) is 284 times that of the state with the lowest (Sikkim).
There are significant variations in per capita incomes as well. In 2000-01, Goa, a small state in
the western coast had the per capita NSDP of Rs.44613, which is almost 9 times that of Bihar
with Rs.4813.
The federating units are widely different in population, in size, in resources, in sources of
income, in per capita income, in domestic product, in the level of development.
Table 25.1: Some Characteristics of States in Indian Federalism
Area Popu- Density NSDP Per %age %age %age
(Sq. km) lation(in ofPop 1999-00 capital of of of
‘000) (Rs. NSDP Total Total Total
Million) (1990 Age pop NSDP
-00)
High
Income
States 601800 194065 322.5 4065770 22461 18.31 18.90 28.74
Gujarat 196000 50597 258.1 896060 18685 5.96 4.93 6.33
Goa 3800 1344 353.7 58620 44613 0.12 0.13 0.41
Haryana 44000 21083 479.2 424880 21551 1.34 2.05 3.00
Maharashtra 308000 96752 314.1 2131510 22604 9.37 9.42 15.07
Punjab 50000 24289 485.8 554700 23254 1.52 2.37 3.92
Middle
Income
States 725000 302633 417.4 4867930 17635 22.05 29.47 34.41
Andhra
Pradesh 275000 75728 275.4 1117530 14878 8.36 7.37 7.90
Karnataka 192000 52734 274.7 862980 16654 5.84 5.13 6.10
Kerala 39000 31839 816.4 569260 17709 3.10 4.02
Tamil Nadu 130000 62111 477.8 1143090 18623 3.95 6.05 8.08
West 89000 80221 901.4 1175070 14874 2.71 7.81 8.31

Bengal
Low
Income
States 1409300 458682 325.5 4022290 9013 42.87 44.66 28.44
Bihar 94000 82879 881.7 383260 4813 2.86 8.07 2.71
Chattisgarh 135100 20796 153.9 213310 10405 4.11 2.02 1.51
Jharkhand 79700 26909 337.6 232270 9223 2.42 2.62 1.64
Madhya 308000 60385 196.1 677780 11626 9.37 5.88 4.79

Pradesh
Orissa 156000 36707 235.3 311950 8733 4.75 3.57 2.21
Rajasthan 342000 56473 165.1 710200 13046 10.40 5.50 5.02
Uttarakhand 53500 8480 158.5 Na Na 1.60 0.83 0.00
Uttar 241000 166053 689.0 1493520 9323 7.33 16.17 10.56

Pradesh
General 2736100 955380 349.2 12955990 14605 81.89 93.02 91.59

Category
States
Special 594000 63662 107.2 63930 10695 17.78 6.20 4.52

Category
States
Arunachal 84000 1091 13.0 14270 13352 2.56 0.11 0.10

Pradesh
Assam 78000 26638 341.5 2533300 9720 2.37 2.59 1.79
Himachal 56000 6077 108.5 106570 17786 1.70 0.59 0.75

Pradesh
Jammu & 222000 10070 45.4 121820 12373 6.75 0.98 0.86
Kashmir
Manipur 22000 2389 108.6 28580 12721 0.67 0.23 0.20
Meghalaya 23000 2306 100.3 29040 12063 0.70 0.22 0.21
Mizoram 21000 891 42.4 12880 14909 0.64 0.09 0.09

Nagaland 17000 1989 117.0 23300 12594 0.52 0.19 0.16
Sikkim 7000 540 77.1 7580 14751 0.21 0.05 0.05
Tripura 10500 3191 303.9 41930 13195 0.32 0.31 0.30
Uttarakhand 53500 8480 158.5 NA NA 1.60 0.83 NA
All States 3276600 1010562 308.4 13595290 14359 99.67 98.40 96.11
Union 10974 16453 1499.3 549870 31211 0.33 1.60 3.89

Territories
Total 3287574 1027015 312.4 14145160 13778 100.00 100.00 100.00
How can they be equal partners in federations? How could they be treated equally by the
former Planning Commission projects or by NITI Aayog today. How can they be regarded equally
in the allocation of benefits, given the compulsions of electoral politics?
IV. UNITARY TENDENCIES IN INDIA’S FEDERATION

Federations are usually described as ‘indestructible union of indestructible states. But in the case
of India, the ‘Union’ is indestructible, the states are not. The Constitution, under Article 3, vests
the Parliament with the power to constitute new states, alter their territories, and change their
names. Clearly, it is the union government which is more powerful than the states. There are,
thus, the unitary tendencies (i.e. federalising features) visible in our Constitution. This is evident
from the following:
Note: NA—Not available. All States, NSDP figures do not include SDP from Uttaranchal. NSDP figures of UTs
excludes SDP from Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu and Lakshadweep.
The federating units in India, do not have the Constitutions of their own. The Constitution of
India contains the provisions relating to the administration of the states.
Article 3 of the Constitution empowers the Parliament to create new states, alter their
boundaries, even their names. This indicates the unitary tendencies.
The states, in India, do not initiate the amendment proposals. It is the power of the Parliament,
the national legislature.
The states have the power to ratify the amendment proposals, the required ratification is not
less than half of the number of states. If the Union Government can manage to take along with it
some minor half of the states, it can get away with any amendment.
The states participate only in the amendments of a few provisions of the Constitution (Only
those, contained in Article 368) and not in all the provisions of the Constitution.
The single judicial structure provides the union government more importance. The Supreme
Court is not only the highest court, but is also the court which controls all the subordinate courts,
including the High Courts.
There is no uniformity of representation of the states in the Council of States. The states are
represented in the Council of States on the basis of their population (see Schedule IV).
The Union Government has more subjects to make laws on. It can legislate on the Union List
(97 subjects in the original Constitution) while the States legislate on the subjects in the State List
(66 subjects in the original Constitution). On the Concurrent List which had 47 subjects in the
original Constitution, both the Union and the States can legislate. In case both the governments
make a law on any subject of the Concurrent List, the Union law prevails over the state law to the
extent it goes contrary to the Union Law.
The Parliament is empowered to make laws on the State List subjects in certain circumstances:
during emergencies, when states themselves request the Parliament to make such laws, when
any international treaty is to be implemented; and when the Council of States declares any State
List subject as of national importance.
e The Governors in the States are appointed by the President and can be recalled or removed
by the President and remain in office during the pleasure of the President.
e The Governor is empowered to reserve any bill for the consideration of the President who
can withhold his/her asset to such bills (Article 201).
e The directives from the Union Government flow to the states (Article 256) and not vice-
versa. The states have to ensure the compliance of such directives, if they have to avoid
action under Article 365.
e The Union Government has more financial powers than those with the states. The states
have to depend on the Union Government for financial assistance.
e The 2015 Niti Aayog is controlled by Prime Minister's men.
Single citizenship, that is, the Indian citizenship, and numerous other measures such as
uniformity in administration, all-India services, all those go to favour the union government.
And yet, it cannot be said that we do not have a federal system. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had made
certain observations in this respect. He was of the opinion that India is a federal state in so far as:
i. The Constitution provides a dual polity;

ii. The states have not been created by the National Government;
iii, The states derive their authority and power from the Constitution;
iv. The Constitution has given the states a list of subjects over which it is empowered to make
laws,
v. The Constitution demands that there has to be a Governor in the state (Article 153) and also
a Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister (Article 163).
The office of the Governor and the constitution of the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief
Minister are constitutional requirements, and the Union Government cannot, if it may want or
wish, abolish them. Accordingly, the State Governments constitute a basic structure of the Indian
political system. In S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court had observed:
“The fact that under the scheme of our Constitution, greater power is conferred upon the Centre
vis-a-vis the States does not mean that the states are mere appendages of the Centre. The states
have an independent constitutional existence. They are not satellites or agents of the Centre.
Within the sphere allotted to them, the States are supreme. The fact that during an emergency
and in certain other eventualities their powers are overridden or invaded by the Centre is not
destructive of the essential federal features of the Constitution. They are exceptions and the
exceptions are not a rule. Let it be said that the federalism in the Indian Constitution is not a
matter of administrative convenience, but one of the principle—the outcome of our own process
and a recognition of the ground realities”.
The emergence of regional political parties on the one hand, and their rise to power in some
states, on the other, made them an important factor in the political system of the country (they
have become coalition partners), and have made the Union Government see reason in the
States’ agenda.
V. UNION-STATES RELATIONS IN INDIA
Chapter | of Part XI (from Articles 245 to 255) of the Constitution describes the legislative
relations between the Union and the States while Chapter II of the same part (from Articles 256 to
263) of the Constitution describes the administrative relations between the Union and the States,
and also relate to the disputes regarding waters whereas Chapter | of Part XII (from Article 268 to
276) of the Constitution explains the distribution of revenues between the Union and the States.
(i) Legislative Relations between the Centre and the States

The Seventh Schedule of the Constitution provides for three lists: Union List (97 items in the
original Constitution), State List (66 items in the original Constitution) and Concurrent List with 47
subjects. There have been some changes in the items of these lists owing to amendments ( till
2007, Union List had 99 items, State List 61 and Concurrent List 52). The Union List has subjects
such as defence, development of armed forces, foreign affairs, citizenship, railways, highways,
airway, navy, currency, inter-state trade and commerce, banking, central universities, UPSC,
election to the Parliament and state legislatures, taxes on income, etc.; item 33 has been deleted
and items 2A, 92A, and 92B have been added. This makes total items from the original 97 to 99
in the Union List. The Union legislature has the exclusive power to make laws on subjects
enumerated in the Union List. The State List has subjects such as public order, police, prisons,
local government, public health and sanitation, agriculture, gas and gas-work, trade and
commerce within the state, markets and fairs, betting and gambling, election to the state
legislature income, land revenue, toll taxes, etc. Items 11, 19, 20, 29 and 36 have been deleted
and this reduces the State List to 61 from 66. The State legislatures have the power to make laws
over the subjects enumerated in the State List, but the Parliament can make laws over these
subjects in certain circumstances. The Concurrent List has subjects such as criminal law and
procedure, matters relating to marriages and divorces, bankruptcy and insolvency, prevention of
cruelty to animals, forests, trade unions, social security, social insurance, weight and measures,
price control, electricity, etc. Items 11A, 17A, 17B, 20A and 33A have been added through 42nd
amendment (1976) to make it 52 instead of 47. Both the Parliament and the State legislatures
have the power to make laws on the subjects enumerated in the Concurrent List. In case of
inconsistency between the laws made by the Parliament and the State legislatures, including laws
made on the subjects enumerated in the Concurrent List; the Union law prevails over the State
law and the State law would be void to the extent it is repugnant to the Union law (Article 254).
The residuary powers (following the scheme as in the Canadian Constitution, and unlike that in
the USA and Australia) have been placed under the jurisdiction of the Parliament, e.g., power to
levy residuary taxes (Article 248). Under the Government of India Act, 1935, the residuary powers
were placed in the hands of the Governor-General.
The jurisdiction of the laws of the Parliament extends to the whole country whereas that of the
laws of the State legislature extends to the respective states. However, in view of certain
specified Scheduled areas, the laws of the Parliament may be barred in those areas, only by
notification of the Governors of those States (See Schedule 5th and 6th of the Constitution).
In certain circumstances, the Parliament can make laws on the subject enumerated in the State
List:
i. Under Article 249, when the resolution passed by the Council of States (2/3rd majority of the
members present and voting) authorises the Parliament to make a law on a particular item
of the State List in the national interest, such laws have one-year validity and cease to
operate on the expiry of 6 months after the period for which the resolution was passed;
ii. Under Article 250, when the state of emergency is in operation, the Parliament can make
laws on the state subjects, which laws become inoperative after 6 months of the expiry of
the emergency;
Under Article 252, when the legislatures of two or more states make a request that the
Parliament may make laws on certain state subjects [examples: Wild Life (Protection) Act,
1972; Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; Urban (Ceiling and Regulation)
Act, 1976; Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994].
. Under Article 253, when the implementation of any international treaty, agreement or
convention, may require so, then the Parliament can legislate on any state subject
[example: United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947; Geneva Convention Act;
1960; Anti-Hijacking Act, 1982; and legislation with respect to environment].
. Under Article 356, when there is the President’s rule in any state, the Parliament legislates
for that state on state subjects.
Besides, the Union Government has a control over state’s legislature in numerous ways:
(a) The Governor can reserve any state bill for the consideration and reconsideration of the
President (Articles 200 and 201).
(b) Bills on certain matters (i.e., restriction on the freedom of trade and commerce) can be
introduced in the state legislature only after the prior permission of the President.
(c) The President may direct the states to reserve money bills for his/her consideration
during the period of financial emergency (Article 360).
(ii) Administrative Relations between the Centre and the States

There is a separate administrative jurisdiction of both the Union and the States governments, that
extends to their respective legislative jurisdiction. Yet, there are provisions when the Union
Government may exercise control over the States:
Under Article 256, the executive power of the State has to be exercised to ensure
compliance with the laws made by the Parliament, and the Union Government is
empowered to give necessary direction to the states;
i. Under Article 257, the states are directed not to pursue their executive powers in such a
way that the exercise of those powers is against the Union Government: non-compliance of
iii. and (ii) may lead to the application of Article 365 under which the President may take over
the administration of the States;
. Under Article 258, the President may entrust the States’ officials with functions relating to
the Union Government.
. Under Article 155, the appointment of a State Governor is done by the President and the
Governor remains in office during the pleasure of the President, notwithstanding the five-
year term; during emergency under Article 356, the Governor rules the State as the agent of
the President, i.e., the Union Government;
vi. Under Article 312, the Parliament can create an All-India Service (Indian Forest Service in
1966, in addition to IAS and IPS) following the resolution by the Council of States, passed
by the two-third majority of the numbers present and voting;
vii. Under Article 315, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) may serve the needs of a
State on its request. The State Public Service Commission works in states, though their
members are appointed by the Governor, they are removed by the President (under Article
317);
viii. Under Articles 352, 356 and 360, the legislative, administrative and financial powers of the
Union Government get increased to the disadvantages to the States.
The institution of Planning Commission, and the role of national political parties help the Union
Government rather than the States.
Article 355 assigns two duties to the Union Government: (i) to protect the States from any
external attack and internal disturbances, and (ii) to see that the government of the state is
carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Article 262 provides for the
adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to distribution and control of waters of any
inter-state river or river-valley, for which the provision has to be made by the Parliament. Article
263 says that the President can establish an Inter-State council to investigate and discuss
subjects of common interest between the Centre and the States (example, such a council was set
up in 1990). The Parliament has established zonal councils to promote Inter-State cooperation
and coordination for five zones (Northern, Central, Western, Eastern and Southern).
(iii) Financial Relations between the Centre and the States

The Parliament has the power to levy taxes on subjects enumerated in the Union List on items
such as 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92A, 92B and 96. The state legislatures have the
power to levy taxes on subjects enumerated in the State List on items such as 45, 46, 47, 48, 49,
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 and 65. Both the Union and the States can
levy taxes on subjects 33, 44 and 47 of the Concurrent List. The residuary power of taxation
(such as gift tax, wealth tax, and expenditure tax) is vested in the Parliament.
The 80th Amendment Act, 2000, also known as “Alternative Scheme of Devolution’, made
major changes in the scheme of distribution of tax revenue between the Centre and the State.
Based on the recommendations of the Tenth Finance Commission (which now deletes Article
272), the amendment provides that the States should receive 29% of the total income obtained
from certain central taxes and duties. In this background, the constitutional provisions with regard
to the distribution of tax revenue between the Centre and the States are as under:
i. Taxes levied by the Centre but collected and appropriated by the States: This category
includes the following taxes: (i) Stamp duties on bills of exchanges, cheques, promissory
notes, and others. (ii) Excise duties on medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol.
The proceeds of these duties levied within any State do not form a part of the Consolidated
Fund of India, but are appropriated by the States (Article 268).
ii. Taxes levied and collected by the Centre but assigned to the States : The following
taxes fall under this category: (i) Taxes on the sale or purchase of goods in the course of
inter-state trade or commerce (other than newspapers). (ii) Taxes on the consignment of
goods in the course of inter-state trade or commerce. The net proceeds of these taxes are
assigned to states in accordance with the principles laid down by the Parliament (Article
269).
Taxes levied and collected by the Centre but distributed between the Centre and the
States : This category includes all taxes and duties referred to in the Union List except the
following: (i) Duties and taxes mentioned above in the first and second categories. (ii) Surcharges
on taxes and duties (mentioned below). (iii) Any cess levied for specific purposes. The manner of
distribution of the net proceeds of these taxes and duties is prescribed by the President on the
recommendations of the Finance Commission (Article 270).
Taxes for the purpose of the Centre
The Parliament can at any time levy the surcharges on duties or taxes mentioned above in the
second and third categories. The proceeds of such surcharges go to the Centre exclusively. In
other words, the States have no share in these surcharges (Article 271).
Grants-in-Aids to the States
Besides sharing of taxes between the Centre and the States, the Constitution provides for
grants-in-aid to the States from the Central resources.
(a) Statutory grants, under Article 275, to states on the representations of the Finance
Commission.
(b) Discretionary grants to the States in the name of development, usually as proposed by
the Planning Commission.
(c) Grants of expert duty like on jute and jute products (Article 273).
VI. CENTRE-STATE RELATIONS’ COMMISSION

The Centre-States relations have been under consideration since the 1960s. Both the Centre and
the States have undertaken attempts to address issues relating to their relations.
1. Administrative Reforms Commission (1966): Its important recommendations were:
e Establishment of an Inter-State Council under Article 263 of the Constitution.

e Appointment of persons having long experience in public life and administration and non-
partisan attitude as Governors.
e Delegation of powers to the maximum extent to the States.
e Transferring of more financial resources to the States to reduce their dependency upon the
Centre.
e Deployment of Central Armed Forces in the States either on their request or otherwise. No
action was taken by the Union Government.
2. Rajamannar Committee (1969): The Tamil Nadu Government appointed a committee

headed by Dr. P.V. Rajamannar. Its major recommendations, though ignored by the Union
Government, were:
i. An Inter-State Council should be set up immediately;

ii. Finance Commission should be made a permanent body;
i. Planning Commission should be disbanded and its place should be taken by a statutory
body;
iv. Articles 356, 357 and 365 (dealing with President’s Rule) should be totally omitted;
v. The provision that the state ministry holds office during the pleasure of the Governor should
be omitted;
vi. Certain subjects of the Union List and the Concurrent List should be transferred to the State
List.
vii. The residuary powers should be allocated to the States; and
viii. All-India Services (IAS, IPS and IFS) should be abolished.
3. Anandpur Sahib Resolution (1973): The Akali Dal’s resolution in Punjab, demanded that the
Centre’s jurisdiction should be restricted only to defence, foreign affairs, communications and
currency and the entire residuary powers should be vested in the States. It stated that the
Constitution should be made federal in the real sense and should ensure equal authority and
representation to all the States.
4. West Bengal’s Memorandum (1977): Its suggestions were:
i. The word ‘Union’ in the Constitution should be replaced by the word ‘federal’;
ii. The jurisdiction of the Centre should be confined to defence, foreign affairs, currency,
communications and economic coordination;
iii, All other subjects including the residuary powers should be vested in the States;
iv. Articles 356 and 357 (President’s Rule) and 360 (financial emergency) should be repealed;
v. State’s consent should be made obligatory for the formation of new states or the
reorganisation of existing states;
vi. Of the total revenue raised by the Centre from all sources, 75 per cent should be allocated
to the States;
vii. Rajya Sabha should have equal powers with those of the Lok Sabha; and
viii. There should be only Central and State services and that all-India services should be
abolished.
5. Sarkaria Commission (1988): The Commission recommended 247 recommendations. Some

of the important recommendations were:
i. A permanent Inter-State Council called the Inter-Government Council should be set up

under Article 263.
ii. Article 356 (President’s Rule) should be used very sparingly, in extreme cases as a last
resort when all the available options have failed.
iii. The institution of all-India Services should be further strengthened and some more such
services should be created.
iv. The residuary powers of taxation should continue to remain with the Parliament, while the
other residuary powers should be placed in the Concurrent List.
v. When the President withholds his assent to the State bills, the reasons should be
communicated to the State Government.
vi. The National Development Council (NDC) should be renamed and reconstituted as the
National Economic and Development Council (NEDC).
vii. The zonal councils should be constituted afresh and reactivated to promote the spirit of
federalism.
viii. The Centre should have powers to deploy its armed forces, even without the consent of the
States. However, it is desirable that the States should be consulted.
ix. The Centre should consult the States making a law on a subject of the Concurrent List.
x. The procedure of consulting the Chief Minister in the appointment of the state governor
should be prescribed in the Constitution itself.
xi. Steps should be taken to uniformly implement the three-language formula in its true spirit.
A commission on centre-states relations is headed by Justice Madan Mohan Punchhi. Its major
recommendations are:
1. Articles 355 and 356 be so amended that specific troubled or specific locality areas are
controlled under the President's rule for a limited period.
2. The commission supports the right of the union to give sanction for the prosecution of
ministers against the advise of the state government.
3. The communal violence bill be so amended that the central forces could be deployed without
seeking the sanction of the state government.
4. Among the significant suggestions made by the Commission is, laying down of clear
guidelines for the appointment of chief ministers. Upholding the view that a pre-poll alliance
should be treated as one political party, it lays down the order of precedence that ought to be
followed by the governor in case of a huge house:
(a) Call the group with the largest prepoll alliance commanding the largest number;
(b) the single largest party with support of others;
(c) the post-electoral coalition with all parties joining the government; and last
(d) the postelectoral alliance with some parties joining the government and remaining
including independents supporting from outside.
5. The panel also feels that governors should have the right to sanction prosecution of a
minister against the advice of the council of ministers. However, it wants the convention of
making them chancellors of universities done away with.
6. As for qualifications for a governor, the Punchhi commission suggests that the nominee not
have participated in active politics at even local level for at least a couple of years before his
appointment. It also agrees with the Sarkaria recommendation that a governor be an eminent
person and does not belong to the state where he is to be posted.
7. The commission also criticises arbitrary dismissal of governors, saying, “the practice of
treating governors as political football must stop”. There should be critical changes in the role
of the governor — including fixed five year tenure as well as their removal only through
impeachment by the state Assembly. It has also recommended that the state chief minister
have a say in the appointment of governor.
8. Underlining that removal of a governor be for a reason related to his discharge of functions, it
has proposed provisions for impeachment by the state legislature along the same lines as
that of President by Parliament. This, significantly, goes against the doctrine of pleasure
upheld by the recent Supreme Court judgement.
9. The commission says appointment of governor should be entrusted to a committee
comprising the Prime Minister, Home Minister, Speaker of the Lok Sabha and chief minister
of the concerned state. The Vice-President can also be involved in the process.
10. Unlike the Sarkaria report, the Punchhi report is categorical that a governor be given fixed
five year tenure. The Punchhi Commission report also recommends that a constitutional
amendment be brought about to limit the scope of discretionary powers of the governor
under Article 163(2). Governor should not sit on decisions and must decide matter within a
four-month period.
11. The creation of an overriding structure to maintain internal security along the lines of the US
Home-land Security department, giving more teeth to the National Integration Council.
12. For the National Integration Council (NIC), the commission has proposed that is should
meet at least once a year. In case of any communal incident, it has said that a delegation of
five members of the Council, who would be eminent persons, should visit the affected area
and submit a fact-finding report.
13. The commission, however, rejects a suggestion from some stakeholders as well as the
Liberhan Commission that the NIC be accorded constitutional status.
14. The commission has also studied new set-ups like the National Investigation Agency, and
recommended procedures to ensure smooth co-operation of the states in terror
investigations entrusted to NIA. One can say that the extreme politicisation of the post of
Governor must be decried and certain specific norms for the appointment and removal have
to be evolved.
15. The recent ruling of the Supreme Court has indicated that the sanctity of this constitutional
post should be preserved.
In democracy, nobody can have absolute power in the name of smooth administration and
good governance. The administrative apparatus has to be in line of the Constitution, which was
prepared by the people of the country and amended by the elected representative of the people.
The ‘doctrine of pleasure’ has to be understood in this light.
Vil. TENDENCIES: INTEGRATIVE, REGIONAL, INTER-STATE DISPUTES
The practice of federal idea is always a difficult exercise. The two opposing forces are always at
work: one trying to bring about integration and the other, in its efforts to fulfil regional aspirations,
work in the opposite direction, at times in conflict. The problem of state autonomy did not arise
until 1967 when the Indian National Congress ruled at the Centre as well as in the States: the
legislature was itself the Congress Party and the Congress Party was itself the government, the
Congress system as Rajni Kothari (Caste in Indian Politics) had rightly summed up. The problem
became acute when there arose non-Congress parties to power in the States and sought more
powers for the States, mostly from late 1960s down to late 1970s. The coalitional era beginning in
the 1980s witnessed the rise of the regional political parties which rose to significance and came
to play a definite and decisive role in the national politics, relegating the issue of state autonomy
in the background.
Whatever be the merits and demerits of coalitional system, it has made the regional political
parties in India see the nationalistic perspective rather clearly and in the process has
strengthened the integrative forces on the one hand and helped, on the other, fulfil the regional
aspirations. The national regional parties have, now, become relatively more considerable, and
the regional political parties, rather relatively more assertive.
The perception of the framers of the Constitution of India was not to make the Centre so
powerful that the federating units appear to be mere glorified municipalities, though they did avoid
the tight mould of federation. The framers did not want and had not really wanted to compromise
the integrity of the nation, but they did, at the same time, wish diversities not only to be protected
but also promoted as well.
The post-1950 period began, until late 1960s, moving towards making the Centre more
powerful to the point of assuming autocratic regime, leaving behind the concept of cooperative
federating as Austin had visualized. The 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s saw the Indian federalism in
crisis, the Centre trying during the times of Indira Gandhi, to intimidate the States, on the other,
challenging both the Centre and the Indian model of federalism. As Kothari wrote, “the political
constitutional sphere has itself become prone to the same tendencies of centralization,
domination and inequity” leading to “institutional disorder.” The post-1980 political situation is
much different from what it was earlier: states are becoming more assertive if not dominating; the
Centre is becoming more accommodative if not weakening itself: integration is not at risk and the
regional identity has earned acceptance.
The inter-state disputes refer to the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 131.
This Article states clearly that the Supreme Court has the power to decide on disputes arising
between (i) the Government of India and any one or more states; (ii) the Government of India and
one or more States on the one hand and one or more states on the other; (iii) disputes between
the States. Not many such disputes have come up before the Supreme Court. The 1961 dispute
between the State of West Bengal and Union of India in which the Supreme Court declared the
unconstitutionality of Coal Bearing Areas Act (1957). In the case of State of Bihar vs. Union of
India (1970), the apex court urged the parties to bring for the consideration of the court issues of
constitutional or legal nature. /n State of Karnataka and Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court
interpreted Article 131 rather liberally. Other cases such as State of Karnataka vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh (2001) and State of Haryana vs. State of Punjab (2002) were cases more of
administrative nature rather than constitutional or legal of any dispute.
Practice Questions
1. Discuss the nature of Indian Federalism. (200-250 words)

2. How do you make a case that India is structurally a federal state?
(700-800 words)
3. What is asymmetrical federalism? On what grounds do you say that
there are, in India, asymmetrical federal features? (700-800 words)
4. “India is a federal state with unitary features”. Describe the unitary
features of India’s federalism. (700-800 words)
5. Describe the legislative relations between the Union and the States.
(700-800 words)
6. Explain the administrative relations between the Union and the
States. (700-800 words)
7. Discuss the financial relations between the Union and the States.
(700-800 words)
8. Write a brief note on the Sarkaria Commission report. (200-250
words)
9. What are the terms of reference of Punchhi Commission? (200-250
words)
10. State the nature of India’s federalism in the post-1980 era. (200-250
words)
11. Examine the efficacy of available mechanism for resolving inter-
state disputes in India. (2012) (700-800 words)
12. Examine the uniqueness of Indian federalism. (2013) (700-800
words)
‘Planning And Economic
Development
evelopment is a universal phenomenon. It is

[) universal in the sense that it is a world-wide concept
with different connotations and __ differently
understood. The Brandt Commission rightly observed:
“Development never will be and never can be, defined to
universal satisfaction’. Some describe it as increase in
national economy, while with others it is social development,
whereas still others give it another name of modernisation.
|. DEVELOPMENT: MEANING AND IMPLICATIONS

The concept of development has numerous definitions, and,
therefore, has somewhat different, though inter-related
meaning. Esman says: “Development is the rational process
of organising and carrying out prudently conceived and
staffed programmes or projects as one would organise and
carry out military or engineering operations.” To Colm and
Greiger, development means change, change coupled with
growth. Weidner holds the view that when a process is
directed towards _ nation-building and socio-economic
progress, that process of growth is development. For Hahn-
Been Lee, development is both a process and a purpose. He,
therefore, says that development is “a process of acquiring a
sustained growth of a system’s capability to cope with new,
continuous changes towards the achievement of progressive
politics, economic and social objectives.” T.N. Chaturvedi
observes development as a process which stands for the
“transformation of society”. Riggs gives, rather, a detailed
definition: “Development involves the ability to choose
whether or not to increase outputs, whether or not to raise
levels of per capita income, or to direct energies to other
goals, to the more equitable distribution of what is available,
to aesthetic or spiritual values, or the qualitatively different
kinds of outputs.” Mittleman refers to development as the
increasing capacity to make rational use of natural and
human resources for social ends. Baran says that
development means “far-reaching transformation of society’s
economic, social and political structure of the dominant
organisation of production, distribution and consumption.”
It may, however, be pointed out that development is a
multi-dimensional process involving changes in structures,
attitudes, and institutions as well as acceleration of economic
growth, reduction of inequality and eradication of poverty. It is
a transformation from a traditional society to a modern
society. The political dimension of development includes,
among other things, rationalism, secularisation, participation;
the social dimension of development includes, for example,
elimination of social evils, all distinction and all types of
discrimination, equality of status, increase in social mobility;
its economic dimension means, for instance, provision for
social security, absence of exploitation, sustained economic
growth, attainment of plenty and prosperity. All these
dimensions of development are so closely related to one
another that it is difficult to separate them: the development of
one dimension or one of its aspects is bound to influence and
get influenced by the other dimension or its any other aspect.
Development, in the context of under-developed or
developing countries, means the transformation of society
from its traditionality to modernity, from its crude ways of
doing things to sophisticated ways. Its features and
implications are:
(1) Development is not a static concept. It is a dynamic,
and hence, an ever-changing and ever-evolving
concept. One cannot imagine anything in a
“developed” form, for every “developed form” still
needs some improvement. Development is, thus, a
continuing process.
(2) Development is not unidimensional, but is a multi-
dimensional process. This means that development is
not only economic development, it is also social
development as also political or any other.. Its goals
are not confined to economy merely: they touch every
aspect of human and societal life: they may, to
mention a few, include economic growth, social
progress, and political development, nation building
and the like.
(3) Development implies growth. What it means is that all
societies keep growing, expanding, advancing and,
therefore, are in the process of change—ever
changing. The present society of a country is different
from such a society of another country; today’s
society is not what it was yesterday, in the past;
likewise the future society would be substantially
different from the society we find around us.
(4) Development is closely related to technology. \|n
essence, a technologically advanced society is a
developed society. Technology has changed and in
fact, is changing our life, each aspect of our life.
Technology has made the world very small.
(5) Rationality constitutes yet another component of
development. What it means is that a developed
society is not tradition-bound or religion-laden, but is
one that stands up to reasoning and rationalism.
(6) Development has yet other features or requisites as
well. Order, stability, security and the like prepare a
ground for sustained growth. Countries have grown in
years of peace rather than in years of wars. As
development means change with growth, it implies
substantial changes in infrastructure as well. You
cannot run an import-export business without a
developed banking system. How can you have a
democracy with the institution of a dictator as the
executive head?
ll. DEVELOPMENT: GANDHIAN AND NEHRUVIAN

PERSPECTIVES
The Gandhian view of development was not, in any case, a
model of material development. He was a great critic of
Western capitalist system for its being exploitative and
oppressive. By development, he did not mean accessibility to
all material comforts but the one which leads to the
development of individual, and his personality, his virtues, his
values, his self. All material development which the world had
attained through private property did not attract Gandhi. He
regarded possession as a crime.
Gandhi was a simple man, a simple villager, a simple
Indian. His view of development, measured materialistically,
would be a self-sufficient village. He said: “An ideal Indian
village will be so constructed as to lend itself to perfect
sanitation. It will have cottages with sufficient lights and
ventilation built of a material obtainable within a radius of five
miles of it ... The village lanes and streets will be free of dust.
It will have wells according to its needs and accessible to all.
It will have houses and workshop for all ... also primary and
secondary schools in which industrial education will be the
central fact... It will produce its own grains, vegetables and
fruits and its own khadi. This is roughly my idea of a model
village.” These are Gandhi's priorities and preferences of an
ideal village, self-sufficient, self-evolving and self-developed
—interdependence when it is necessary.
The Gandhian approach to development would help create
the following model:
i. A pre-dominant network of village and cottage industries

along with a few key industries in the nearby towns,
preferably under state or/and cooperative ownership.
ii. The Gandhian model of development is not Western-
based or urban-based. The western type of
industrialisation can prove useful for some countries,
especially in the West, but what is true about one nation
cannot be true about another. In the Indian context,
development has to be rural-based and has to follow the
path of industrialisation from the bottom to the top, i.e.,
from villages to the towns.
iii, The Gandhian view of development never favours mass
production and mass consumption. Gandhi advocates
mass production in the homes, in the villages and of
those things which a common man requires. In other
words, he advocates the means of production and
distribution to be decentralised.
iv. The Gandhian model of development was an integrated
model, one that includes, among other things,
agriculture, sanitation, education, social service,
industries - all these locally based and locally regulated.
That is why Gandhi never approved of large-scale
industries, transportation, metropolises and so on, and
that is why he found pre-Western Indian way of life
including traditional handicrafts, village exchange
system, simplicity, religious-cultural traditions
acceptable under the given conditions of a backward
economy as of India.
v. Gandhi did find planning useful. He favoured planning
as a means for transforming the Indian backward
economy into a developed one, but his planning
process would begin from the bottom. The central
planning institution would only lay guidelines and take
upon itself the functioning of industries related to import
and export items which include, for example,
maintenance of large-scale infrastructure, combining the
efforts of the development of village communities and
those of the centralised modern sectors, planning of the
development of urban areas in a limited way,
reestablishing of the nation-wide systems of cooperative
trade.
The Nehruvian model, as against the Gandhian one, laid

emphasis on features like large-scale industrialisation, central
planning, the application of advanced technology and huge
capital investments, drawing largely from the experience of
the West and the Soviet Union. Nehru believed that large-
scale industrialisation and material progress would
automatically eradicate the evils that plagued the Indian
society. He thought that the modernisation of the Indian
economy was possible by building a strong industrial base.
Thus, he supported the creation of a new institutional
framework that could embody the spirit of progress or its
synonym “development”. The basic tenets of modernisation
were promoted through a rational, scientific planning under
the banner of Five-Year Plans. The central planning designed
the roadmap for the socio-economic development of the
country. Nehruvian model was, unlike the Gandhian, Western
and Soviet-based , a mixture of private-public framework,
mixed economy, a part in the private sector (agriculture in
particular but with land reforms, conducive agrarian relations
wherever possible) and another part in the public sector
(major industries to be socialised so as to generate public
employment, those which could serve the people, ensuring
their interests public utilities and services). Obviously, the
Nehruvian model favoured protectionism, import substitution,
industrialisation, and state intervention in labour, large public
sector, import-export regulation and central planning. If in the
process of such a model, there was to be a system of
elaborate licences, rules and regulations, and the like, Nehru
was not the man to show any hesitation. In fact, he did not.
The Gandhian and the Nehruvian perspectives varied: the
former, largely localised, whereas the latter, largely
westernised; one almost rural while the other, urban; one
based on village, small and cottage industries, while the
other, based on large-scale industries; one, by and large
need-based, whereas the other, market-based,; one, taking
the country a century backward in the past as Gandhi
admitted himself, while the other, a century forward in the
future. As Nehru presided over the proceedings of
modernising India after the independence, he sought
modernisation through planning and development, but he did
accommodate the Gandhian features wherever possible.
lll. INDIAN PLANNING: NATURE AND ROLE

Planning was taken up as an instrument of socio-economic
change immediately after India attained independence. With
Nehru as the Prime Minister together with his Western and
Soviet leanings, he resolved to convert political democracy
into socio-economic democracy—his Fabian base tended
towards faster rate of growth through industrialisation—on
one hand and planning on the other. Nehru was a democrat
but he was not a communist. He was, indeed, impressed by
the Soviet rate of growth, but he did not argue on the strength
of Soviet style of ‘control’ and ‘command’. He did urge for
socialisation, but only of major industries: his socialism was
not Marxian but was what he described as “the socialistic
pattern of society’; his type of economy was not completely
capitalistic, privatised, nor was it socialised, social ownership
of the means of production—neither completely private nor
completely public. Nehru went for mixed economy. India’s
mixed economy pattern was based on the co-existence of
public sector units and private sector enterprises. Both
sectors work within the framework of the invisible hand of the
market and the visible hand of planning.
Planning was rightly regarded as the solution to all
problems of India after she gained independence: solution to
our backwardness, to our agricultural stagnation, to our
poverty, to our rampant unemployment, to our illiteracy, to our
ill-health. The main objectives of planning, as stated in
different plan documents, if one takes the total view, may be
summed as:
i. to build the industrial infrastructure;

ii. to expand and improve agricultural production;
ii. to lay down the foundation of a self-reliant and self-
generating national economy;
iv. to increase and distribute national wealth;
v. to promote social justice;
vi. to remove unemployment and poverty;
vii. to remove illiteracy and disease;
viii. to promote trade and commerce;
ix. to give incentives to entrepreneurs for export-oriented
and import-substituting production; and
x. to make the Indian economy modern; efficient and
competitive.
The Planning Commission and the National Development

Council had been the highest planning bodies. The Planning
Commission of India was set up in March 1950 as a result of
a cabinet resolution. That is why the Planning Commission
was rightly described as an extraconstitutional body, which, in
theory, may be said to be an advisory committee of the
Cabinet. It was assigned seven duties:
i. to make an assessment of the material, capital and

human resources of the country;
ii. to formulate a plan for the most effective and balanced
utilisation of the country’s resources;
iii. to determine national priorities of development, and
define the stages of growth and suggest allocation of
resources;
iv. to indicate factors tending to retard economic
development and determine conditions necessary for
the successful execution of the plan;
v. to determine the nature of machinery required for the
implementation of each stage of the plan;
vi. to appraise periodically the progress achieved in the
plan implementation and to recommend necessary
adjustments of policy and measures; and
vii. to make recommendations for its own effective working
and regarding necessary changes in the prevailing
economic conditions, current policies, measures and
development programmes, or on problems referred to it
for advice by the Central or state governments.
The Planning Commission was required to make

recommendations to the Cabinet. It is expected to work in
close understanding and consultation with ministries of the
Central Government and state governments. Decisions for
implementation are taken by the Central and _ state
governments. The federal system of India’s polity presents
certain problems of coordination between the Centre and
states. The Constitution includes “economic and_ social
planning” as entry 20 in the Concurrent list of jurisdiction in
the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Hence, after the
Planning Commission prepares its draft for the Five-Year
Plan, the states also formulate their five-year plans and
annual plans, and coordinate them, with the general plan. The
highest deciding body structured on Planning Commission,
for planning, has been the National Development Council
(NDC), which used to meet under the Chairmanship of the
Prime Minister, and which included all the chief ministers of
states and Union Territories, Union cabinet ministers,
especially those in-charge of economic ministries, and
members of the Planning Commission. The secretary of the
Planning Commission has been its secretary. The National
Development Council discussed and, if necessary, modified
the draft plan and approved it, after which it is sent to the
Parliament for its final approval.
The major thrust of India’s planning has been to increase
the country’s national income and _ comprehensive
development. Planning helped in_ establishing certain
developmental priorities, emphasising on heavy industry, light
industry, agriculture, irrigation, and infrastructural services.
Through planning, participation of people, at all levels, down
to the villages, came to be enlisted; resources mobilised;
rules and regulations streamlined; trade, industrial and
licensing policies had been formulated in such a way as
helped industrialisation to grow at a faster rate.
Under the circumstances, mixed economy pattern was
followed in the initial years of independence. Mixed economy
meant the co-existence of public sector units and private
sector enterprises. The industrial resolutions of 1948 and
1956 stated clearly that for planned development, all
industries of basic and strategic importance and those in the
nature of public utility sector and infrastructural industries
were placed in the public sector while all other industries were
entrusted to the private sector.
In the mixed economy framework, private ownership of the
means of production has been allowed. The private sector in
India accounts for about 80 per cent of the total national
output. Industries such as cotton, textiles, jute, sugar, cement,
vegetable oil, leather, cosmetics, automobiles, scooters,
cycles, electronic goods, and appliances, etc. are in the
private sector. Agriculture, the principal economic activity of
70 per cent of the people, is also in the private sector. The
ownership of agricultural land is entirely personal.
Large business houses and monopolies have grown
rapidly. There are about 75 big business houses, of which 20
are top houses. They control about 75 percent of the national
wealth (GNP) as against seven per cent by the small sector of
entrepreneurs. Twenty top business houses had assets
ranging from Rs. 436 crores to Rs. 4111.55 crores in 1985.
The top three in 1985—Birlas, Tatas and J.K. Singhanias—
jointly accounted for assets of approximately Rs. 9,000 crores
— one-fourth of the Central Plan budget. Most of those
twenty big houses have increased their assets six to eight
times in about twenty years.
IV. ROLE OF PUBLIC SECTOR

Public sector units in a mixed economy have the exclusive
responsibility for the development of public enterprises, which
are used for developing heavy industries and infrastructural
services. These include means of transport—trailways,
shipping, airways, certain type of road transport services;
communications—post, telegraph and _ telecommunication;
irrigation facilities, energy sources — coal, petroleum, natural
gas, electric power, atomic energy, etc., iron and steel,
minerals and metals, chemicals, fertilisers and
pharmaceuticals, heavy engineering machine building, etc.
Investment in public sector grew from a modest Rs. 29
crores covering just five enterprises in 1951, to Rs. 35,411
crores covering 214 enterprises in 1984, at the end of the
sixth plan, i.e. 1985.
The growth of the public sector is one of the major
contributions of the planning process. The Mahalonobis “Plan
Frame” of March 1955 (the Second Plan Period) stated that
the development of heavy industries was essential “to
strengthen the foundations of economic independence.” Now,
the public sector having reached what was intended, namely
“the commanding heights of the economy,” and has become
an engine of economic growth. Approximately 55 per cent of
the total investment in the last three decades of planning has
been made in the public sector. Together with this, state-
owned financial institutions — the nationalised banks and
insurance companies, etc..—have played a major role in
mobilising resources for investment in the development of
many sectors.
Despite the drawbacks of public sector enterprises, their
role in the economy until late 1990s, was significant. The
public sector has helped India emerge as the most stable
democratic polity in the third world with a massive industrial
and increasing agricultural base. A great measure of self-
sufficiency has been achieved in many sectors of the
economy. For a country which produced practically nothing
significant in the manufacturing sector at the time of
independence and imported numerous commodities, the
transformation to a self-reliant industrial economy in just four
decades is really impressive. We now manufacture machinery
for all major industries - locomotives, ship-building,
automobiles, heavy and_ light vehicles, construction
equipment, power generation and _ transmission units,
chemicals, drugs, machine tools, precision instruments, whole
range of domestic gadgets and a wide variety of electronic
goods and instruments. India has a self-reliant defence
production as well. The most dramatic and far reaching
achievement is the build-up of the country’s own industrial
infrastructure. In the generation of power, India is the fifth
largest in the world (with 49,288 MW capacity in 1987). Coal
production has increased from
35 million tonnes in 1951 to 154 million tonnes in 1986.
Exploration of petroleum and natural gas and offshore drilling
have produced remarkable results. Two-thirds of our
requirement of crude oil and its byproducts have been met by
domestic production. Natural gas production is increasing
fast. Indian railways are one of the most extensive transport
networks in the world covering 61,850 route km and carrying
90 million passengers a day. They serve the movement of
goods and services, and have become the arteries of
industrialisation. India is one of the biggest manufacturers of
locomotives and rolling stock in the world.
The network of roadways covering 1,770,000 km has linked
every nook and corner of the country. India manufactures its
own trucks, vans, passenger buses, jeeps, cars, and a wide
range of two-wheelers, and world famous scooters. Our
shipyards manufacture almost all that is required, including
merchant vessels, barges, dredgers, tugs, etc. India’s aviation
industry is one of the biggest in the Third World. Indian
Airlines carries passengers to 80 destinations , and is
expanding its network to 140 airports in different parts of the
country. Integrated steel plants in the public sector provide
the basic inputs for the planned development. An impressive
range of engineering and machine tool goods are being
made, and exported. Electronics is growing at a rate of 40 per
cent.
Urbanisation is growing steadily. In 1901 India’s urban
population was 10.8 per cent of the total. In 1951 it increased
to 17.3 per cent, and by 1981 it rose to 23.3 per cent. There
has been a phenomenal growth of towns and cities. Around
the middle of the century, there were 19 major cities—12 with
a population of 4 to 10 million, 3 with 2 to 4 million, 5 with 1 to
2 million—in addition to 3,300 towns.
Literacy rate has increased. In 1901 the percentage of
literate people in India was as low as 5.35 per cent. In 1951 it
grew to 16.67 per cent, and in 1981 it rose to 36.17 per cent.
(States with high rates of literacy of literacy include Kerala
with 69.17 per cent, Maharashtra with 47.37 per cent, Tamil
Nadu with 45.78 per cent and Delhi with 61.06 per cent). The
labour force had increased to approximately 300 million in
1981, and the scientific and technical personnel to about 3
million. A phenomenal expansion of the middle classes has
taken place, probably one of the largest and fastest growths
in the world.
We may sum up the defects of our public sector policy,
which include:
(a) centralised planning,
(b) lop-sided employment strategy,
(c) excessive use of public sector undertakings,
(d) agriculture overshadowed by industries,
(e) faulty industrial policy,
(f) politicisation of the planning process.
A planned development within the framework of a mixed
economy has its own points of contradiction. The public
sector, in the context of a capitalist mode of production, has
not succeeded in promoting the prospect of distributive
justice. It has provided, at public and state cost, the
infrastructure of power, energy, coal, iron and_ steel,
transportation and communications, etc., that facilitated the
growth and expansion of a sprawling capitalised system in
India. The public sector represents elements of state
capitalism, more as a cooperative rather than as a
competitive segment of the private sector.
There have been gaps’ between aspiration and
achievement in the Indian planning. Plan targets have been
unrealistically high. The implementation machinery has been
weak and inadequate. The bureaucracy and politicians have
remained often uncommitted to the goal and purposes of
planning. Corruption and inefficiency in the administration
resulted in a neglect of projects and waste of resources.
There has been inadequate use of irrigational facilities by
farmers. The business community, concerned more with profit
, could not develop the public spirit to help the plan
implementation.
Tremendous growth has taken place but appalling poverty
persists. This is evident from the fact that according to World
Development Reports of the World Bank, India ranks eighth in
overall industrial production, seventh in iron-ore, sixth in coal
and manganese, fourth in grains, third in railways, and also
third in the number of scientific and technical personnel
globally. But the other side of the picture is that the process of
industrialisation is still far behind the requisite level of
development that could stabilise the base of a self-reliant and
self-generating economy. While we are fifteenth in the world
in terms of our GNP, we are 106th in terms of per capita
income. That is, among the poorest countries in the world. In
1983, India’s per capita income was as low as $ 260, which
was less than one-fiftieth of the USA’s per capita income. It is
less than one-thirtieth of the average per capita income of
developed countries.
Of the 246 commercial enterprises established by the
Central Government (see Bimal Jalan, /ndia’s Economic
Policy), excluding public financial institutions, insurance
companies and railways, there are 6 in the construction
sector, 74 in services and 166 in manufacturing, involving a
capital investment of “Rs.160,000 crores (an astronomical
figure ), mostly contributed by the government,” but also
borrowed by it at interest rates of (12 to 14 per cent per
annum)”. Jalan writes, “The Central Government's total
internal public debt in 1994-1995 was close to Rs. 500,000
crores, of which nearly one-third was owed by assets held in
the public interest’. Interest payment on the public debt
accounted for nearly Rs. 50,000 crores a year. The situation,
alarming as it is, indicates, as Jalan says: “The colossal
investment in the central public sector yields a net profit of
only Rs. 4,000 crores (or 2.8 per cent of the capital
employed). A paltry Rs. 800-900 crores of this comes back to
the government by way of dividend. About half the enterprises
make losses, which have to be covered by fresh loans from
the government or government banks. What this means is
that the government has been accumulating additional public
debt”, a “debt trap” leading to more borrowing and higher
interest obligations.
The situation in states is worse. State governments have
invested heavily in the public sector, with long term debts
reaching about Rs. 200,000 crores and interest obligations,
about Rs. 20,000 crores.
Such a situation was bound to trigger the need for a
change in the economic policy. Slow economic development,
growing technological backwardness, heavy government
expenditure, and the like were other additional reasons
seeking a change in the policy: government's expenditure
was more than its revenue; loan was more than the capacity
to pay the interest. At the beginning of 1990, we were not
able to pay for our imports. There was a financial crisis,
forcing us to borrow from international institutions such as the
World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The
New Economic Policy (NEP) could alone help bring our
economy back on track.
V. GREEN REVOLUTION
The Green Revolution revolutionised the traditional method of
food production by boosting productivity level to the tune of
250 per cent or more.
The Green Revolution (GR) was centered around the use
of the High Yielding Variety (HYV) of seeds developed by the
German agro-scientist Norman Borlaug (a British Rockefeller
Foundation Scholar in Mexico) in the early 1960s. The new
wheat seeds which he developed in vivo, it was claimed,
increased the productivity by more than 200 per cent. By
1965, the seeds were successfully tested and were being
used by farmers in food deficient countries such as Mexico,
Taiwan.
Components of the Green Revolution

The Green Revolution was based on an adequate supply of
many inputs/components. The components of the Green
Revolution are as follows:
(i) The HYV Seeds

They were popularly called the “dwarf” variety of seeds. With
the help of repeated mutations, Mr. Borlaug was able to
develop a seed which was biased in its nature of nutrients
supplied to different parts of the wheat plant—against the
leaves and stems and in favour of the grain. This made the
plant dwarf and the grain heavier—resulting into high yield.
These seeds were nonphotosynthetic; hence, non-dependent
on sunrays for yields!
(ii) The Chemical Fertilizers

The seeds were to increase productivity provided they got
sufficient nutrients from the land. The level of nutrients they
required could not be supplied with the traditional composts
because they have low concentration of nutrients, and
required bigger area while sowing—it meant it will be shared
by more than one seed! That is why a high concentration
fertiliser was required which could be given to the targeted
seed only—the only option was the chemical fertilizers — the
urea (N), the phosphate (P) and the potash (kK).
(iii) The Irrigation

For controlled growth of crops and adequate dilution of
fertilizers, a controlled means of water supply was required. It
made two important compulsions—firstly the area of such
crops should be at least free of flooding, and secondly,
artificial water supply should be developed.
(iv) Chemical Herbicides

Herbicides were used in sowing HYV seeds so that herbs and
weeds in the fields did not consume costlier inputs and
fertilizers.
Green Revolution in India

As fields suitable for the new kind of farming were region-
specific, its application was confined in India to regions such
as Haryana, Punjab and Western Uttar Pradesh. The Green
Revolution program resulted in a substantial increase in the
production of foodgrains, mainly wheat and rice.
The Green Revolution in India, had positive as well as
negative results. These may be summed up as follows:
(a) As crop areas under high-yield varieties required
more water, more fertilizers, more pesticides,
fungicides, and certain other chemicals, there was
a need for certain local manufacturing industries.
That resulted in the creation of new jobs, and in the
process, growth in the country’s GDP.
(b) The increase in irrigation created a need for new
dams to harness the monsoon water. That led to
the generation of hydroelectric power, which, in the
process, boosted industrial growth, generated jobs
and improved the quality of life in villages.
(c) With food-sufficiency, India paid back loans taken
from financial institutions. That resulted in the
creditworthiness of the country in the eyes of
lending agencies.
(d) Sociological results of the Green Revolution led to
the creation of jobs in the agricultural and industrial
sectors which, in due course, transformed India
from a_ starving country to an _ exporter of
foodgrains.
The limitations of the Green Revolution were, however, no
less alarming. Some of these were:
1. Even today, India’s agricultural output sometimes falls
short of demand. The Green Revolution, howsoever
impressive, has NOT succeeded in making India totally
and permanently self-sufficient in food. In 1979 and
1987, India faced severe drought conditions due to a
poor monsoon; this raised questions about the long-term
achievement of the Green Revolution. In 1998, India had
to import onions and sugar.
2. India has failed to extend the concept of high-yield value
seeds to all crops or all regions. In terms of crops, it
remains largely confined to foodgrains, not to all kinds of
agricultural produce. In terms of regions, only Punjab
and Haryana states showed the best results of the
Green Revolution. The eastern plains of the River
Ganges in West Bengal state also showed reasonably
good results. But results were less impressive in other
parts of India.
3. Drought-like situations exist in the country: starvation
deaths are reported: floods occur in the country leading
to a heavy loss of lives and property: food still is a luxury
in underdeveloped areas of the country.
4. Green Revolution has failed in its social objectives, and
thus cannot be termed as a hundred percent success.
Widespread regional disparities still keep increasing:
income disparities still exist.
VI. AGRARIAN RELATIONS AND LAND REFORMS

Pre-Independence India had a feudal agrarian structure. A
small group of large landowners, including absentee landlords
had the land rights. The vast majority of cultivators did not
have any right or had limited rights as tenants or sub-tenants.
The poor mostly leased-in land for subsistence. If the tenants
used improved seeds, manure or extra labour, they had to
share half of the increased produce with the landlord. When
India became independent, policymakers felt the need for an
overhaul of the system, which was highly exploitative.
Agrarian relations, during the colonial British rule, were
characterised by the dominance of rich landlords, including
the absentee ones, and moneylenders on one hand, and
middle class farmers, poor peasants, tenants—growers and
the landless poor on the other. The former led the life of
luxury, the latter, deprivation; the former had much to eat, the
latter almost nothing to eat; the former thrived on the strength
of colonial masters, the latter looked to the nature for
subsistence. The situation of the rural poor, at the time of
independence, was worse; the absolute landless and the near
landless made up 43 per cent of the rural households in India.
The Zamindari and the ryotwari land revenue systems,
introduced by the British first, and the commercialisation of
agriculture, together with their exploitative tendencies, led to
rural poverty, stagnation and backwardness, which led
ultimately to the fall of agricultural production. Agriculture was
left to either the whims of the British rulers and their stooges
or to the will of God. It was the most neglected field of the
government. While the British Government spent by 1905
over Rs 360 crores on the railways to further its imperialistic
interests, it spent less than Rs 50 crores on irrigation. In
1939, there were only 930,000 iron ploughs and 31.8 lakh
wooden ploughs in use, with no fertilizers ( only animal
manure), negligible agricultural colleges (only 6 with 1306
students) , and no primary education or even literacy in rural
areas. Famines were a usual occurrence in states like
Madras, Mysore, Hyderabad, Maharashtra, western United
Provinces during 1876-78. According to William Digby, over
28,825,000 people lost their lives in famines during 1854-
1901.
Under the Indian Constitution, land reform is the
responsibility of states. So while the federal government
provides broad policy guidelines, the nature of land reform
legislation, the level of political will and institutional support
and the degree of success in implementing reforms have
varied considerably from state to state, with the agenda
remaining unfinished in most states. The Indian officialdom
acknowledges its failure to implement the reforms.
The stages of land reforms in India can be divided into four
phases. The first phase was concentrated on agrarian
reforms to provide relief to cultivators and improve the
security of tenure. This period lasted till 1972. The second
phase involved bringing more land under cultivation through
consolidation of land holdings between 1972 and 1985.
However, post-liberalisation of the economy, land policies
focused more on land development and administration rather
than reforms. The third phase, 1985-95, concentrated on
water and soil conservation through Watershed development,
Drought Area development, etc. The fourth phase, 1995
onwards, centres around debates on the necessity for land
legislations and efforts to improve land administration and
bringing in clarity in land records.
Abolition of intermediaries in 1951 brought cultivators
into direct contact with the state, whose tax revenues
increased considerably. For the farmer, it meant freedom
from the arbitrariness of the zamindar and numerous
intermediaries, but the tax burden remained the same, with
the only difference being that the government was now the
recipient. At any rate, the legal status of the “occupancy
tenants” was now clearer. These measures did not affect in
any way the large number of subtenants who had leased land
from occupancy tenants.
The objective of the tenancy reform was to establish and
strengthen the tenants’ right. To that end, a minimum leasing
period of 5 to 10 years was introduced, and eviction was only
allowed on the basis of specific reasons. Sub-leasing was
forbidden, and, in the case of eviction, the tenant was to be
paid a compensation for his investment. Finally, the tenant
was granted the right to purchase the land he cultivated. Sub-
tenants who had cultivated a plot of land for more than 12
years gained the status of occupancy tenants and were, thus,
protected against eviction. The law foresake a restriction of
the rent from one-third to one-sixth of the gross harvest, with
stress on cash rent rather than on produce rent, and payment
of the land tax was shifted to the landlord. To ensure that the
lessor was not at a disadvantage, he was granted the right to
give notice in case he wanted to cultivate the land himself.
Ceilings on land holdings were imposed with a view to
redistributing surplus land to the landless. However, many
landowners having joint families separated their holdings into
smaller units among their family members to avoid
expropriation, and, in the process, evicted rightful tenants
from their land. Following this, the national government
reduced the ceiling limit further in 1972, and monitored the
progress of distribution of surplus land as part of its 20-Point
Programme.
The implementation of ceilings, in turn, led to a reduction in
the size of holdings and marginalisation of land holdings. A
large number of experts concurred that further lowering of the
ceiling would have negative effects on the goal of social
equity. This led to the fourth category of reforms
—Consolidation of Land Holdings. This was effected to
discourage landowners from having different parcels of land
scattered across the village—a result of loopholes in laws
pertaining to land ceiling; and to improve the economic
efficiency of land.
Constitutional Provisions : Land was made a state
subject in the Constitution of India, which was primarily due to
a differing socio-economic situation in different regions in
India. Thus, all legislations were enacted in state legislatures.
The national government played the role of an advisor
through its Five-Year plans—in all its plans—that provided
guidelines for land reforms and policies.
The directive principles of state policy clearly indicate
redistribution of land to the actual tiller, in the form of certain
clauses of Article 39, namely
(b) that the ownership and control of the material
resources of the community are so distributed as
best to subserve the common good; and
(c) that the operation of the economic system does not
result in the concentration of wealth and means of
production to the common detriment.
Schedule Nine of the Constitution of India has been
amended many times to include 284 land laws that capture
various legislations in different states, aimed at land reforms.
Land reform measures have not been very successful,
because
(a) people regard land as a symbol of social prestige
rather than a source of income. As such they are
reluctant to introduce radical changes in the
agricultural pattern;
(b) the lack of political will contributed to an ineffective
implementation of land reforms;
(c) the rampart corruption in public life and political
hypocrisy too were responsible for the failing trends
in land reforms.
Vil. LIBERALISATION AND GLOBALISATION

The term /iberalisation has its origin in the political ideology of
“liberalism” which took its form by early nineteenth century (it
developed basically in the previous three centuries). The term
is sometimes portrayed as a meta-ideology capable of
embracing a broad range of rival values and beliefs. This
ideology was the product of the breakdown of feudalism and
the growth of market or capitalist society in its place which
became popular in economics via the writings of Adam Smith
(its founding father in the United Kingdom) and got identified
as a principle of /aissez-faire.
The term /iberalisation has the same connotation in
economics as its root word liberalism has: pro-market or pro-
capitalistic inclination in economic policies of liberalisation.
We saw it taking place in all of Europe and America in the
1970s and the 1980s. The most appropriate example of this
process could be China of the mid-1980s when it announced
its “open door policy”. Though China lacks (even today) some
trademark traits of liberalism, such as individualism, liberty,
democratic system, etc. still China may be called a liberalising
economy.
In the Indian context, /iberalisation is used to show the
direction of economic reforms—with decreasing symptoms of
the state or the planned or the command economy and
increasing symptoms of the free market or the capitalistic
economy. It is a run towards capitalism. But anybody who is
familiar with the most accepted form of economy will
acknowledge that it has to be neither state only or the market
only economy, but both at the same time. India is also
attempting to strike its own balance of the “state-market mix”.
It means, even if economic reforms have the direction
towards market economy, they can never be branded as a
blind-run to capitalism. Since the economy was more like the
state economy in previous years, it has to go for a greater
degree of mix of the market. That is all. But in the long run,
liberalism curtails the authority of the parliament.
The decades of 1980s and 1990s witnessed a “rolling back”
of the state, especially in the USA and the United Kingdom
under the New Right priorities and beliefs.
The policies through which the “roll back” of the state was
done included deregulation, privatisation and introduction of
market reforms in public services. Privatisation at that time
was used as a process under which the state assets were
transferred to the private sector. The root of the term
privatisation goes to this period which got currency more and
more around the world once the East European nations and
later the developing democratic nations adopted it. But during
the period several connotations and meanings of the term
“privatisation” have developed. We may see them as follows:
i. Privatisation in its purest sense and literally implies de-

nationalisation i.e. the transfer of state ownership of
assets to the private sector to the tune of 100 per cent.
Such bold moves took place only once anywhere in the
world without any political fallout—in the early 1980s of
the UK under the Thatcher regime. This route of
privatisation has been avoided by almost all democratic
systems. In the mid-1990s some Western European
nations—ltaly, Spain and France—besides the USA
took such a move. India never ventured into any such
privatisation move.
ii. The sense in which privatisation has been used is the
process of disinvestments all over the world. This
process includes the sale of shares of state-owned
enterprises to the private sector. Disinvestment is
denationalisation of less than 100 per cent ownership of
state-owned assets to the private sector. If an asset has
been sold out by the government to the tune of only 49
per cent, the control remains with the state though it is
considered privatisation. If the sale of shares of state-
owned assets is to the tune of 51 per cent of the
ownership, to the private sector, even then it is termed
as privatisation.
iii. The third and the last sense in which the term
privatisation has been used around the world, is very
wide. Basically, all economic policies which directly or
indirectly seem to promote the expansion of the private
sector or the market (economy) have been termed by
experts and governments as the process of
privatisation. We may cite a few examples from India—
the de-licensing and dereservation of industries, even
cuts in subsidies and permission for foreign investment,
etc.are termed as the process of privatisation.
Here, we may relate liberalisation with privatisation in India.

Liberalisation shows the direction of reform in India i.e.
inclination towards the dominance of the market. But how will
it be achieved? Basically, privatisation will be the path to
reform. It means, everything, which includes promotion of the
“market,” will be the path of the reform process in India.
The process of Globalisation has always been used in
economic terms, though it has always taken political and
cultural dimensions. Once economic changes occur they
have several sociopolitical manifestations. Globalisation is
generally termed as “an increase in economic integration
among nations”. Even before several nation-states were not
born, countries around the world had adopted globalisation
i.e., “a closer integration of their economies’. This
globalisation lasted from 1800 to almost 1930, interrupted by
the Great Depression and the two Wars, which led to
retrenchment and several trade barriers were erected since
the early 1930s.
The concept was popularised by the Organisation of
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in the mid-
1980s again after the Wars. In its earlier deliberation, the
organisation had defined globalisation in a very narrow and
business-like sense—‘“any cross-border investment by an
OECD company outside its country of origin for its benefit is
globalisation.” After a summit of the OECD, proposals for
replacing the GATT by the WTO were pushed forward by the
developed economies of the world, better known as the
startup of the Uruguay Round of GATT deliberations which
ended in the Marrakesh (1994) with the birth of the “WTO”. In
the meantime, the OECD has defined (1995) globalisation
Officially, too—“a shift from a world of distinct national
economies to a global economy in which production is
internationalised and financial capital flows freely and
instantly between countries.”
The official meaning of globalisation for the WTO is a
movement of economies of the world towards “unrestricted
cross border movement of goods and services, capital and
the labour force.” It simply means that the economies which
are signatories to the process of globalisation (i.e. signatories
to the WTO), there will be nothing like foreign or indigenous
goods and services, capital and labour. The world will
become flat and level-playing field emerging in due process of
time.
For many political scientists (which is today a very
dominant force in the world), globalisation is the emergence
of a situation when our lives are increasingly shaped by
events that occur at a great distance from us about which the
decisions are not taken by our conscious self. One section of
experts believes that globalisation subordinates the state,
while the other section argues that the local, national and
global events constantly interact under it without any
subordination of one by the other. Rather, globalisation
highlights the deepening as well as broadening of the political
process in this sense.
India became one of the founding members of the WTO
and was obliged to promote the process of globalisation,
though its economic reforms started with no such obligation. It
is a different thing that India started the process of
globalisation right since the reforms were started in 1991,
itself.
Now we may relate the three simultaneous processes—the
LPG—, with which India launched its reform programme. The
process of liberalisation shows movement of the economy
towards the market economy, privatisation is the path/route
through which it will travel to realise the ultimate “goal” i.e.
globalisation.
It should be noted here that the Indian idea of globalisation
is deeply and frequently inclined towards concept of the
welfare state which keeps coming in the day to day public
policy as an empathic reference. The world, including the
IMF, the WB and the developed nations have now
increasingly shown their recognition of the fact that the official
goal of globalisation of the world economies would not take
place without giving the poor of the world a better standard of
living.
Vill. ECONOMIC REFORMS IN INDIA

On July 23, 1991, India launched the process of economic
reforms in response to a fiscal and Balance of Payment (BoP)
crisis. The reforms were historic and were going to change
the very face and the nature of the economy in the following
years. The reforms and the related programmes are still going
on with changing emphasis and dimension, they are criticised
for being slower ever since the UPA Government came to
power in end-May 2004. Back in the mid-1980s, the
Government had taken recourse to a spate of economic
reforms more or less of the same nature. While the reforms of
the 1980s witnessed rather limited nature of deregulation and
“partial liberalization” of only a few aspects of the existing
control regime, the reforms started in the early 1990s in the
fields of industry, trade, investment and later agriculture, were
much “wider and deeper’. Though liberal policies were
announced by governments during the reforms of the 1980s
itself, with the slogan of “economic reforms” it was only
launched in the early 1990s.
By now as the benefits of the reforms have accrued to
many, the criticism has somewhat calmed down but still the
reform process is considered as ‘anti-poor’ and “pro-rich” by
the masses — the people who decide the political mandate
for the country to rule. At least one belief is followed by
everybody i.e. the benefits of reforms are not trickling down to
the masses (the “aam aadami”) with the desirable pace. The
need of the hour is to go for “distributive growth” though the
reforms have led the economy to a higher growth path.
Obligatory Reforms
Similar reforms started by some other economies since the
1980s were voluntary decisions. In the case of India it was an
obligatory decision taken by the government of the time in the
wake of the balance of payment crisis. Under the Extended
Fund Facility (EFF) programme of the IMF, countries get
external currency support from the fund to mitigate their BoP
crisis but such supports have some obligatory conditions put
on the economy to be fulfilled. There are no set rules of such
conditions with the IMF though they are devised and
prescribed for the BoP-crisis-ridden economy at the time of
need. A point needs to be referred here is that the conditions
put upon India were of the nature which required all economic
measures to be formulated by them. It means that the reforms
India carried out or being carried out at present were neither
formulated by India nor mandated by the public.
The IMF conditions put forth for India were as under:
i. Devaluation of the rupee by 22 per cent (which was

effected in two phases and the Indian rupee fell down
from Rs. 21 and Rs. 27 per US dollar).
ii. Drastic reduction in the peak import tariff from the
prevailing level of 130 per cent to 30 per cent (India
completed it by 2000-01 and now it has voluntarily cut to
the level of 15 per cent).
iii, Excise duties (i.e. CENVAT now) to be hiked by 20 per
cent to neutralise revenue shortfalls due to the custom
cut (a major tax reform programme was launched to
streamline, simplify and modernise the Indian tax
structure which is still going on).
iv. All government expenditure to be cut down by 10 per
cent, annually (i.e. the cut in running the government
and denotes, interests; pays, pensions and the PF;
subsidies. A pressure on the government to consolidate
the fiscal deficit and go in for fiscal prudence).
Though India was able to pay back its IMF dues in time, the
structural reforms of the economy were launched to fulfill the
above conditions of the IMF. The ultimate goal of the IMF was
to help India bring about an equilibrium in its BoP situation in
the short term and go in for macroeconomic and structural
adjustments so that in future the economy faces no such
crisis.
There was enough space for critics to view India’s
economic reforms as ones prescribed and dictated by the
IMF. The process of economic reforms in India had to face
severe criticisms from almost every quarter. To boost growth
and development and deliver an international level com-
petitiveness to the Indian economy, were the aims of the
economic reforms in India.
Reform Measures
That The economic reforms that, India launched, consisted
of two categories of measures:
i. Macroeconomic Stabilisation Measures: It includes all

those economic policies intended to boost the
aggregate demand in the economy—be it domestic or
external. For the enhanced domestic demand, the focus
has to be on increasing the purchasing power of the
masses which entails an emphasis on the creation of
gainful and quality employment opportunities.
ii. Structural Reform Measures: |t includes all policy
reforms initiated by the government to boost the
aggregate supply of goods and services in the
economy. It naturally entails unshackling the economy
so that it may search for its own potential of enhanced
productivity and production.
For increasing the purchasing capacity of the people , the

economy needs an increased income which comes from an
increased levels of activities. The income so increased is later
distributed among the people whose purchasing power is to
be increased — this will take place by properly initiating
suitable macroeconomic policies. For the income to get
distributed among the target population, it takes time, but the
efforts initiated by government to increase the supply, i.e. to
increase production, becomes visible soon. As production is
done by producers (i.e. the capitalists), prima facie the
structural reform measures look “pro-rich” and “pro-
industrialist” or “pro-capitalist’, Known with different names.
And due to the logic of fallacy, ignorant people easily get
swayed by the logic that everything which is “pro-rich” has to
be necessarily “anti-poor’. But it was not the case with the
process of economic reforms. Unless the economy is able to
achieve higher growth (i.e. income) wherefrom the purchasing
power of the masses will be enhanced? And increased
income takes time to reach everybody. If the economy lacks
political stability this process takes even more time due to
short-term goals set by unstable and frequently changing
governments—the exact case is with India
The Impact of economic reforms may be summed up as
follows:
i. Annual real GDP growth averaged 5.7 per cent during

the 1990s and 6.9 per cent during 2000-01 and 2006-
07. The higher real GDP growth during recent years
was led by both industrial and services sectors.
ii. Poverty has fallen significantly. The poverty ratio is
estimated to have fallen from 37 per cent in 1993-94 to
28 per cent in 2004-05, clearly establishing the link
between faster growth and poverty reduction. Income
inequality has also declined during this period.
iii, Other social indicators have shown similar
improvements over the last two decades or so: life
expectancy has increased from 53 in 1980 to 63 years
during 1999-2003; the infant mortality rate has dropped
from 110 in 1981 to 58 per thousand live births in 2005;
and literacy has risen from 44 to 1981 to 65 per cent in
2001.
iv. The external financial position has also strengthened,
since the 1991 balance of payments crisis, official
reserves have risen steadily and now stand at around
US $ 282 billion (as on January 11, 2008).
v. External debt has declined to around 18 per cent of
GDP.
vi. It is important to note that not only has there been a
steady upward shift in India’s growth path, but it has
also been accompanied by an enduring stability. A
remarkable feature of India’s growth experience has
been its resilience to both global and domestic shocks.
vii. Fiscal reforms through Fiscal Responsibility and Budget
Management (FRBM) is a significant measure.
Overall, the fiscal reform process covering both the Centre

and states has been wide-ranging, of which the important
ones are: unique features in the management of public debt
which impact stability— states have no direct exposure to
external debt and almost all public debts are in the domestic
currency and held mostly by residents.
IX. NEOLIBERALISM OF MODIS GOVERNMENT

Neoliberalism is about changing the balance of power in
favour of the capitalist class. This is true in rich countries.
This is not true in poor countries such as India. India’s NEP is
on behalf of capital, and it is therefore a policy of capital tourt
court, mediated and implemented by the state at the central
and provincial scale.
Following the general Lok Sabha elections of 2014, the
Bharatiya Janata Party's dominant National Democratic
Alliance government was, in a way, a government carried on
by Nehruvian economy tilted towards socialism, though it
gave all sort of peasants-workers welfare slogans. The major
economic strategy which was more or less of centralised
techniques and planning during the Nehru’ period and bound
by the Soviet-controlled techniques was done away with while
privatised and liberalised globalised space already provided
by the Indian government opened the doors of neon-liberal
economy. Privatisation gave way to the socialism; restrictions
and strictly followed rules gave way to liberalisation and
opening up of the world economies brought globalisation fact
which was undesirable, now practiced by the Indian economic
strategists. The transition from Planning Commission
(centralised soviet-oriented) to the NITI Aayog (decentralised-
liberalised economic techniques in Nomonics in nature) that
reflects from a state progressing anti-imperialism to a neon-
liberal state.
Formally introduced in 1991, the neoliberalised state fought
to work through Narsimha Rao, Manmohan Singh and
Vajpayee governments, the neoliberalism as a government
policy rather a new economic, representing the capitalist
class, expressed specific demands to create conditions where
domestic and foreign capital could be invested to make a lot
of money quickly by using cheap natural resources such as
land and cheap skilled and unskilled labour, an existing
barriers to capital accumulation to be removed. New
facilitative conditions be created; specific demands of
business incude deregulation of private business,
privatisation of |government-owned business, _ trade
liberalisation, allowing entry of foreign capital to own business
in India, tax cuts, Y Make in India Y and ‘Red-Welcome’
campaign be propagated.
Practice
Questions
1. What do you mean by “Development”?

(700-800 words)
2. Describe the Gandhian, Nehruvian and
Modi’s government perspectives of
development. (700-800 words)
3. Explain the nature and role of the Indian
economy. (700-800 words)
4. Assess the role of public sector in India.
(700-800 words)
5. Bring out the failing trends of the public
sector in India.(200-250 words)
6. Critically examine Green Revolution as
a strategy for sustainable agricultural
development. (2012) (700-800 words)
7. Write a short note on the agrarian
relations in colonial India. (200-250
words)
8. Bring out the numerous land reforms
adopted in India. (700-800 words)
9. Substantiate the terms “liberalisation”,
“privatisation” and “globalisation” in
India’s context. (700-800 words)
10. Initiate the economic reforms initiated
in India. What had been their impact?
(700-800 words)
0
Party System And Pressure
Groups In India
| f modem age is a democratic age, then a democratic polity has to be representative. No

representative system can work without elections, and no election is possible without a party
system. A political party is an organised body of people who advocate a set of agreed principles
and policies on political and general matters, and who through peaceful and constitutional means seek
to capture political power so to put those policies in practice. It is not a faction, for it has to be an
organised body; it is not characterised by sharp differences, for it has to stand by certain principles and
clear-cut agreed policies, it has not to be some violent and underground group of rebels attempting a
coup or overthrowing a government, for it has to seek political power through peaceful and
constitutional means. A political party is an organisation, an organisation of like-minded people, an
organisation, which is goal-oriented, an organisation which exists to capture and retain power.
Duverger (Political Parties) defines political parties as organised groups seeking political power
whether by democratic elections or by revolution. A pragmatic definition of a political party has been
provided by Robert Huckshorn (Political Parties in America). He says: “A political party is an
autonomous group of citizens having the purpose of making nominations and contesting elections in
hope of gaining control over governmental power through the capture of public offices and the
organisation of the government.” It is, thus, an organized group of people, with at least roughly similar
political aims and opinions that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to
public offices.
Political parties are classified on numerous grounds. Some of them are
1. Number of political parties which exists in a country—one-party, two-party or multi-party systems:
one-party system is again divided into
(a) ideological one-party system (Fascist, Nazi, Communist regimes),
(b) authoritarian one-party system (as in Myanmar, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Kenya, Ghana, Tanzania),
(c) dominant one-party system (as in India for sometime until 1967); two-party system as it
exists in the USA, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand; multi-party system as it
prevailed/prevails in France, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Netherlands;
2. Party orientation such as a charismatic leader-oriented party (say Sukarno in Indonesia, Lee Kuan
Yew (in Singapore), an ideology-oriented party and interest-oriented party;
3. Ideological persuasion which can be divided into leftist, rightist and centrist parties;
4. Geographically-influenced parties such as national parties and regional parties.
|. EVOLUTION OF PARTY SYSTEM IN INDIA

Party system in India arose with the establishment of the Indian National Congress in 1885. A.O.
Hume, a retired civil servant of the English East India company, was the architect of the Indian National
Union which changed its nomenclature to the Indian National Congress (the Congress) at the
suggestion of Dadabhai Naoroji, the grand old man of India. The Congress was, then, not a political
party, but a pressure group so as to convey the matured opinion of the English-educated middle class
Indians to the government on matters concerning the welfare of the people. For the first twenty years,
the Congress kept asking for reforms in the country—social, political and economic. These were the
moderate demands of the moderate Congress whose leaders viewed the English rule in India as a
blessing for the people. By 1906, the Congress, had matured Commanding the following of large
numbers of young indians, and sought Swaraj with relatively harsher means of passive resistance. The
imperialistic policy of the British rulers, the division of Indian nationalism through the partition of Bengal,
the rise of militant extremism, racial arrogance and the black laws passed by the government and the
like had made the Congress into a political party. The repressive and divisive policy of the British
Government encouraged the formation of communal and caste-based political parties from time to
time. Thus, emerged the All India Muslim League, Hindu Mahasabha, the Akali Dal and the Dravida
Kazhazam. The arrival of Mahatma Gandhi on the Indian political scene during the 1910s and his
assuming the leadership of the Congress changed the very character of the Congress: the national
movement became the Congress movement and the Congress movement became the mass
movement. Gandhi’s non-cooperation movement (1920-22), the role of the Swarajists, the militant-
extremists activities in the country and abroad—all these led the Congress to change its demand from
Swaraj to Purna Swaraj (the complete independence of India) in 1929. The following years, until India
got independence in 1947 and the partition of the country, were years of mobilization of public support
as demonstrated by the Civil Disobedience Movement (1930-34), the Individual Satyagraha (1940), the
role of Subhash Chandra Bose and his Indian National Army and the Quit India Movement (1942).
From 1920s onwards, there had also arisen socialist political parties such as the Communist Party of
India, the Congress Socialist Party, the Forward Bloc and trade unions and Kisan Sabhas. Thus,
independent India witnessed the Congress emerging as a political party ready to rule the country
together with communal, caste-based and socialist-oriented political parties.
After independence, there arose numerous political parties. The period between 1952 and 1964 was
an epoch of national consensus, the Nehru era; the period between 1964 and 1969 was a period of
uneasy transition marked by the emergence of numerous political parties, a situation of multi-party
system; the period between 1969 and 1974 was a period of new consensus and of increasing inter-
party conflict, a period of splits in the Congress as well as in other small political parties, the 1975-77
period was the period of emerging authoritarianism; the period between 1977-80 was the period of the
Janata Party and of coalitional politics, a non-Congress, non-Communist government period; the period
between 1980 and 1989 was the period of tussle between the Congress and the non-Congress political
parties, the regional political parties asserting themselves; and the period following 1989 is an era of
coalitional governments.
ll. POLITICAL PARTIES IN INDIA

India has a multi-party system with dominance of small regional parties. National parties are those that
are recognised in four or more States. They are accorded this status by the Election Commission of
India, which periodically reviews the election results in various States. This recognition helps political
parties to claim unique ownership of certain identities, such as the party symbol, until the next review of
their status. Below is the list of parties as existing today:
1. Indian National Congress (INC)
2. Nationalist Congress Party (NCP)
3. Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP)
4. Communist Party of India (CPI-M)
5. Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP)
6. Communist Party of India (CPI)
Parties that have received certain amount of votes or seats in a state may be recognised as a state
party by the Election Commission. Recognition as a state party gives the party the possibility to reserve
a particular election symbol in the concerned State. A party may be recognised in more than one state.
A party recognised in four states is automatically recognised as a national party. Listed below are some
regional political parties, as in October 2004.
e All India Forward Bloc (West Bengal)

e All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK, “All India Anna Federation for Progress of
Dravidians”) (Tamil Nadu, Pondicherry)
e Arunachal Congress (Arunachal Pradesh)
e Asom Gana Parishad (“Assam People’s Federation”) (Assam)
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK, “Federation for Progress of Dravidians”) (Tamil Nadu,
Pondicherry)
Federal Party of Manipur (Manipur)
Haryana Vikas Party (Haryana)
Himachal Vikas Congress (Himachal Pradesh) (has merged with Congress)
Hill State People’s Democratic Party (Meghalaya)
Indian National Lok Dal (“Indian National People’s Party”) (Haryana)
Jammu and Kashmir National Conference (Jammu and Kashmir)
Janata Dal Secular (Karnataka)
Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (Jharkhand)
Kerala Congress (Kerala)
Mizoram National Front (Mizoram)
Rashtriya Janata Dal (Bihar)
Samajwadi Party (Uttar Pradesh, Uttrakhand, Madhya Pradesh)
Shiromani Akali Dal (Punjab)
Shiv Sena (Maharashtra)
Telugu Desam (Andhra Pradesh)
Original Parties from 1950-62, Still Continuing

Congress Party, later Congress Party (Indira). The Indian National Congress remains a major force
in Indian politics, but it is no longer the unchallenged hegemony of the early post-independence years.
In 1969, a faction known as the Indian National Congress (Organisation) broke from the main
Congress Party. Another split occurred in 1979, when forces loyal to Indira Gandhi broke off to form
Congress (Indira). Despite being a faction, this party took control and continued Congress policies and
agenda. Since Congress (I) was fundamentally the same as the original Congress Party, there was no
termination of the party. Since 2009, Congress (I) has been able to control the Lok Sabha, with its
leadership of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA). The Congress had 153 seats in the Lok Sabha in
2008.
Bharatiya Janata Party, or Jan Sangh, or Bharatiya Jan Sangh. The BJP is an important political
party and had led the National Democratic Alliance government from 1999 to 2004. A national party,
BJP (or Jan Sangh as it was previously known) existed and contested elections from 1952 until 1977,
when it shortly joined the coalition Janata Party. Dissatisfied with the working of the Janata party, Jan
Sangh separated from Janata Party, but failed to win a single seat in the 1980 Lok sabha elections.
Renamed the Bharatiya Janata Party in 1980 after the elections, the BJP has capitalised on the theme
of Hindu nationalism, which has created strains with neighbouring Pakistan over nuclear weapons and
Kashmir. The party had 182 seats in 1996 Lok Sabha, and 116 seats in 2009.
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK): The DMK was founded as a regional party in Tamil Nadu in
1949, and first gained representation in the Lok Sabha in 1957. Steadily gaining support in Tamil Nadu,
the DMK reached its climax in 1967 when it won 25 seats in the Lok Sabha and emerged as the
strongest party in the Tamil Nadu State Legislature. In 1972, the DMK lost some of its support to its
splinter group AIDMK, but continues to gain around 3 per cent of the seats in the Lok Sabha to this
day. The DMK supports full autonomy for Tamil Nadu and the establishment of regional languages,
with English as the official national language. The party had 12 seats in 1999 Lok Sabha and 16 seats
in 2004.
Republican Party of India (RPI), also known as the Scheduled Castes Federation: The RPI has
existed since at least 1952, and has gained minimal representation in the Lok Sabha since its in
caption. Supported by the Harijans (untouchables) or Scheduled Castes, it lacks much popular support,
but was able to win its highest number of four seats in the Lok Sabha in 1998. It had only one seat in
2009.
Peasants’ and Workers’ Party (PWP): A regional party based in Maharashtra, the PWP has
contested elections since 1952. In 1957, the PWP gained four seats, and in 1977 it won 5 seats.
Advocating the nationalisation of all basic industries and the establishment of a People’s Democracy,
the PWP continues to exist today, winning a single seat in the most recent Indian elections. It held one
seat in the 1999 Lok Sabha.
Muslim League: The Muslim League originally existed as the voice of the Muslims before the
partition of India. With the establishment of the Muslim state of Pakistan, the Muslim League lost most
of its support within India, with the exception of Kerala, and has only been able to obtain a small
number of seats in various elections (three seats in 1967 and 1970 elections and again from 1980 and
1984 elections). It has continued to contest elections in through the present, but seems to have
changed its name to the Muslim League Kerala State Committee around 1998. The party had two
seats in the 1999 Lok Sabha and one seat in the 2004 Lok Sabha.
Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP): The RSP has participated in all elections since 1952, winning a
small number of seats each year since 1952. The RSP advocates the establishment of a socialist rule
and the rights of the working class to power and fair treatment. Most of its support comes from West
Bengal and Kerala. The party had three seats in 2004 Lok Sabha.
Forward Bloc: A socialist party that support in West Bengal, the Forward Bloc held three seats each
has in the Lok Sabha after the 1957, 1977, 1989 and 1991 elections. It held two seats after the most
recent elections, leaving it short of 1 per cent representation in the Parliament, but demonstrating that
the party continues to exist. The party had two seats in the 1999 Lok Sabha and three seats in 2004
Lok Sabha.
Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD): The SAD is a religious Sikh party formed in Punjab in the 1920s. The
primary goal of the SAD is to advocate greater autonomy for Punjab, sometimes with violent methods.
The Sikhs have experienced their share of persecution, with thousands of Sikhs being killed in violence
following the assassination of Indira Gandhi by two Sikh bodyguards in November 1984. The party had
2 seats in the 1999 Lok Sabha and eight seats in the 2004 Lok Sabha.
Jammu and Kashmir National Conference (JKNC): The JKNC is a socialist party opposed to Hindu
communalism that operates in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The party came close to termination in
1967 and 1972, but was then revitalised by Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah in 1975. In the most recent
elections, the JKNC won some seats in the Lok Sabha. The party had four seats in the 1999 Lok
Sabha and eight seats in the 2004 Lok Sabha.
New Parties formed after 1962 and Continuing
Communist Party of India-Moscow. The CPI was created after a split over a Sino-Soviet border
conflict in 1964, which dived the Communist movement in India. The CPI came out on the side of the
USSR, while the Communist Party of India—Marxist took the Chinese and Maoist position. Since the
split, the CPI has seen its strength steadily weaken in comparison to the CPM, although it still manages
to win 1-3 per cent of seats in the Lok Sabha, thanks to its support base in Kerala and Tamil Nadu. The
party had four seats in the 1999 Lok Sabha, and 10 seats in the 2004 Lok Sabha.
Communist Party of India-Marxist. Tne CPM split from the CPI in 1964 to side with the Chinese in a
border dispute, but by 1968 had declared its independence from China. Successfully contesting every
Lok Sabha election since the split, the CPM is particularly well supported in Kerala, West Bengal, and
Tripura. The CPM has grown to be stronger than the CPI, and now regularly secures around 4-7 per
cent of the seats in the Lok Sabha. The party had 32 seats in the 1999 Lok Sabha, and 42 seats in the
2004 Lok Sabha.
All-India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMk). A splinter party from the DMK formed in
1972, the AIADMK has seen a small amount of success within Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry. AAADMK
advocates many of the same causes as the DMK, but also calls for total prohibition throughout India, a
ceiling on incomes, nationalisation of banks, and giving voters a chance to recall elected
representatives. The party had 10 seats in the 1999 Lok Sabha.
Kerala Congress. Based in the state of Kerala, the Kerala Congress broke away from the State
Congress Party in 1964, and began taking part in the Kerala state elections. It held three seats in the
Lok Sabha from 1971 to ‘ 77, and continues to contest elections to this day. It held one seat in the 1999
Lok Sabha and two seats in the 2004 Lok Sabha.
Telugu Desam. Telugu Desam is a regional party based in Andhra Pradesh, which was founded in
1982. Telugu Desam declared at its formation that it would support any party which is in control of the
national government at any time, but would pursue its own agenda within its state. Since its formation,
Telugu Desam has become one of the major minority parties. The party had 29 seats in the 1999 Lok
Sabha and five seats in the 2004 Lok Sabha.
Assam Gana Parishad (AGP). The AGP is based in the state of Assam, where it was founded and
gained power in 1985. The AGP held seven seats from 1985 through 1989 in the Lok Sabha, and
returned in 1996 with five seats in the Lok Sabha. It has been represented in the 2004 Lok Sabha two
seats.
Janata Dal. The Janata Dal was formed in 1988 as a result of a merger between Jan Morcha, Lok
Dal and Janata Party. In the 1989 elections, it won 141 seats in the Lok Sabha. Parts of this coalition
have since broken off into other parties, but Janata Dal still has considerable strength in the Lok
Sabha, currently controlling 4 per cent of the seats. Janata Dal advocates the eradication of poverty,
the elimination of income disparities, and fight for employment for the lower castes. The Janata Dal is
split into many parties: JD (Secular) one seat, JD (Central) 20 seats, JD (Biju) 10 seats in the 1999 Lok
Sabha. The Janta Dal (United) had eight seats in 2004 Lok Sabha and Janata Dal (Biju), 11 seats in
2004.
Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP). The BSP has a program very similar to that of the Republican Party of
India, but as far as our data shows, they are two separate parties (they both held seats in the 1998-99
Lok Sabha). The BSP is professes to promote the rights of the “untouchables” (Harijans), and has been
reasonably successful in elections. The party had 14 seats in the 1999 Lok Sabha and 17 seats in the
2004 Lok Sabha.
Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) formerly Jharkhand Party. This party, formed initially in the 1950s
and reformed in 1980, represents the right of the tribal people of Bihar (Jharkhand is roughly
synonymous with “jungle-people”). Due to the similarities in the programmes of the two parties and
their support base, the name change was considered as a continuance of the same party, not a new
party formation. JMM was able to win a small number of Lok Sabha seats in 1989 and 1991, but has
seen its electoral strength shrink since then. The party had no seats in the 1999 Lok Sabha but had
Five seats in 2004 Lok Sabha.
Shiva Sena. Based on Maharashtra, Shiva Sena began a right wing terrorist organization, attempting
to defend the economic interests of the native Maharashtrians against immigrants from South Indian
States. An extremist Hindu party, Shiva Sena eventually began to participate in electoral contests
around 1989, and has held between 1 per cent and 3 per cent of the seats in the Lok Sabha. The party
had 15 seats in the 1999 Lok Sabha and twelve seats in the 2004 Lok Sabha.
Tamil Manila Congress (TMC). A breakaway from the Indian National Congress, the TMC was
formed around 1996 for elections to the 11h National Lok Sabha. A regional party based in Tamil
Nadu, the TMC won 20 seats in the region in 1996, and 3 in 1998. It did not win any seats in the 1999
elections. The party had no seat in the 2004 Lok Sabha.
Samajwadi Party. The Samajwadi Party (also known as the Samajwadi Janata Party) was formed as
a result of merger of the Janata Dal (Secular) and Janata Party in April 1991. It has seen its electoral
strength in caption since its inception. The party had 26 seats in the 1999 Lok Sabha and
36 seats in the 2004 Lok Sabha. The party is led by Mulayam Singh Yadav.
Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD). The RJD broke away from the main Janata Dal before the 1996
elections, forming a regional party in Bihar. The RJD won 16 seats in 1996, 17 seats in 1998 and
seven seats in the 1999 elections. It was a part of the UPA government in 2004, with 25 Lok Sabha
seats.
Samata Party. A regional party based in Bihar, the Samata Party won five seats in the Lok Sabha in
1996, its first contested election. In 1998, the party won 13 seats.
Haryana Vikas Party (HVP). The HVP was founded in 1968 but never achieved any significant
electoral strength, even in its home state of Haryana. The HVP gained one seats in the 1991 Lok
Sabha elections, and three seats in 1996-97 Lok Sabha. The party gained a single seat in subsequent
elections. But in the 1999 Lok Sabha, it lost that as well.
Samajwadi Janata Party (Rashtriya). Headed by Chandra Shekar (former head of the Samajwadi
Party and the Janata Dal (Secular), this offshoot of the Samajwadi Party was able to hold seats from
1996-99 in the Lok Sabha.
Biju Janata Dal. A breakaway from the original Janata Dal, this Orissa state party won nine seats in
the Lok Sabha in 1998, and currently holds 10 seats in Lok Sabha. Little is known about this purely
regional party. Its purely regional opposition to major national parties places it in a situation historically
similar to the other Orissa Party, the Swatantra Party (or Ganatantra Parishad). It had 11 seats in 2004
Lok Sabha.
West Bengal Trinamool Congress (WBTC) later the All-India Trinamool Congress (AITC). The WBTC
is a regional party, based in West Bengal. It seems to be an offshoot of the National Congress Party,
though this has not been explicitly proven. The WBTC won seven seats in the 1998 elections, and nine
seats in the 1999 elections, which it contested under the new banner of the AITC. It had one seat in
2004 Lok Sabha.
Pattali Makkal Katchi. The PMK is a state party based in Tamil Nadu. It is unknown what this party
stands for or whom supports. In 1998, it won four seats, It had six seats in the 2004 Lok Sabha.
Lok Shakti. The Lok Shakti is a minor state party of Karnataka. In the 1998 general elections, Lok
Shakti secured three seats in the Lok Sabha. It had no seat in the 1999 Lok Sabha, but in 2004 it won
four Lok Sabha seats.
Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK). The MDMK isa relatively new political party, of
Tamil Nadu, first obtaining representation in 1998, with six seats in the Lok Sabha. Little is known
about this party, but from its name and electoral results, it can be extrapolated that this party broke off
from the DMK. The party had four seats in the 1999 and 2004 Lok Sabha.
Nationalist Congress Party. This party first contested the 1999 elections, winning eight seats for the
Lok Sabha. Some of their representatives were from Maharashtra, and the party was a part of UPA
government in 2004, 2009. It had nine seats in 2004 Lok Sabha.
Indian National Lok Dal. This party first contested the 1999 elections, and won five seats in the Lok
Sabha. All of its representatives are from Haryana.
Ill. LOK SABHA ELECTIONS: 1952-2014
Major Parties in the Lok Sabha Elections, 1952-2009
Year No.of Turmout Congress Communist Party Communist Party Janta Sangh
Seates (%) of India of India (Marxist) —_ Bhartiya Janat
Party (=BJP)
Votes Seats Votes Seats Votes Seats Votes Seat.
polled obtained polled obtained polled obtained polled obtain
(%) (%) (%) (%)

1952 489 45.7 45.0 364 3.3 16 3.1 3
1957 493 47.7 47.8 371 8.9 27 5.9 4
1962 494 55.3 44.7 361 9.9 29 6.4 14
1967 520 61.2 40.8 283 5.0 23 4.4 19 9.4 35
1971 518 55.3 43.7 352 47 23 5.1 25 74 22
1977 = 542 60.5 34.5 154 2.8 7 4.3 22
1980 542 56.9 42.7 353 2.6 11 6.1 36
1984 542 63.6 49.1 405 2.7 6 5.7 22 7.7 2
1989 543 62.9 39.5 197 2.6 12 6.6 33 11.4 86
1991 543 55.2 36.5 232 2.5 14 6.2 35 20.1 120
1996 543 57.9 28.8 140 2.0 12 6.1 32 20.3 161
1998 543 62.0 25.8 141 1.8 9 5.2 32 25.6 182
1999 543 60.8 28.3 114 1.5 4 5.4 33 23.8 182
2004 8543 58.1 26.5 145 1.4 10 5.7 43 22.2 138
2009 8543 58.2 28.5 206 9.7 4 3.0 16 18.8 116
Source: Election Commission of India Reports of General Elections of various Lok Sabha elections (
http://www.eci gov.in/ARCHIVE).
Parties that have received certain amount of votes or seats in the states are recognised as state
parties by the Election Commission. Recognition as a state party give the party the possibility to
reserve a particular election symbol in the concerned state. A regional party night be recognised in
more than one state. A party recognised in four states is automatically recognised as a national party.
Some of the state/regional parties are:
All India Forward Bloc (West Bengal), All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK, “All
India Anna Federation for Progress of Dravidians”) (Tamil Nadu, Pondicherry), Asom Gana Parishad
(‘Assam People’s Federation’), Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK, “Federation for Progress of
Dravidians”) (Tamil Nadu, Pondicherry), Hill State People’s Democratic Party (Meghalaya), Indian
National Lok Dal (“Indian National People’s Party’) (Haryana), Jammu and Kashmir National
Conference (Jammu and Kashmir), Janata Dal Secular (Karnataka), Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
(Jharkhand), Rashtriya Janata Dal (Bihar), Congress Nationalist Party (Maharashtra), Shiromani Akali
Dal (Punjab), Shiv Sena (Maharashtra) & Telugu Desam (Andhra Pradesh).
Party Positions after the May 2014 Elections
Status known for 543 out of 543 constituencies
Party Won
282
Bhartiya Janata Party
Communist Party of Ind ia
Communist Party of Ind ia (Mar xist)
Ind ian National Congress
Na tionalist Congress Party
Aam Aa dmi Pa rty
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam 37
All India N.R. Congress
All India Trinamool C ongress 34
All India United Democratic Front
Biju Janata Dal 20
Indian National Lok Dal
Indian Union Muslim Lea gue
Jammu & Kashmir Peoples Democratic Party
Jana ta Dal (Secular)
Jana ta Dal (United)
Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
Kerala Congress (M)
Lok Jan Shakti Party
Na ga Peoples Front
National Peoples Party
Pattali Makkal Katchi
Rashtr iya Janata Dal

Revolutionary Socia list Party 1
Sama jwa di Par ty 5
Shiromani Akali Dal 4
Shivsena 18
Sikkim Democratic Front 1
Telangana Rashtra Samithi 11
Telugu Des am 16
All India Majlis-E -Ittenadul Muslimeen 1
Apna Dal 2
Rashtr iya Lok Samta Party 3
Swabhimani Paksha 1
Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Par ty 9
Ind epend ent 3
Total 543
Total Electors: 834,101,479; Total Voters: 553,801,801; Total Turn-out: 66.4%; Total candidates
contested elections: 8,251.
The NDA (alliance) obtained 336 out 543, and BJP got 282 seats and 31.0% votes. The UPA
(alliance) obtained 58 seats out of 543, and Congress got 44 seats and 19.3% votes.
IV. ELECTORAL PROCESS IN INDIA

India is a democratic country where there is a commitment to hold regular, free and fair elections,
which constitute the very heart of its polity. The electoral system is one where elections are held for the
President, the Vice-President, members of the both houses of the Parliament under the supervision of
an independent Election Commission.
Some major features of India’s electoral system are:
© Delimitation commission draws and redraws the boundaries of the constituencies to make sure
that there are practicable nearly equal number of electorates in constituencies.
e Reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is assured.
e Allelections are held (except those of local urban and rural bodies) under the supervision of the
Election Commission.
e Universal adult franchise system exists in the country; every citizen of 18 years of age or above
has the right to vote.
e Only those who are enrolled in the electoral roll are entitled to vote. Each constituency has its
own electoral roll.
e For improving the accuracy of the electoral roll and prevent electoral fraud, the Election
Commission insists on the introduction of photo identification cards.
e Elections are held once in every five years, the reelection for the President and the Vicepresident
only when there is a vacancy.
© Candidates choose to contest elections, election campaign is conducted under rules and model
code of conduct is applied during the elections.
e Ballot papers with names of the candidates and their election symbols are provided during
elections.
e There is the first past the post system. A candidate who obtains the highest number of votes is
declared elected.
¢ Various registered political parties are permitted to participate in elections. Independent
candidates can also contest elections.
e After the votes are cast, the votes are counted in the presence of the candidates’ observes.
© Electronic voting machines are provided for elections these days.
e Election’s petitions, if necessary, can be filed before the competent authority.
V. NATURE OF THE INDIAN PARTY SYSTEM

The nature of party system in India is unique in many respects. Of all the systems of political parties
known in the world, the nature of the Indian party system is such that it does not fit in any of the known
systems. The Indian party system is neither a single party system nor a bi-party system, for there have
existed, at all times since independence, a host of political parties. It is not a multi-party system, for the
national political parties as they existed in the past or exist now, are not equally or nearly equally
powerful either in the legislatures or outside them. It is not a dominant one party system, for the
Congress Party which had gained this status during the first two decades since independence does not
enjoy the same status now. Indeed, the Indian party system is a system without any system, for it does
not fit anywhere in any known party systems.
We have leaders without political parties, rather political parties without leaders. We have political
parties loosely organised; and leaders, ideologically not very much committed to what they profess:
defections, either individual or collective, are not very unusual. There does exist coalitional norms. The
rise of regional parties and their changing role in the Indian political system have enhanced their
importance. Though, they confine their influence to their respective regions, but their politics extend to
the national capital.
The nature of the Indian party system has changed from time to time: it has changed from one
dominant party system (until, 1967) to a system characterised by the emergence of opposition parties
in some state with the Congress leading the Centre a period which extended till about 1980 when the
demand for state autonomy figured largely in Indian politics. During the larger part of the 1980s and
1990s or little before, the Indian political system witnessed a near multi-party system when political
parties supported the ruling parties from inside or outside the government. Since the later years of
1990s, the coalitional politics has ruled India.
Accordingly, we can only identify certain trends in the nature of Indian party system, focussing mainly
on the period from 1989-90 onward.
Though the Indian party system is not a multiple party system, there is a multiplicity of political
parties in India. The number of national and state level political parties have enormously increased.
There were 53 national and state political parties in 1952, 15 in 1957, 27 in 1962, 25 in 1967, 53 in
1971, 34 in 1977, 36 in 1980, 33 in 1984, 113 in 1989, 145 in 1991, 209 in 1996, 176 in 1998, 169 in
1999, 230 in 2004 for the Lok Sabha elections.
The number of the recognised national political parties in Lok Sabha elections has drastically
declined while that of the recognised state political parties has remained nearly the same, though, with
different nomenclature. The number of recognised national political parties were 14 in the 1952 Lok
Sabha elections, their number declined to 6 in the 2004. The number of the recognised state political
parties was 39 in 1952, it fell slightly to 36 in 2004. With the passage of time some state political parties
have disappeared while some others have emerged.
The electoral strength of the national political parties has declined over the years: 13 per cent
decline from 1952 to 2004, while that of the state political parties has successively increased. In the
1996 Lok Sabha elections, for example, the national political parties last 11 per cent of the vote with 75
seats, whereas state parties gained 9 per cent with 78 seats.
Lately, and in particular since 1989, there has developed alliance politics in the Indian party
system. The party system, both at the national as well as state levels, is not hegemonic; though
competitive, together with a considerable scope for alteration. Alliance partners are not permanent: a
regional political party may support a particular national political party today and a different political
party in the next elections. Alliance politics gives birth to coalitional government supported either from
inside or outside the government.
The alliance politics and coalitional polity together have helped minimise the centralisation factor and
in the process led to a wider dispersal of power. The coalitional norms do not permit the alliance
partners to indulge in indiscipline on the one hand, and make regional political parties act in a relatively
more responsible way on the other: a common minimum programme gets evolved and the issues such
as the demand for state autonomy once so important for the nonCongress regional political parties
either gets the back seat or gets accepted to some degree.
The ideology factor, in the framework of contemporary coalition system in India, becomes nearly
irrelevant. Except the hardcore left political parties in the country, almost all other political parties have
become pragmatic, leaving ideological beliefs as more or less insignificant. We have, in India, the non-
ideological groups.
The role of regional political parties in the post-1989 era has become important. These regional
political parties are helping in setting the national agenda while the national political parties have, more
or less, accepted the regional demands. The emerging party system in India is feder-alising politics. A
cooperative federal scheme is emerging in the country. There is, thus, a partnership politics between
the Center and the states.
The alliances are neither permanent nor cohesive. Smaller parties align themselves either with the
congress or BJP to from a centrad government.There have been attempts to from a third front
consisting of non-Congress and non-BJP, mostly the left political parties and other annoyed with the
Congress and the BJP. Sometimes, the third front seems emerging, another time, it seems vanishing.
The independents contesting the elections, are on the decline over the years. The vote share of
independent candidates has gone down from 19.3 per cent in 1957, 4.3 per cent in 2004. In 1952, 533
independent candidates ran for the Lok Sabha elections, 37 got elected; in 2004, 2377 conteated and,
five got elected.
VI. REGIONAL POLITICAL PARTIES IN INDIA

Regional political parties have their hold in their respective states/regions. They have emerged so to
satisfy the states’ aspirations. With India’s size (which equalls almost 30 sovereign states of Europe)
and the diversities of regions and cultures, the rationale behind the regional political parties can well be
understood. Different state parties came to be set up at different periods of time because of varying
reasons. As times have passed, there has been a substantial change in the nature and objectives of
the regional political parties. There was a time when the regional parties sought state autonomy and
were opposed to the Congress regime which dominated the Union government. Thereafter, also came
the time when, owing to the weakening of the Congress as well as certain other national political
parties, the regional political parties rose to have the national agenda by supporting one or the other
alliance led by a national political party. The 1999 National Democratic Alliance led by the Bharatiya
Janata Party and the 2004 and 2009 United Progressive Alliance led by the Congress are two such
examples. On the other, the national political parties too began to have a regional agenda by
supporting the regional claims of the related regional political parties of the concerned states.
Regional political parties, in India, are of the following types:
One category of regional political parties consists of those parties which are ethnically and culturally
based. Such political parties capture power in their respective states in the name of culture, ethnicity or
language. Some examples of such political parties are Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMk), Shiv
Sena, Asom Gana Parishad, National Conference, Indian Union Muslim League, Jharkhand Mukti
Morcha, Manipur’s People’s Party, Shiromani Akali Dal, Sikkim Democratic Front, Telugu Desam and
the like.
Another category of the regional political parties is those parties, which have been formed after splits
in national political parties. Most of such political parties were formed after 1967. These include Biju
Janata Dal, Janata Party, Kerala Congress, Rashtriya Janata Dal, Samajwadi Janata Party, Trinamool
Congress, Utkal Congress, Bangla Congress, Vishal Haryana Parishad, Telegana Praja Samiti and the
like.
Another category of the regional political parties comprises those parties which on the basis of
ideology and programme have a secular perspective, though such political parties, with no national
base, try to operate at the all India level. Such political parties include All-India Forward Bloc, Indian
National Lok Dal, Nationalist Congress Party (a national political party in 2004), Republican Party of
India, Revolutionary Socialist Party, Samajwadi Party and the like.
Still another category of regional political parties is of those parties which can be called personalised
parties. Such political parties are formed by individual leaders. Such political parties do not survive long
and get rejected with the leader or get merged with some national or regional political party. Such
parties include Haryana Vikas Congress, Haryana Vikas Party, Lok Shakti and the like.
Regional political parties have become important, especially after 1989. It is not difficult to locate
reasons: the national political parties have become weak due to splits in their ranks; the instability
caused in the governments owing largely to the weakening of the political parties at the national level;
state leaders assuming the role of king-makers at the national level.
We can sum up the role of the regional political parties as follows:
i. They help discover regional aspirations and in the process, become instrumental in articulating
regional demands.
ii. They mobilise peoples’ participation in public life.
iii. They, with the support of their regional base, make either government possible or make effective
and powerful opposition.
iv. They have, of late, begun participating in national politics, helping in making or unmaking the
Central Government.
v. They have helped establish a cooperative federalism in the country by building consensus in
matters relating to the administration.
vi. Centre-states tensions are on the decline.
Vil. POLITICAL PARTIES: IDEOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL BASES

Ideologies and political parties go together. Each political party speaks for its own ideology, each
fighting its war on ideological stance. It is on the basis of ideologies that we make distinction among
various political parties, know their character in terms of their boundaries, either local, regional or
national; describe them in accordance with their bases, whether of the workers, peasants, capitalists,
or dalits; describe them whether they are the rightists, ‘leftists’ or the ‘centrists’
In India, political parties have grown from time to time with their ideology, objectives and social basis.
Of over seven hundred registered political parties, there are seven national and about forty state
political parties. In 2004 Lok Sabha elections, about 230 political parties fielded their candidates and
about forty political parties recorded there representation with one or more seats in the Lok Sabha.
National political parties work at all India level and have their bases throughout the country or in certain
states. Regional or state political parties work at the state level and seek the satisfaction of, among
others, their regional aspirations which may include the protection of their cultural interests or
languages or ethnicity. To that extent, we may say that the ideology of regional political parties is, thus,
‘regionalism, though such political parties have begun proclaiming their national agenda as well. The
main ideology of the Dravida Munnetra Kazagham (DMK) and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra
Kazagham (AIADMk) is, for example, the Tamil pride. After independence, the Independent Party as
well as the Justice Party sought the Dravidian pride. After independence, the DMK, followed by its
breakaway, the AIADMK, settled for a Tamil Nadu within the Indian union. In the beginning, the DMK
was anti-North, opposed to the imposition of any northern culture on the state; also opposed to Tamili
Brahmans, whom it regarded as agents of the northern Aryan culture. Since 1987, both the DMK and
the AIADMK have moderated their ideolo gies and now work with the national political parties, one with
the Congress and the other, with the Bhartiya Janata Party, alternatively. In Andhra Pradesh, the
Telugu Desam (founded in 1982) stands for the Telegu culture. In Punjab, the Shiromoni Akali Dal
(SAD) demands special status for the Sikh culture and the Punjabi language. The party, later, broke up
into factions, some soft and some militant. In Assam, the Asom Gana Parishad (AGP) and in
Maharashtra, the Shiv Sena have emerged to speak for the ‘son of the soil’ ideology. The National
Conference (NC) in Jammu and Kashmir, seeks to maintain the Kashmiri culture. This is true about the
northeastern states, each state’s regional political party stands for its regional and ethnic culture.
The national political parties have their ideologies. The Indian National Congress (The Congress),
established in 1885 and fighting for national liberation, is an All-India level political party. Its ideology is
centrist—of secularism, socialism and democracy and of late, has begun seeking a major role in the
community of nations. The Congress is a modernising political party: on front, it has favoured land
reforms, industrialisation, liberalising economy; on social front, the party advocates social justice,
egalitarian society, protection of the interests of the minorities, and weaker sections of society. The
Bhartiya Janata Party, founded in 1980, has its roots in the Bhartiya Jana Sangha, seeks to build a
modern democratic society on four principles: “one country, one nation, one culture and rule of law’. In
economic terms, the BJP is for Gandhian socialism, equal stress on agriculture and industry, reduction
of taxes, introduction of an assured employment scheme for the citizens, commitment to liberalisation
and privatisation. The Communist Parties — CPI and CPI(M)—are minor left political parties; they
advocate socialism, strengthening the interests and rights of workers and peasants, social legislations
for the poor, protection and promotion of the interests of the minorities and the weaker sections of
society, socialisation of the means of production, radicalisation of political system favouring the poor,
and close cooperation with socialist countries of the world. The Nationalist Congress Party, led by
Sharad Pawar, is more or less a Congress party with emphasis on nationalism. The Bahujan Samaj
Party, founded by Kanshi Ram in 1984, has its roots in all-India backward classes (the Scheduled
Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, the other backward classes). Its ideology includes the protection and
promotion of the interests of the weaker sections of society, including women, mobilisation of the dalits
—educating them about their rights, economic progress of the dalits—their reservation in legislatures
and services, rural upliftment with changed land ownership patterns in the rural India, though it has
begun admitting the higher caste people also in the party.
The social bases of Indian political parties vary from party to party. There are the ethnic bases of
some political parties: mostly all north-eastern political parties in Manipur, Mizoram, Arunachal
Pradesh, Meghalaya and the like are ethnically-based political parties. There are political parties based
on the culture of their regions. The DMK, the AIADMK, Asom Gana Parishad, the Telugu Desam, the
Shiromani Akali Dal, the All-India Muslim League (Kerala) and the like are culturally based political
parties. There are the caste and class-based political parties such as the Bahujan Samaj Party, the
Communist parties (representing workers). Burnell and Rendal (Politics in the Developing World) write:
“India’s caste system is a distinctive feature of its social structure, with continuing relevance for
patterns of party support. The Congress Party which remained electorally dominant at national level
into the 1990s, drew support from all sectors of society, though analysis has shown that at state
(provincial) level it rested on particular, and locally varying, caste groups. The Bhartiya Janata Party
(BJP) as a Hindu oriented nationalist party obviously seeks to appeal in general terms to the 83 per
cent of the population who are Hindus, but its original support base was amongst the upper castes and
northern ‘Hindi heartland’. But the 1990s have also seen the formation of state-level parties based on
particular caste blocs, notably the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) in the state of Uttar Pradesh, whose
support comes mainly from the dalits (untouchables), notwithstanding the support the party has, now,
from other social classes as well.
Vill. COALITIONAL POLITICS IN INDIA
A Coalition politics arises when there is no clearcut majority for a political party in the legislature It is a
characteristic of the parliamentary system that several political parties seek to form a government.
A coalition government may be formed at a time of national crisis, i.e., during a times of war so as to
give a government a high degree of legitimacy or unity—one may call such a government a national
government or a national coalition.
A Coalition government is the product of a particular situation, a situation with no political party
achieving a clear majority. In such a situation, a number of political parties join hands and form a
coalition and prove majority at the floor of the elected legislature, or the house of the people. The
parties joining hands may be pre-election or after-election allies. Indeed, the coalition government
reflects the coalitional politics: parties joining hands may do it temporarily for purely political reasons or
on some understanding, the former indicating a short-term government, the latter, a long-running
government.
Coalition cabinets are common in countries in which a parliament is represented with several
organised political parties. It does not appear in countries in which the cabinet is chosen by the chief
executives, as in the USA. In semi-presidential systems, such as France, where the president formally
appoints a prime minister but the government itself must maintain the confidence of the parliament,
coalition governments occur quite frequently.
Countries which often operate with coalition cabinets include: the Nordic countries, the Benelux
countries, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Turkey, Israel and India. Switzerland has been ruled by a loose
coalition of the four strongest parties in Parliament since 1959, called the “Magic Formula”. In
Germany, for instance, a coalition government is the norm, as it is rare to win an unqualified majority in
national elections. Thus, at the federal level, governments are formed with at least one of the smaller
parties. For example, Helmut Kohl’s CDU governed for years in coalition with the FDP and from 1998
to 2005, Gerhard Schroder’s SPD was in power with the Greens. A similar situation exists in Israel with
its dozens of different parties.
A Coalition government may consist of any number of parties. In Germany, the coalitions rarely
consist of more than two parties, but in Belgium, where there are separate Dutch and French parties
for each political grouping, coalition cabinets of up to six parties are quite common. India’s governing
coalition, the United Progressive Alliance, consists of 14 parties. Finland has experienced its most
stable government since independence with a five-party governing coalition established during the
1990s. Japan is experiencing coalition governments since 1990s.
A Coalition government, considering the Indian situation, can be of numerous types:
(a) Single Party majority government (SPM), a coalition headed by the single party majority,
(b) Minority coalition (MC),
(c) Oversized coalition (OC),
(d) Surplus Majority coalition (SMC),
(e) Single Party Minority Government (SPMG). Nehru’s government from the day of the In-
dependence to the day he died (i.e. 27.5.1964) was a single party majority government.
So were the government headed by G.L. Nanda (27.5.1964 to 9.6.1964 and 11.1.1966 to 24.1.1966)
and by Lal Bahadur Shastri (9.6.1964 to 11.1.1966) and Indira Gandhi (24.1.1966 to 24.3.1977). The
government led by Morarji Desai (24.3.1977 to 28.7.1979) and Charan Singh (28.7.1979 to 14.1.1980)
were in the former's case oversized coalition and in the latter’s case minority coalition, the former led
by the Janata Party and the latter by the Janata Party (Secular). Indira Gandhi’s second spell from
14.1.1980 to 31.10.1984 and Rajiv Gandhi’s government from 31.10.1984 to 2.12.1989 were examples
of the single party majority government. V.P. Singh ruled through minority coalition between 2.12.1989
to 10.11.1990 led by the National Front and five political parties. Chandra Shekhar and P.V.
Narasimharao had the single party minority government (former leading through the Samajwadi Janata
Party and the latter, through the Congress). Thereafter followed minority coalition governments from
16.5.1996 to May, 2009, headed by Atal Behari Vajpayee from 16.5.1996 to 1.6.1996, 19.3.1998 to
22.5.2004 with the minority coalition led by the BJP with the support of numerous political parties, both
from inside and outside the Parliament, H.D. Deve Gowda from 1.6.1996 to 21.4.1997, Inder Kumar
Gujral from 21.4.1997 to 19.3.1998 and Manmohan Singh from 27.5.2004 till the formation of the new
government in May 2009 (led by minority coalition) and with the support of political parties from within
and outside the Parliament.
Whatever the reasons, the coalitional governments, in India, have come to stay, for the present at
least. Indeed, such governments are but a political necessity, and that is one reason they do produce
difficulties at times like the Trinamool Congress and the All-India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
during the BJP-led coalition in 1999, and the CPI-M during the 2004 Congress led coalition. Partners
try to assert themselves. The problems of coalitional governments vary from issues relating to centre-
states relations to socio-economic ones. Issues relating to challenges which threaten the integrity of
the nation are taking backseat: no one is opposed to the integrity and unity of the country; even issues
relating to state autonomy (fiscal or non-fiscal) are not posing any serious problem. Coalitional
governments do not exist because of either of these reasons. They exist because political parties at the
national and state levels wish to share power between themselves: the centre to be controlled by
political parties at the national level, and states, by respective regional ones.
IX. PRESSURE GROUPS IN INDIA

Interest and pressure groups constitute part of the democratic political system. These are organised
groups which exist for the fulfillment of their specific interests. They are called interest groups because
they have interest of their own and for its fulfillment they seek to make efforts. They are called pressure
groups when they exert pressure on the authorities for the pursuit of their interests. In terms of their
purposes, nature, tactics and role, both pressure groups and interest groups are often used
interchangeably. What is important to note are certain features in these groups.
i.
Pressure and interest groups are organised groups.
ii.These organised groups work for the collective interest of their members.
iii,These groups tend to influence decision-making by putting pressure.
iv. They do not participate in forming the government, and as such do not contest elections, but they
do help political parties in capturing power.
v. Unlike political parties, interest and pressure groups have their specific and limited objectives,
concerned mainly with their members.
vi. Unlike political parties, these groups are informal, closed and unrecognised part of the political
system.
vii. Pressure, for example lobbying in the USA, is characteristic of interest and pressure groups.
Means and techniques used by pressure groups include

(a) manipulating of public opinion,
(b) persuading the administration in their favour,
(c) influencing legislators,
(d) assisting political parties,
(e) preparing public opinion in their favour,
(f) seeking the support of opposition political parties.
In course of their efforts to seek the satisfaction of their demands, the pressure groups hold meetings
with officials, present their case to the decision-makers, pressurise the government to seek favours and
benefits, demonstrate, strike work and keeps doing research to have an indepth study of issues related
to their interests.
Pressure groups can be communal, institutional and associational. Communal pressure/interest
groups are those groups where membership is based on birth (families, castes, ethnicity). /nstitutional
pressure groups are those where membership is limited to bodies which are parts of the government,
attempting to exert influence on government for protecting and promoting the interests of members of
such government. Associationa!l pressure/interest groups are those groups, which are formed by
people to pursue, shared, though limited, objective; such groups are usually voluntary groups.
Interest groups, in a way, are groups with specific and limited objectives, relatively with more
objectives and less pressure. Interest groups can be sectional as well as promotive. Sectional interest
groups (also called protective or functional groups) exist to protect the interests of their members
whereas promotive interest groups exist to advance shared values, ideals or principle: the former
protect the interests and the latter promote the interests of their members; indeed, each such group
supplements the other. Interest groups are also classified as (a) insider interest groups which enjoy
regular institutionalised access through routine consultation or representation; (b) Outsider interest
groups which do not enjoy such access as the insider interest groups do.
Pressure groups in India can be classified and discussed as under:
i. Social/identity based Groups: There are groups based on community interests (say religion,
caste, language, ethnicity, region, etc.). The chief characteristic of such groups is that they are
embedded in the social fabric; usually their membership is based on birth. These groups can
further be divided into two: one, which are primarily concerned with community service, and the
other which use communal or social mobilisation in political and economic competition. In the first
type we can mention DAV Educational Institutions, Rama Krishna Mission, Chief Khalsa Dewan,
Singh Sabhas, Muslim Educational Trusts like Vakkam Maulavi Foundation, Al-Ameen Education
Trust, Anglo-Indian Christian Associations, Jain Seva Sangh and many more of these type which
are engaged in educational, social and economic upliftment of their communities. For that
purpose they seek financial, technical and other types of help from government and put pressure
for that without prejudice to other communities or encouraging communal or social conflicts. In
recent years a large number of caste and sub caste associations have also come up. Though
most of such associations are loosely organised, they are becoming very important basis of
interest articulation. Other type of identity groups are those, which are, engaged in the assertion
of special status, superiority or preference for their communities vis-a-vis other communities.
Jamat-I-lslami among the Muslims, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Vishwa Hindu
Parishad (VHP) among the Hindus, All India Sikh Students Federation among the Sikhs, etc. are
such groups. These groups are engaged not only in the welfare of their communities but also in
the transfor mation of the political process according to their value systems. There are also
various language associations promoting the development of languages.
ii. Associational/Professional Groups: These are groups formed by people who come together to
pursue shared professional interests; also called protective or functional groups. Trade unions,
business organisations and trade associations, professional bodies are examples of such groups.
Their unique character is that they represent a particular section of the society.
Business Groups: In terms of protection of interests and influencing policy, business/industry
groups emerge with combined and joint efforts. Important among such groups, in India, are
Chambers of Commerce and Industries and their federations like Confederation of Indian
Industries (Cll) and Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI). The
FICCI today is the main spokesman of Indian capitalism and big industry in particular. Through
these bodies, the big business has sustained access to the executive and bureaucracy for
lobbying in the formulation and implementation of policies. Ownership and operational control of
the means of production give them tremendous leverage to influence the government policies.
iv. Trade Unions: Trade or labour unions are important pressure groups in India. Not only trade/
labour unions are formed in factories, they are also organised at national level as well. In 1920 All
India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) was established by the Congress Party which fell in the
hands of the communists in 1929. After independence, various political parties have sponsored
their own trade unions like the Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC), All India Trade
Union Congress (AITUC), Hind Mazdoor Sabha (HMS), Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU),
etc. The trade union movement in India over the last five decades or so has definitely come to
occupy its own important place in the Indian social process. Consequently, the working class has
been able to exert significant pressure at the policy formulation level and their strength is well
recognised by political parties and the government.
v. Farmers and Peasants Groups: Over the years, there have emerged farmers and peasants
groups to protect and promote the interests of the peasantry. Important among such groups are
Bhartiya Kisan Union in Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Punjab, the Shetkari Sangathan in
Maharashtra, and the Karnataka Rajya Ryota Sangh.
vi. Other Pressure Groups: There are the cause groups which help advance a general social
objective like the preservation of environment, protection of human rights and civil liberties,
abolition of capital punishment, violence against women. These groups are also known as public
interest groups. There are then the institutional groups which are formed by various sections
working in the government (for example, IAS, IPS, IFS lobbies, Air Force or Navy officers group).
There are the adhoc groups which are formed for a specific objective. Once the objective is
achieved, such groups stop functioning. Examples of such groups may include groups organised
to get a railway service in a city, getting a book or an activity banned, opening of a school, college
or hospital, etc. Such groups can be very active for a short period. Some of these may survive
and extend their activities as cause groups.
Pressure groups, thus, we may conclude, play a definite role in articulating issues, mobilising support
and influencing decisions and policies.
X. ELECTORAL BEHAVIOUR AND LEGISLATORS’ PROFILE: TRENDS

Political literacy of the Indian voter, despite a high poverty and illiteracy rate in the country, is
reasonably high. The Indian voter generally makes mature judgments politically. This is so when we
find the absence of interest in politics, among the Indians; they hardly have knowledge of political
issues; they have lack of awareness about the person who presides over the state or the government.
Voters’ turnout has not been dismal, indeed, it was 61.2 per cent in 1952, 62.2 per cent in 1957, 55.0
per cent in 1962, 61.3 per cent in 1967, 55.3 per cent in 1971, 60.5 per cent in 1977, 56.9 per cent in
1980, 64 per cent in 1984, 62 per cent in 1989, 61 per cent in 1991, 57 per cent in 1996, 62 per cent in
1998, 59.9 per cent in 1999, and 56 per cent in 2004.
Voting behaviour is shaped by both short-term and long-term influences. Short-term influences are
election-specific such as the state of economy at the time of election, unemployment, inflation and the
like. Sometimes local conditions such as water and power supply, road conditions, law and order
situation and the like determine the voting behaviour. In 1971, the charismatic leadership of Indira
Gandhi, and her slogan “vote the government that works” in 1980, for example, worked wonders. That
factor can be stated about Atal Behari Vajpayee’s charismatic personality in the 1989 elections. We
may notice that specific events preceding the elections help voters determine their voting behaviour.
The internal emergency was such an event in the 1977 elections when the Congress, including Indira
Gandhi herself, was ousted from power. In 1999, the events such as testing the nuclear bomb and the
Kargil war influenced the voting behaviour of the people when they decided to vote for the BUP. The
electronic and the print media too help voters decide the fate of certain political parties and/or the
voters.
Long-term influences are numerous. Social factors such as the age, sex, education, rural-urban
placement, caste, religion, play definite role in determining voter behaviour. Voting percent-age is fairly
high between the age-group of 30 to 60; women, as compared to men, are politically less interested in
casting their vote; rural voters, of late, have become relatively more conscious than the urban ones; the
less-educated are politically more conscious than the more-educated voters. The scheduled castes
and the scheduled tribes worked as the vote bank for the Congress during the first two or three
decades, while at present their votes get divided, most of them go to the Bahujan Samaj Party. The
Congress did benefit from the minorities’ voters for quite some time, though now they see
representation through their coreligionists. Poverty, unemployment, inflation, price-rise, as economic
issues have always played an important role in the voting pattern of the people. The choice of parties
by the propertied and labour classes, industrialists and peasants, businessmen and professionals
depends on class lines. In the Indian situation, political factors too play their role in determining the
voting behaviour of the people. The ‘Nehru’ factor was quite evident for a long time; the talks of the
‘Congress’ family, the ‘Sangh’ parivar, the ‘dalit’ Bahujan have been well known.
The elections help elect our representatives. But the merit of a candidates is seldom considered a
serious concern. When political parties decide on candidates for distributing party tickets, winnability is
regarded as the only criterion. Caste and religion are other possible factors for distributing party tickets.
Relation (son, daughter, mother, brother and the like) factors also weigh heavily. There is hardly any
reference to educational qualifications or political experience. The result is that qualified people
constitute the lowest number of candidates and the illiterate form the largest chunk.
The criminalisation of Indian politics is the latest trend. A fairly common observation is that politicians
use criminals and musclemen to lead party compaigns during elections. In the 2004 Lok Sabha, there
were, for example, about 120 members with criminal cases against them, around
22.1 per cent of the total Lok Sabha memberships. Booth capturing, engineered by criminal sort of
legislators, has been a common feature. Legislators, in India, are least ideologically awakened. What
they know for sure is how best they can make use of their position as legislator: defection or what is
commonly called ‘Aya Ram’ and Gaya Ram’ is not very unusual in India.
Practice Questions
1. Describe the evolution of party system in India. (700-800 words)

2. Write an essay on political parties as have existed in India. (700-800
words)
or
Explain to what extent the concept of ‘one party dominance’ (W.H.

Morris Jones) model is relevant in Indian politics today. (2013) (200-250
words)
3. Explain the nature of Indian party system. (700-800 words)
4. What is the rationale behind regional political parties? What role do they
play in coalitional politics? (700-800 words)
5. Write a detailed note on coalitional politics in India. (200-250 words)
6. What role does ‘ideology’ play in the Indian context? (200-250 words)
7. Discuss the role of pressure groups in the Indian political system. (200-
250 words)
8. Describe the social bases of the Indian party system. (200-250 words)
9. Write a critical note and trend of the voting behaviour in India. (700-800
words)
10. How do you explain the changing profile of the legislators in India?
(200-250 words)
11. Discuss the nature of reforms of the electoral process in India and
explai further scope for reforms. (2014) (700-800 words)
12. How pressure groups have been influencing public policy-making with I
suitable illustrations. (2014) (700-800 words)
- Caste, Religion, Ethnicity,
Social Movements In India
Ty o be a nation-state, political sovereignty is not enough

for a society, especially for a pluralist one. The plural
societies of our times are multilingual, multi-ethnic,
multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-casteistic. A nation-state
has to accept not only the diversities, it also has to promote
and strengthen them: it has to be a “unity in diversity”. India
presents a society which is, indeed, plural in almost every
aspect of the term. The challenges of a pluralist society like
those in our system are numerous. They are so real that they
play significant role in our social and political life: they affect
our society and our politics. In turn, they are influenced by our
politics and help raise certain movements of social nature.
I. CASTE IN INDIAN POLITICS

Caste, according to Risley, is “a collection of families bearing
a common name, claiming a common descent from a
mythical ancestor, divine or human, and professing to follow
the same hereditary calling and regarded by those who are
competent to give an opinion as forming a_ single
homogenous community”. We may, thus, describe caste as a
localised group having a traditional association, based on
one’s birth in a caste, though at times, associated with a
particular occupation. The caste groups have their respective
rules governing their behaviour and attitudes. G.S. Gharye
sums up the features of the caste system as:
i. segmental division of society,

ii. hierarchy,
iii. restrictions of feeding and social intercourse,
iv. civil and religious disparities and social discourse,
v. lack of unrestricted choice of occupation, and
vi. restrictions on marriage.
Caste groups divide the society hierarchically into

numerous segments having their own respective rules which
govern their behaviour, customs and rituals.
Caste groups are rigid in the sense that once born in a
caste a person remains in the caste throughout his life,
though women adopt the caste of their husbands. They divide
the people socially: higher caste people enjoy higher status
and have better entitlements than those born in lower castes.
The Indian society is a casteist society.
The caste system in India presents a stratified social
hierarchy which alone distinguishes us from any other
society. Its history goes back to the times as far back as 1200
BC. The term caste is derived from the Portuguese casta
meaning breed, race or kind. We, in India, relate caste to
varna, jati, jat, biradri, and samaj. The Indian caste system
has its origin in the varna system. The four basic varnas,
usually, described are:
(a) the varna of Brahmans, the priestly and the learned
class;
(b) the varna of Kashatriyas, the ruling and the warrior
class;
(c) the varna of Vaishs, the commercial and the trading
class; and
(d) the varna of shudras, the class of servile labourers.
Each varna is described as having been created by God
and with specific function. Brahmans or priests, for example,
were created from the mouth of the God and were to provide
for the intellectual and spiritual needs of the community. The
Kshatriyas, i.e., the rulers and warriors, were created from the
arms, and their job was to rule and protect others. The
Vaishs, i.e., the traders and landowners, sprang from the
thigh and they were to take care of trade and agriculture. The
Shudras, i.e., the servants and the labourers, came from the
feet and their task was to perform manual labour.
The varnas are further classified into castes and sub-
castes, rigidly and socially arranged in such a way that each
group is a world of its own. The Indian society is a caste
society, a multicasteist society. Though, the caste system is
primarily associated with Hinduism, it exists among other
religious groups as well. Among the Muslims, the Christians,
the Buddhists, the Jains, the Sikhs, caste-like groups exist
clearly. Caste considerations are acknowledged and
maintained from birth to death; hierarchical distinctions, both
horizontally and vertically, prevail in the Indian society.
Politically democratic India has a socially diversified base.
The caste system works both ways: it divides when one
caste works against the other; it mobilises when it unites the
people belonging to the same caste. The English, in the
colonial period, used divisive tendencies of the Indian social
system and kept the Indians under their rule: they had
explored the diversities to their imperialistic designs, caste
distinctions including. The traditionalists, during the era of the
national liberation movement, such as Tilak, Vivekananda
and Gandhi, sought social reforms in the Indian casteist
society, men like Jawaharlal Nehru, on the other hand,
regarded the caste system in India as an evil—as the main
source of India’s social and moral degeneration, while men,
like Ramaswami Naicker and Dr. Ambedkar, condemned the
caste system as it prevailed in the society.
After independence, the caste, with the introduction of the
electoral politics, had a new role for itself. Moin Shakir (State
and Politics in Contemporary India) is of the opinion that the
caste has a dual role in post-independence era: positive, in
democratising the system, and negative, in hampering the
rise of evolutionary class organisations. Caste helps in the
mobilisation of the people. Rudolph and Rudolph (/n Pursuit
of Lakshmi) refer to three types of mobilisation: vertical in
marshalling the political support of traditional notables in local
societies which are organised and ranked; horizontal in
marshalling the political support by class or community
leaders and their specialised organisations; differential in
marshalling the direct or indirect political support by political
parties through appeals to ideology, sentiments and interests.
In both rural and urban India, the caste has been the
instrument of mobilisation, a channel of communication,
representation and leadership which links the electorate to
the democratic process. Caste, in the Indian electoral context,
has become important, especially the lower caste votes
gaining significance duing elections. Leaders of all the
political parties agree that the crucial Dalit votes make and
unmake their fortune because of their number. The formation
of Dalit political parties, from the Republican Party of India
(1956) to that of the Bahujan Samaj Party (1982), shows the
emerging strength of the Dalit vote. This is true about other
castes as well. Exercising franchise on the basis of caste is a
normal process of voting in India. Caste has become a source
of mobilising votes. Vote banks are created through religious,
linguistic, regional and above all caste appeals, polarising
people into one caste group or the other. Examples of such
polarisation are, for instance, Brahmins versus non-Brahmins
in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, Rajputs versus Jats in
Rajasthan, Baniya-Brahmins versus Patidars in Gujarat,
Kayasthas versus Rajputs in Bihar, Kammas versus Reddi in
Andhra Pradesh, and Nairs versus Ezhavas in Kerala. Such
polarisations keep emerging with different combinations from
time to time in one region or the other.
Kothari (Politics in India) states that it is not politics that
gets caste-ridden, it is caste that gets politicised. Caste is not
a factor in political mobilisation of the voters; it has become a
factor in political leadership, both at the party and government
levels. Referring to caste as getting politicised, Kothari writes:
“This is so because the operation of competitive politics has
drawn caste out of its apolitical context, and given it a new
status and identity such that the “caste system”; as hitherto
known, has begun to disintegrate. Such things as respective
numerical strengths of different castes, choice of candidates,
factions within castes and economic ties between castes are
calculated as variables in the situation..., another variable in
politics along with many other variables.” Caste, despite all
efforts at legal and constitutional equality, remains and would
always remain an important arbiter in contemporary Indian
politics. The post-Mandal era clearly indicates that the other
backward classes (OBCs), in addition to the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, have a definite role to play
in India.
ll. RELIGION IN INDIAN POLITICS

Religion and politics stand in a paradoxical relationship with
each other. In democracies, secularism comes to mean the
separation of politics from religion, while it is difficult to
assume that religion does not influence politics. In a country
like India, religion is deep-rooted in the veins of our social
fabric. Like caste, religion plays a significant role in the life of
the people. We are born in a religion and it is seldom that we
change it. Religion is found in our rituals, customs, conduct,
behaviour and at times, in our activities: faith Usually
dominates more than rationalism.
Relationship between religion and politics has existed in
every society and in every age. Religious symbols, ideas and
institutions have been used by rulers to perpetuate their
control over the ruled. Clashes between opposing religions
are also facts of history: religious factions within and between
religions have dominated the course of history in every age
and in all societies.
Like caste, religion works both ways: positively, it mobilises
people of the same faith; negatively, it constitutes a source of
cleavage. Religion has assumed a special significance in the
traditional societies of the third world countries in general and
in a multi-religious societies like ours in particular.
In India’s context, communalisation of politics has been a
byproduct of politicisation of religion. The process began in
1909 when the British granted communal/separate
representation to the Muslims in Indian Councils, leading
ultimately to the communalisation of politics before and after
independence of India. Indeed, there were numerous
religions before the advent of the British in India, but there
were never communal conflicts. The British, following their
policy of ‘divide and rule’, exploited the differences to suit
their imperialistic designs. They welcomed the formation of
political parties based on religion. Thus were welcomed the
All-India Muslim League, the Hindu Mahasabha, the Akali
Dal, Christian organisations. So were encouraged the
communal representation in legislatures during the British
rule. So was accepted the demand for a Muslim state and the
country was partitioned in 1947. The entry of religion into
politics communalised all political issues and when the
country became independent, religion remained the
significant factor but now as determining the electoral politics.
Politics is now completely communalised: the state is
declared secular but the society remains based on religion as
it is on caste. The electoral politics has made political parties
and political leadership use religion as an instrument of
politics, appeasing religious minorities and at _ times
communalising politics.
Communalisation of politics and the politicisation of religion
stay in India. The communal riots on the eve of India’s
partition, in the wake of pre and post Indira Gandhi's
assassination, the construction of Ram Temple at Ayodhya,
the Gujarat riots, or the terroristic attacks engineered from
across the borders are all examples of the communalisation
of politics. The politicisation of religion is seen during
elections and thereafter in the formation and running of
governments. Though, a great number of political parties
demonstrate a secular and non-religious outlook, some others
stick on to their religious base. And yet, party manifestoes
speak of the protection and promotion of religious and cultural
minorities, party tickets are given on religious considerations,
ministerial berths are distributed to accommodate certain
religions.
In any traditional society as that of ours, the role of religion
in our social life is always significant while it influences
politics, despite our efforts to secularise. This can hardly be
denied. Political leadership does not mind using religion for its
political advantage. Political parties do not, at all, ignore the
role of religion in their political activities and use it when it is
to serve them. The fundamentalists use religion for their
sectarian gains, at times to create dissensions and promote
terrorism.
Though, the Indian state claims to be secular, it does admit
the presence of religion in the public domain. An individual is
a citizen and yet he/she is a person with a religion, for the
former is his image in public and the latter, his image in
private. As with a religion, an individual is free to profess and
propagate and manage one’s religion while the state assures
him/her of his/her religious and cultural identities. The state,
in fact, does not intervene in his/her religion.
lll. ETHNICITY AND POLITICS

Ethnicity includes, among many other things, linguistic,
nativist and religious affiliations. India’s concept of a nation-
state implied, immediately after her independence, the
accommodation of respective languages of numerous
diversified areas as well as of regional and natvisitic feelings,
i. e., unity of diversities. The demand to accommodate
numerous languages was not regarded as something anti-
India or anti-national. It would have been suicidal for the
leadership to have sought the imposition of one language
over the people speaking different languages, though English
language was, immediately after independence, the accepted
official language for some times. Hindi was spoken in most
regions of the country and that was why it was to be the
national language in the future, yet the acceptance and
encouragement of the regional languages were also
considered befitting the needs of the time. The Indian
National Congress had itself proclaimed during the 1920s that
after independence, the country would be administratively
demarcated on linguistic lines so as to promote and protect
diversities (numerous languages, for example). Dipankar
Gupta (Ethnicity and Politics) says: “It was that provincial
boundaries thus delineated would enhance _ greater
participation at the lower levels and help in rooting democracy
deep in Indian soil.” This is why, he continues, “national
parties had little ideological reluctance to enter the agitation
for linguistic states’. The demand for unilingual system
satisfied the advocates of each such linguistic movement
without damaging the linguistic rights of any other on one
hand and bonded each such linguistic state to the grill of
national politics on the other. Gupta writes: “The entire polity
through its segments was activated on a single demand
which in principle did not do injustice to the other constituent
segments.” From a single universal principle, he continues,
“several particularistic, even primordial, demands were
satisfied.” The linguistic states formed in the 1950s
accommodated ethnicity as expressed in the concepts of a
host of languages in India’s national politics. Quite related to
the unilingual states was a problem that arose in the 1960s.
The “sons of the soil” (the nativistic phenomenon) began to
demand that they be given major economic benefits on the
soil of their linguistic states without interference from people
belonging to other linguistic communities, The Shiv Sena in
Maharashtra and the All Assam Students Union in Assam
were such movements launched in the 1960s, 1970s and
1980s. These movements were promoted more on ethnicity
rather than linguistic reasons. . National political parties
supported such movements to gain electoral allies, though
particularism, in the process, came to be encouraged.
India is a land of diverse regions. Regional identities,
naturally, constitute one of the ethnic elements of our politics.
To accommodate regionalism does not amount to
accommodating separatism. The idea of federalism is not
unionisation of regional disparities, it is rather the acceptance,
protection and promotion of diversities as part of the national
whole. The rise of the Akali Dal in Punjab, the Dravida
Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and the All-India Anna Dravida
Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) in Tamil Nadu and the
Telegu Desam in Andhra Pradesh are examples of regional
identities seeking not only recognition but also their protection
and promotion as well. Rising almost initially to demand
separation, these political parties have settled down to
seeking regional identity and regional autonomy under the
Indian Union. These regional political parties associated
themselves with one or the other national political parties to
support them at the national level and enjoy power at the
state level in the name of regional identity. The concept of
nation-state accepts the idea of regional identity and to that
extent accommodates, regional autonomy without damaging
the nation’s sovereignty.
IV. SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

“Social movements”, according to Oxford Concise Dictionary
of Politics, “are change-oriented political formations, using
oftenly tactics such as direct action, with loose and informal
organisational structures.” They are, the dictionary continues,
“organised around ideas which give the individuals new forms
of social and political identity’, Charles Tilly (Social
Movements: 1768 — 2004) defines movements as a series of
contentions performances, displays and campaigns by which
ordinary people make collective claims on others. He also
says that through social movements, ordinary people
participate in public activities. Three elements, according to
Tilly, characterising social movements are:
i. Campaigns: a sustained, organised and joint effort

making claims on authorities;
ii. social movement repertoire: employing a combination of
political action such as public meetings, processions,
rallies, demonstrations, petition drives;
iii. WWUNC displays: concerted public representation of
words such as (WUNC) unity, numbers, commitments.
Sidney Tarrow (Power in Movement: Collective Action,

Social Movements and Politics) defines social movements as
“collective challenges (to elites, authorities, other groups or
cultural codes) by people with common purposes and
solidarity in sustained interactions with elites, opponents and
authorities.”
Lorenz von Stein, a German sociologist, used the term
“social movement” in 1850 in his book History of the French
Social Movement from 1789 to the Present. The growth of
social movements is associated with factors such as
economic and _ political changes culminating — in
parliamentarisation, capitalisation, proletarianisation,
urbanisation, industrialisation, development of communication
and technology, growth of universities and the like. The
spread of democracy and the expansion of political rights
made the evolution of social movements much easier.
Social movements are of several types. With regard to the
scope, social movements are either reform movements (such
as workers’ reforms, ecological reforms, socio-religious
reforms) or radical movements (such as Polish Solidarity).
With regard to the type of changes, social movements are
either innovative movements such as seeking norms and
values or conservative movements such as the nineteenth
century Luddities anti-machine movement. With regard to the
target, social movements are either group-focussed or
individual-focussed. With regard to methods, _ social
movements are either peaceful (civil rights movement of the
USA), violent (the Zapatista Army of National Liberation) or
terrorist (Provincial Irish Republic Army); with regard to range,
the social movements, are either global (First International),
local or multi-level movements.
New Social Movements refer to those movements which
have come up recently. They differ from the old social
movements in that
(a) they are primarily concerned with non-materialistic
phenomena,
(b) they work for quality of life rather than merely life,
(c) they are not conflictive,
(d) they are follower-oriented, and
(e) they are decentralised.
These movements include feminist movements, ecological
and environmental movements, and peace movements.
IV(a) Social Movements in India

Social movement is an organised effort by a number of
people to change (or to resist change) in some aspect or
aspects of society. Turner and Kilhan (Collective Behaviour)
define social movement as a collectivity which acts with some
continuity to promote or resist change in a society or a group
of which it is a part. It is, thus, clear from what has been said
that
i. social movements involve collective action as against

actions of a small group of individuals, and
ii. the collective attempt is designed to promote change or
resist change in the society in which the attempt is
made.
Accordingly, collective attempt may be made to alter,

inaugurate, supplement, restore or reinstate all to the larger
society; they stimulate the formation of organised groups
which work systematically to see that their plans and policies
are implemented; and they help generate and develop ideas
which spread throughout the society.
With the expansion of civil society domain, social
movements also expanded. In India, the earliest of social
movements can be traced to the Gandhian efforts of
sarvodaya. Gandhi recognised the need for social change
and believed that the change has to come from the bottom to
top if it has to be non-violent, successful and permanent.
Since the 1970s, a number of social movements emphasising
on a range of basic issues have come up. These ‘new’ social
movements are different from the old ‘trade unions’,
‘peasants’ and ‘scheduled castes’ movements which had, in
themselves, an alternate political vision of the state itself and
which had, for their respective people, materialistic demands.
These new social movements are broad-based peoples’
responses to ecological, gender, peace, civil liberties issues.
Such social movements are indicators of the pulse of the
people; they do not accept the materialistic paradigms,
though they insist on people’s participation; they help build
consciously or unconsciously a countervailing power to the
dominant state; they express the civil society domain.
These new social movements are emerging out of peculiar
contradictions within societies and cultures. They appear as
the state comes to dominate civil society; they expand as the
civil society attempts to open up. They bring about the
horizontal integration of people instead of hierarchical
integration.
It is difficult to categorise social movements as they exist in
the present or had existed in the past. We may, in general,
describe numerous social movements as:
(a) The first category essentially focuses on the needs
and interests of a particular group of people.
Historically, Indian society oppressed the tribals
(indigenous people), dalits (untouchables) and
women. In the past decade or so, social
movements focusing on the interests, concerns and
aspirations of tribals, dalits and women have
gained ascendancy.
(b) Another form of social movements has been to
protect against a set of practices, institutions,
policies and programmes. Social movements to
reform social evils have specially been targeting
liquor, dowry, inheritance rights of women etc.
(c) The development paradigm and programmes have
resulted in mass displacements, especially of
tribals and rural poor. Social movements have
emerged in protest against or to prevent
displacements due to development. Various issues
in the protection, preservation and regeneration of
environment are triggering social movements
throughout the country as well.
(d) A fourth type of social movement has focused upon
governance and_ state accountability. Anti-
corruption campaigns against government officials,
civil liberties and human rights campaigns,
campaigns for right to information, right to
education, right to livelihood are some examples of
this type.
Some of the major social movements of India can be
described as under:
IV(a) (i) Civil Liberties and Human Rights Movements

Civil liberties and human rights movements in India can be
traced back to the anti-colonial struggle when people, while
looking for political concessions, developed notions of political
freedoms. The Rowlett Act (March 1919) was, for example,
one legislation that helped Indians to rise against British
atrocities. Much before the demand for Swaraj, there arose
the demand for civil liberties and rights. Dadabhai Naoroji was
one of the first Indians to raise his voice for rights and civil
liberties. As British oppression on Indians grew, so grew their
demand for rights and civil liberties. The Indian Bill of 1895
earlier sought freedom of thought and prohibition of
punishment without trial. The Congress’s resolutions of 1917
and 1919 demanded freedom of speech and press. The
Commonwealth Bill of 1925 included:
(a) liberty of person and security of dwellings and
property;
(b) freedom of conscience and practice of religion;
(c) free expression of opinion and the right of assembly
without arms and forming of associations and
unions;
(d) free elementary education;
(e) use of roads, public places, courts of justice and
the like;
(f) equality before law;
(g) equality of sexes.
The 1928 Nehru Committee report, and the 1931 Congress
Karachi Session sought fundamental rights for Indians. Sir Tej
Bahadur Sapru proposed, in 1945, a proposal stressing the
importance of the fundamental rights. The Constituent
Assembly constituted a sub-committee on fundamental rights
to propose freedoms and liberties for Indians in the
Constitution of independent India. Part Ill of the 1950
Constitution provided for the fundamental rights which
includes the right to freedom from Articles 19 to 22; the
Government of India ratified the Covenants on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights as well as the Civil and Political
Rights acknowledging its responsibility to implement the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Ever since the enactment of the Constitution, the state has,
in the name of security and integrity of the country, restricted
civil liberties and fundamental rights. The fundamental rights
have numerous limitations on them; they can be suspended
during the operation of emergency; the Defence of India
Rules (DIR), the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA),
and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act
(TADA), have empowered the State apparatus with arbitrary
powers. Numerous amendments in the Constitution have
curtailed civil liberties to some degree, though in the name of
integrity and socio-economic development.
The growing power of the state during the 1960s and
1970s, either to face the external threat (China in 1962,
Pakistan in 1965 and 1971) or to combat internal security
problems (from the Naxalities for example), may be stated as
one of the reasons for the democratic right, say the civil
liberties, movement in the country. The liberals provided the
basis and the leadership for such a movement. The Peoples’
Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and the Peoples’ Union for
Democratic Rights (PUDR) began to work together. Soon,
there arose a conflict, during the period from 1977-80,
between their perspectives. The ‘democratic rights’
perspective argued that the deprived and the starved have
the right to organise and struggle for the change in the
system while the civil liberties perspective asserted that the
fragile democracy, as in India, requires to be strengthened
and that the rights and liberties have to be protected and
preserved. Together, both can provide a human rights
perspective.
The human rights perspective does contain elements of
democratic rights and civil liberties. It is the perspective which
provides the basis for our rights and liberties; in fact, it goes
to the basics: to provide human beings rights and freedoms
essential for them as human beings. The Constitution of India
pledges to its citizens all basic human rights: to life, liberty,
equality, justice, of thought, of personal freedoms, of belief,
faith, of equal status. It also provides the minorities the right
to protection and promotion of their religion and culture. The
Constitution provides for the formation of numerous
independent commissions (those of the Scheduled Castes,
the Scheduled Tribes, the Minorities, Human Rights, the
Backward Classes) to monitor the welfare of the concerned
people. The Supreme Court, through its judicial activism, has,
over the years, created new basic rights which include, as
Upendra Baxi (The State and Human Rights Movements in
India) says, “right to dignity, right to livelihood, right to
compensation and rehabilitation for injuries done or caused
by state agents or agencies, right to speedy trial, right to
health, right to education, right to gender equality, right to
environment,” converting numerous directive principles into
fundamental rights.
The assertive civil society has always taken up the cause of
rights and liberties of the people as and when the state
chooses to oppress people. The 1975-emergency brought
numerous activists to the fore who faced imprisonment. The
Peoples’ Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and the Peoples’
Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) were formed to fight the
emergency atrocities and to contest cases in the Supreme
Court against encounter killings. Punjab Human _ Rights
Organisation came to be _ associated with Amnesty
International. The Association for Democratic Rights and
some other organisations have been working in Punjab to
preserve and protect human rights. The Human Rights
Organisation of Manipur, Civil Liberties Committee of Andhra
Pradesh, Naga Peoples’ Movement for Human Rights and the
like are seeking justice on behalf of the oppressed and the
minorities.
The establishment of National Human Rights Commission
(NHRC), in 1993, has incorporated all basic values of the
Amnesty International. Its objectives include:
(a) to strengthen the institutional arrangements through
which human rights issues are addressed in totality
and in a more focussed manner;
(b) to look into allegations of excesses;
(c) to complement and strengthen efforts to protect
human rights.
The NHRC had studied the arbitrary detention under the
TADA and dealt with a range of issues concerning the rights
of children, child labour, and women. Also, it has given
direction for the treatment of Chakama refugees in Arunachal
Pradesh and Sri Lankan refugees in Tamil Nadu. Apart from
the National Commission, various state governments in India
such as Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal have also established
their own state commissions to deal with human rights issues
and they have focused attention on custodial deaths, rape,
torture, prison reforms, etc.
IV(a)(ii) Socio-Religious Reform Movements

These are movements which are organised for reforms in
specific areas. Usually such movements use _ legitimate
means within the larger framework of the society and without
disturbing the existing framework. The Brahmo Samaj
Movement led by Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Arya Samaj
Movement by Swami Dayanand Saraswati, Aligarn Movement
by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, Tablighi Jammat movement by
Moulana Ilyas, the Ramakrishna Mission Movement by
Swami Vivekananda, the Theosophical Society Movement by
Madame Blavatsky and Colonel Olcott are some examples of
socio-religious reform movements of the nineteenth century
India. These socio-religious movements sought to eradicate
social evils caused by religious customs and rituals. Most of
these movements fought against sati practice, purda system,
infanticide, religious bigotry and the like and laid stress on
female education, widow remarriage and spread of modern
western education.
IV(a)(iii) Peasants Movements
Peasants movements seek facilities and concessions to
better the lot of the peasantry. The history of the peasant
movements, in India, can be traced to colonial period when
repressive economic policies, new land revenue system,
colonial administrative and judicial system and the ruin of
handicrafts led to the overcrowding of land transformed the
agrarian structure and impoverished the peasantry. Peasant
movements occupy an important place in the history of social
unrest in India, though the aims and objectives of these
movements differ in nature and degree from region to region.
Some peasants uprisings include Sanayasi rebellion (1770),
Wahabi uprising (1831), Santhal revolt (1855), Indigo unrest
(1859), Punjab Kisan Struggle (1890-1900), Champaran
Satyagraha (1912-18), Moplah rebellion (1921), and Bardoli
Satyagraha (1928). Kathleen Gough says that there had been
77 peasant uprisings in colonial India. All these uprisings
were directed against the colonial land revenue system and
the zamindari system as developed by the British. We may
describe some of the major features of the peasant
movements during the colonial rule as:
i. these uprisings mobilised the peasantry;

ii. these were mostly spontaneous outbursts of the
exploited rural poor;
iii, economic discontent was the motivating factor in these
uprisings;
iv. most of these were suppressed brutally by the state
power;
v. the emerging middle class was indifferent and even
hostile to peasants’ consciousness.
Gandhi's entry on the Indian political scene after his return

from South Africa in 1915 helped the Indian National
Congress become a mass political party. He made village as
the primary focus and fought for the rural poor. Champaran
Satyagraha (1917-18) abolished the Tinkathia system, the
Khadi no-revenue movement (1918), the peasant uprising in
Bardoli (1928) against revenue hike and the no-rent and no-
revenue campaign in Oudh (1930-32) were such peasant
movements supported by Gandhi. After assuming virtual
leadership of the Congress from 1917 onwards, Gandhi led
the Congress to all-India movements in 1920-22, 1930-34
and 1940 (the 1942 Quit India movement was one when
Gandhi was arrested before it being launched). All through,
the national liberation struggle, Gandhi’s base was the village,
though he never aimed at changing the basic land ownership
structure in the countryside.
On the initiative of representatives of numerous peasant
organisations from different provinces, a conference was held
in 1936 in Lucknow and as a result of it an All-India Kisan
Sabha (AIKS) was formed under the presidentship of Swami
Sahajanand of Bihar. The Communist Party of India (CPI), the
Workers’ and Peasants Party (WPP) and the Congress
Socialist Party (CSP) played a vital role in the formation of
AIKS. In the late 1940s, the AIKS organised two major
peasant movements: the Tebhaga movement in Bengal
(1946-47) and the Telengana uprising in Andhra Pradesh
(1946-51).
The Tebhaga movement started in the harvesting season
of 1946 which spread to 15 districts of north Bengal
demanding two-thirds share of the crop for sharecroppers
working on the jotedari land. The two-third share demand was
already admitted by the Floud Commission in 1940. The
movement was launched under the leadership of the Bengal
Provincial Kisan Sabha. The centre of the movement was
Dinajpur where 40 persons were killed, 1200 were put behind
the bar and nearly 10,000 were wounded. The movement
ultimately failed and could not attain its objectives. The
government, led by the Muslim League, was lukewarm. While
the communist leadership could not build pressure, the
Tebhaga strategy could not distinguish between the big
jotdari from the smaller ones, and, therefore, the bargardars
could not mount pressure; the urban middle class was always
hostile towards the movement.
The Telengana rebellion was a communist led peasant
revolt which took place in Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh
between 1946 and 1951). The revolt began in Nalgouda
district and soon spread to other districts of Warrangel and
Bihar. Peasants revolted against the Nizam and landlords
(jagirdars). Initially, the objectives were to do away with the
illegal and excessive exploitation by feudal lords in the name
of bonded labour. The most strident demand was for the
writing off of all debts of peasants that were manipulated by
the feudal lords.
The Communist Party instigated the peasants to use
guerrilla tactics and around 3,000 villages (about 41,000 sq.
km) came under peasant-rule. The landlords were either
killed or driven out and the land was redistributed. These
victorious villages established communes reminiscent of the
Soviet mir to administer their region. These community
governments were integrated regionally into a_ central
organisation. As the rebellion was led by the Communist
Party of India under the banner of Andhra Mahasabha, a few
among the well-known individuals at the forefront of the
movement were the Urdu poet Makhdoom Mohiuddin (d.
1969), Raavi Narayana Reddy (d. 1991), Hassan Nasir (d.
1960), Bhimreddy Narasimha Reddy (d. 2008), Mallu Venkata
Narasimha Reddy and Mallu Swarajyam. The violent phase of
the movement ended in 1951.
After independence, the AIKS worked for pro-peasant
objectives: the abolition of the zamindari system, tenancy
laws in favour of peasants as in West Bengal, Andhra
Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, lowering of levy in Punjab and
Rajasthan. The AIKS, in the late 1950s, organised nation-
wide food movements. During the 1960s, the AIKS supported
sugarcane growers’ strike in Uttar Pradesh, pressed for the
distribution of wasteland among agricultural labourers in
Andhra Pradesh. Long padyatras were organised in Kerala
for the detection of surplus and benami land. During the
1970s and 1980s, the AIKS took up the cause of the
agricultural labourers. Movements for increasing their wages
were launched in Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Punjab and
West Bengal, though in some regions, uprisings rose, such as
the one in Naxalbari, while the farming lobby became
assertive, as the Bhartiya Kisan Union (BKU) in Uttar Pradesh
or Sharad Joshi’s Shetkari Sangathana in Maharashtra. The
peasants, as at present, keep seeking remunerative prices for
their products, increase in agricultural production, parity
between prices of agricultural and industrial products.
IV(a)(iv) Workers’ Movements in India

The working class owes its existence to the growth of
industries in India from the second half of the nineteenth
century. Its number increased with the increase in
industrialisation. N.M. Joshi tells us that the labour class was
about 50 million, out of which 10 per cent was in the
organised industry according to the 1931 census. According
to the 1991 census, the total number of workers in modern
manufacturing industries rose to around 306 million. The
workers, in India, are divided into organised and unorganised
categories; some of them act as workers, when in cities and
towns but become agricultural labourers when in villages;
they work both with the public and private sectors.
Before independence, the workers in the initial stages until
the 1920s, were sporadic and unorganised and were
concentrated in Bengal, Madras (Tamil Nadu) and Bombay
(Mumbai). Their leaders, S.S. Bangalee and Sasipada
Banerjee in Bengal and Narayan Lokhandrya in Maharashtra,
sought improvement in workers’ conditions. During the 1920s,
serious attempts were made to organise the working class.
B.G. Tilak did a great job in the formation of the All-India
Trade Union Congress (AITUC) with Lala Lajpat Rai and
Chaman Lal as its office-bearers. The AITUC was organised
not only for organising the workers for the fulfillment of their
demands but also for supporting the nationalist struggle.
Though, the AITUC was formed in 1920 and numerous
resolutions, seeking demands, were passed in 1920, 1922,
1924 and in 1930 in their annual conferences, the clearest
policy of the Congress came up in 1936 when the Congress
appointed its committee to look after labour issues. Earlier,
there was a split in the AITUC, with moderates such as N.M.
Joshi, V.V Giri, B. Shivarao forming National Trade Union
Federation (NTUF) and the communists such as S.K.
Despande and B.T. Ranadive, forming the All India Trade
Union Congress (AITUC).
The AITUC merged with the AITUC in 1935 and the NTUF
affiliated itself with the AITUC in 1938. As a result of this,
there was a growth of trade unions and trade union activity
throughout the 1930s and 1940s. The number of strikes went
up by the end of the 1930s. During the period 1937-39 the
frequency of strikes and the number of strikes increased. In
1937 there were 379 strikes and in 1938 there were 399
strikes. In 1939, 406 disputes took place. The involvement of
workers in these strikes was also higher.
The movement entered into a decisive phase in the 1940s
and this phase coincided with the final phase of the National
Movement, when the latter entered into its last phase
beginning with the Quit India Movement of 1942. On the
industrial front, from 1939 onwards the working conditions of
workers were affected seriously. There was an increase in
working hours, multiple shift systems were introduced, wages
were significantly reduced, and workers on the whole were
subjected to great hardships. As a result, strikes erupted
throughout the country and probably the most important
demand of workers was the demand for a Dearness
Allowance against rising prices and the cost of living. In 1942
there were 694 disputes, which increased to 820 in 1945. The
number of workers involved in these disputes also increased
to 7.47 lakhs in 1945. Between 1945-1947, after the end of
the war, the working class was confronted with two distinct
problems. First was the problem of large-scale retrenchments
and the second, the problem of decline in earnings. As a
result, the number of strikes reached a peak in 1947; there
were 1,811 strikes involving 1,940 thousand workers.
After independence, the working class movement entered
into a different phase. Between 1947 and 1960, with the
introduction of new industries, whether in public sector or in
private sector and with the state having a sympathetic attitude
towards workers, there was no_ organised action.
Consequently, workers’ agitations declined. However, with
inflation rising, there arose workers’ discontent between 1960
and 1970. In 1964, there were 2,151 disputes involving about
one thousand workers in which 7,725 days were lost. Soon,
political parties began blessing the growing number of
numerous trade unions. By 1949, there were four unions and
all these unions were linked or affiliated to and controlled by
political parties. The Communists dominated the AITUC, IFL
was affiliated to the radical Democratic Party of M.N. Roy, the
Indian National Congress controlled the INTUC and the
Socialist Party members dominated the Hind Mazdoor Sabha
(HMS). The HMS splitted further and the UTUC was formed.
The AITUC also split in 1970 and the Centre of Indian Trade
Unions (CITU) was born and affiliated to the CPI(M).
After 1970, the situation, with regard to the working class,
was not very encouraging; the capitalists resorted to
offensives which were met with workers lockouts. For
example, in the period 1971-75, the average annual workday,
lost through lockouts was as high as 60.23 thousand, which
figure rose to 105.46 thousand during 1976-80. Rudolph and
Rudolph say that during 1965-75, the number of workdays
lost increased by almost 500 per cent.
During the emergency, the working class faced a number of
offensives from the employers. Lockouts in the private sector
increased as a result, of which a large percentage of
workdays were lost. During the years 1980-87, 29 to 65 per
cent of workdays lost to lockouts in industrial disputes. The
loss of workdays in the 1980s went on increasing. According
to one estimate during
1985, 1987, and 1988, workdays lost in lockouts actually
exceeded those lost in strikes by as much as 55, 52 and 71
per cent respectively. This growth in lockouts has adversely
affected the industrial working class in the country since it
throws workers out of employment.
The problem of lockout continues even today and has
assumed a serious proportion. In 1999, according to the
Labour Bureau, there were 387 lockouts; in 2000, there were
345 and in the year 2001, there were 302 lockouts.
The introduction of the New Economic Policy since 1991
had severely affected the working class in the country. There
are different components of this New Economic Policy but the
core emphasis is on _ liberalisation, privatisation and
globalisation. Liberalisation has meant reduction of
government control over the private sector; as a result, the
bargaining position of workers vis-a-vis capital has declined.
The policies of privatisation under which several important
public sector units in the country are being sold to private
companies has opened up new challenges for workers and
trade unions in the country.
IV(a) (v) Dalit Movements

Dalits are the oppressed people at the last rung of the caste-
based hierarchy. Their inferior occu-pations and the low
levels of ascriptive status make them vulnerable to attacks at
the hands of the upper caste people. The effort made by the
dalit leadership to uplift their status in the society is called the
Dalit movement. The Dalit movement is a protest against
untouchability, casteism and discrimination faced by the
dalits. This movement indicates protest against Hinduism and
its high varna view of Brahminical virtues. Anti-casteism
stands at the basis of the dalit movement. For example, the
Satnami movement of the Chamars in the Chhattisgarh plains
in eastern Madhya Pradesh that eventually became an
independent religious sect; the Dravid Kazhagam movement
of Periyar EVR Ramaswamy Naicker which created a stir by
publicly burning the effigy of Rama and celebrating the
virtuousness of Ravana; the Nadar Mahajana Sabha in Tamil
Nadu; the Ezhava movement of Narayana Guru which
culminated in establishment of a new religious sect called
Sree Narayan Dharma Pratipalana Yogam in Kerala and the
most pervasive Dalit movement led by Bahasaheb Ambedkar
curiously reaching its climax in mass conversion to Buddhism
—they all signify an overriding hatred against the religious
code of Manu. The dalit movement essentially embodies
rejection of the Brahminism, which is perceived to be the root
cause for dalits’ sufferings. The most articulate expression of
this rejection is found in Ambedkar’s own analyses that hold
the overthrowing of ‘Hindu’ religious ideological hegemony as
a necessary condition for the liberation of Dalits.
One of the factors, which prepared ground for the Dalit
movement in India, was the colonial rule of the British. The
institutional changes (which the British introduced in India like
the changes in the judiciary, civil administration, commodity
markets), the cultural changes (modernity, western mode of
living, English education, etc.), the economic changes
(Zamindari and Ryotwari System) and the emergent social
changes which came in during the British rule gave impetus
to the aspirations of the lower castes, leading to conflicts with
the traditional social relations. This aroused anti-Brahmin,
anti-caste, anti-Manu sentiments, which led by numerous
social reformers, like Mahatma Phule and Dr. Ambedkar,
became a movement of national prominence. Both, Phule and
Ambedkar, hated the parasitic class of priests, landlords,
money lenders and capitalists and sought to organise their
victims; both emphasised the importance of education in the
scheme of the liberation of Dalits and backward classes and
castes. Mahatma Gandhi worked for the Dalits’ welfare in his
own way, describing them as the Harijans.
Ambedkar’s role in the Dalit movement cannot be denied.
He was a great scholar and his penetrating intellect carried
him anywhere, at all times ; he was, indeed, one of the great
Indians of the twentieth century. He viewed the Indian social
history as the glorification of the upper castes and
degradation of the lower castes and the lower strata of
society. He regarded caste system, untouchability etc. as an
artificial creation for vested interest. Throughout his life, he
fought to organise the Dalits; seek for them their rights; attain
for them their rightful place in the society. He wrote for the
Dalit cause, sought political concessions during the colonial
rule, organised the Independence Labour Party and, as the
chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Indian Constitution,
got numerous constitutional safeguards for the depressed
classes. His efforts did not go in vain in so far as he was able
to seek the Dalit identity and build a Dalit movement which
brought for the Dalits numerous legislations for the protection
and promotion of their interests. The National Commission on
the Scheduled Castes (NCSC), the National Commission on
the Scheduled Tribes (NCST) and for the National
Commission on the Backward Classes (NCBC), which
monitor the welfare activities of these classes, speak volumes
for Dr. Ambedkar’s efforts. There are political parties (from
the old Republican Party to the Bahujan Samaj Party) and
numerous political leaders, both from the Dalits and the non-
Dalits, who are working for the interests of the weaker
sections of society.
IV(a) (vi) Women’s Movements

The women’s movement in India is a important movement
which has taken different forms in different parts of the
country, though women, in general, display profound apathy
towards public life. Politics had kept women outside its ambit
for a greater part of the Indian history. In consequence,
politics has, to a great extent, been men’s affairs and women
confined to the four walls of the house, leading, thus, to their
subordinate status in the society. Public-private divide
remained significant during the ancient, medieval and early
modern period of the Indian history. Numerous socio-religious
movements led by Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Swami Dayanand
Saraswati, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and the like sought to
improve the status of women in the society. The English
colonial rule and its oppressive role on one hand and the
spread of the English education and culture on the other led
to the awakening of mass consciousness among the people,
women including. The national liberation struggle led by
Gandhi witnessed women’s participation. Sarojini Naidu
became the first woman President of the Indian National
Congress in 1925 before independence, Smt. Indira Gandhi
the first woman Prime Minister in 1966 and Smt. Pratibha
Patil, the first woman President of India in 2007, after
independence.
During the national struggle, women’s involvement was
quite visible. At the beginning of the twentieth century,
numerous Mahila Samitis came to be founded. Saroj Nalini
Datta (1913) in Bengal and Sarla Devi Chaudharian (1917)
sought to assert women’s independent identity while women’s
organisations such as Women’s Indian Association (WIA,
1917), and All India Women’s Conference (AIWC, 1917)
came to be formed at the national level. Under the leadership
of Gandhi, women participated in the non-cooperation
movement (1920-22), the civil obedience movement (1930-
34), the individual satyagraha (1940) and without Gandhi in
the Quit India movement (1942). Women wore Khadi, made
salt, picketed liquor and foreign-made product shops, faced
lathis and bullets and filled jails. Some women were
associated in revolutionary activities such as Kalpana Dutta,
Kanaklata Barua, Preetilata Wadekar in Chittagong Armoury
case. In Tebhaga movement (1946-50) and Telengana
movement (1946-51), women formed their respective
‘brigades’. On the Hindu Code Bill, women made their
presence felt.
During the first few years after independence, women’s
movements went into almost oblivion. The Mahila Samitis
became appendages to the government while AIWC lost its
unity and almost, in the process, faded. However, there was a
resurgence of women’s movement, especially relating to
gender identity and gender consciousness, after 1970 owing
to factors such as
i. Jayaprakash Narayana’s democratic movement,

ii. post-emergency upsurge favouring civil rights,
iii. the publication of the report of the Committee on the
Status of Women in India (CSWI).
The post-1970 women’s movements came to focus on the

autonomy of the women, gender justice, and women’s
identity. The post-1980s witnessed yet another phase of
women’s movement with emphasis on increased political and
organisational activities of women and is now focussed on
issues such as violence against women, especially Dalit
women, divorce, equal opportunity for work and equal wages
etc.
Women’s representation in the Parliament and state
legislatures has not been encouraging, though one-third
reservation at the local level has been constitutionally
guaranteed through the 73" and 74th amendments.
Numerous provisions of the Constitution provide safeguards
to women while numerous legislations guarantee them the
protection of their rights and interests. The National
Commission for Women (1992) and the National Policy for
the Empowerment of Women (2001) are certain steps
towards women’s welfare.
IV(a)(vii) Environmental Movements

Environmentalism, as a social movement, seeks to influence
the political process by lobbying, activism, and education so
as to protect natural resources and ecosystem. All the
environmentalist movements are centred around ecology,
health and human rights. The environmentalists, generally,
advocate the sustainable management of resources, and the
protection (and restoration, when necessary) of the natural
environment through changes in public policy and individual
behaviour. The environmentalist movements, in India, are the
movements of the people of various regions which seek to
protect, for the people, their environment, their livelihood and
their way of life. These movements have emerged from
Kerala, from Gujarat to Tripura. In the north, these
movements are launched by middle and upper class people
and hence called “full stomach” movements, while in the
south, they are being launched by hill peasants, tribal
communities, fisherman, and the unprivileged people, and
hence are called “empty-belly” movements.
The emergence of the environmentalist movements in India
can be attributed to numerous reasons. The control over
natural resources for purposes of economic development by
the state is one potent reason. The Chipko movement was an
example of controlling the forests whereas the Narmada
Bachao Andolan was an effort by the state to control water.
Industrialisation requires sources of energy and raw material.
The post-independent India was to be so geared that it could
develop industrially as quickly as possible and without looking
to the environment for natural resources, it would not have
been made possible. In the process of industrialisation and
socio-economic development, the state was forced to exploit
natural resources, leading thus to the emergence of
environmentalist movements by the people not only for the
purpose of protecting environment, but also to combat the
efforts of the government so to save their means of livelihood
as also their cultures. For most of the local tribal groups,
forests and lands constituted an integral part of their
traditional life style.
The well-known Chipko movement, literally means,
“hugging the tree” movement. The movement originated from
an incident in a remote village high up in the Himalayas in
1972. The basic facts of the incident are that there was a
dispute between local villagers and a logging contractor who
had been allowed to fell trees. On a particular day, there was
a meeting with concerned government officials in their office,
away from the village. When the villagers had gone to the
Officials’ office, the contractor's workers appeared in the forest
to cut the trees. Undettered the women of the Reni village
reached the forest quickly, clasped the tree trunks thus
preventing the workers from putting their axes and saws to
the trees. Thus thwarted, the workers had to withdraw and the
incident spread like wildfire across communities and the
media and forced the government, to whom the forest
belongs, to negotiate with the community, mostly women. The
women began setting up their committees in the region that
began articulating larger issues about eco-friendly
development, as a partnership between the community and
the government. Inspite of the usual ups and downs, the
movement under the leadership of Sunderlal Bahugana
continues today as a major environmental movement,
inspiring a large number of people in the country and the
world. The movement has articulated the concerns of forest-
based communities such as depletion of forests, erosion of
soil and consequent landslides, drying up of local streams
and other water resources and shortages of fuel and fodder
for domestic consumption. It has fought against the
construction of the Tehri Dam which threatened the eviction
of around 25,000 hill residents. Though, the movement has
not succeeded in all its endeavours it has achieved some
commendable victories. Getting a ban imposed on felling
trees above an altitude on 1,000 m and making the
government to announce certain forest areas as protected
regions are some of the successes of the movement.
The Appiko movement was a revolutionary movement
based on environmental conservation in India. The “Chipko
Andolan” (Hug the Tree Movement) in Uttarakhand in the
Himalayas inspired the villagers to the Uttara Kannada district
of Karnataka Province in Southern India to launch a similar
movement to save their forests. In September 1983, men,
women and children of Salkani “hugged the trees” in Kalase
forest. (The local term for “hugging” in Kannada is appiko).
Appiko Andolan gave birth to a new awareness all over
southern India. The emergence of the movement is: in 1950,
Uttara Kannada district forest covered more than 81 percent
of its geographical area. The government, declaring this
forest district a “backward” area, then initiated the process of
“development”. Three major industries—a pulp and paper
mill, a plywood factory and a chain of hydroelectric dams to
harness the rivers—came up. These industries have
overexploited the forest resource, and the dams have
submerged huge forest and agricultural areas. The forests
had shrunk to nearly 25 per cent of the district’s area by 1980.
The local population especially the poorest groups were
displaced by the dams. The conversion of the natural forests
into teak and eucalyptus plantations dried up water
resources, directly affecting forest dwellers. In nutshell, the
three major p’s-paper, plywood and power—which were
intended for the development of the people, have resulted in
a fourth P: poverty, and hence the appiko movement.
The Appiko movement is trying to save the forests of the
Western Ghats by spreading their roots all over Southern
India. The movement's objectives can be classified into three
major areas. First, the Appiko movement is struggling to save
the remaining tropical forests in the Western Ghats. Second,
it is making a modest attempt to restore the greenery to
denuded areas. Third, it is striving to propagate the idea of
rational utilisation in order to reduce the pressure on forest
resources. To save, to grow and to use rationally—popularly
known in Kannada as Ubsu (“Save”), Belesu (“grow”) and
Balasu (“rational use”) — is the movement's popular slogan.
Another important movement of the present times is
Narmada Bachao Anadolan Samiti. This movement, led by
Medha Patkar, has sensationalised the issue of building huge
dams as a solution to growing stress on water resources. This
movement is in opposition to the construction of nearly 3,000
major and minor dams across the river Narmada which would
submerge an estimated 3,50,000 hectares of forestland and
2,00,000 hectares of cultivated land. About one million people
are estimated to be affected by the project. Medha Patkar has
undertaken fasts several times and exposed numerous
deficiencies, especially the hardships being faced by the
affected people. Baba Amte, Arundhati Roy and actor Aamir
Khan have supported the movement. The Supreme Court’s
order to build the Sardar Sarovar Dam and other projects at
the Narmada river has lulled the Andolan’s activities , but it is
expected that the Andolan would create high-level awareness
about environmental issues and rehabilitation and relief
aspects of the people in the region.
The Silent Valley movement is known as “Save Silent
Valley” movement. The movement aims at protecting the
Silent Valley, an evergreen tropical forest in the Palakkad
district of Kerala. The movement started in 1973 to save the
Silent Valley Reserve Forest from being flooded by a
hydroelectric project. The valley was declared as Silent Valley
National Park in 1985. Activist poet Sugathakumari,
ornithologist Salim Ali, agriculturalist scientist Swaminathan
supported the “Save Silent Valley” movement. Some other
environmental movements include ‘Witti Bachao Andolan’,
‘Beej Bachao Andolan’ and ’Koel Karo’ Andolan.
Practice
Questions
1. Discuss the role of caste in Indian

politics. (700-800 words)
2. What are the provisions for
constitutional protection of the right to
freedom of religion and how have they
succeeding in promoting secularism in
India. (2014) (700-800 words)
3. Write a note on Ethnicity and
Democracy in India. (2014) (700-800
words)
4. Comment on the document ‘Towards
equality (1974). (2013) (200-250 word)
5. How do you describe the nature of
social movements in India? (200-250
words)
6. Give an account of the human rights
movements in India. (2014) (700-800
words)
7. Comment on the role of National
Commission for Women in India. (2012)
(700-800 words)
8. Discuss the impact of environmentalist
movements on government policies in
recent years. (2013) (700-800 words)
9. How have the peasants’ movements
been functioning in the country during
freedom struggle? (2014) (700-800
words)
10. State the role of the workers in the
national politics. (700-800 words)
11. Compare and contrast the Chipko
Movement with Narmada Bachao
Andolan. (2013) (200-250 words)
12. Explain the phenomenon of ethnic
politics in India in recent years. (200-250
”\
words)
U
Comparative Politics: Nature,
Approaches, Perspectives
C omparative politics is a systematic study of world’s

political systems and their comparisons. It seeks to
explain the differences and _ similarities among
numerous political systems, and in the process, it explores
the patterns, processes and regularities among them. It, thus,
looks for the trends and changes while, at the same time,
develops general proposition or hypotheses.
|. COMPARATIVE POLITICS
Simply stated, comparative politics is the comparative study
of numerous political systems. More specifically, comparative
politics involves: (a) a method of study, and (b) a subject of
study.
As a method of study, it premises on comparison; as a
subject of study, it focusses on understanding and explaining
political phenomena that takes place within a study, society,
country or political system. Defining comparative politics as a
method of a study based on comparison and a subject of
study based on the examination of political phenomena in a
political system, one may like to highlight certain points:
(a) comparative politics is primarily concerned with
internal or domestic dynamics, and hence has to be
distinguished from international politics;
(b) it is concerned with ‘political’ phenomena;
(c) its analysis has to be comparative: comparison
helps us understand concepts and events and
theories, for thinking without comparison is
unthinkable.
As Dogan and Pelassy (How to Compare Nations:
Strategies in Comparative Politics) say: “... Knowledge of the
self is gained through knowledge of others”. According to
them, “Nothing is more natural than to study people, ideas or
institutions in relation to other people, ideas or institutions.
We gain knowledge through reference .... We compare to
evaluate more objectively our situations as individuals, a
community or a nation.”
l(a) Meaning, Definitions and Nature

Comparative politics (see Gregory Mahler:Comparative
Politics) is a comparative study of politics. It is a search for
similarities and differences between and among political
phenomena, including political institutions (Such as
legislatures, political parties or pressure groups); political
behaviour (such as voting, demonstrating or reading political
pamphlets); or political ideas (such as_ Liberalism,
Conservatism or Marxis). Comparative politics is the study of
politics, with an explicitly comparative methodology in mind.
Gabriel Almond and Bingham Powell (Comparative Politics
Today) define comparative politics as “the study of political
systems, not as isolated cases but through generalizations
and comparisons.” Wiarda (Comparative Politics: Past and
Present) says, “Comparative politics involves the systematic
study and comparison of the world’s political systems. It
seeks to explain differences between, as well as similarities
among countries. In contrast to journalistic reporting on a
single country, comparative politics is comparatively
interested in exploring patterns, processes and regularities
among political systems.” According to Frank Wilson
(Concepts and Issues in Comparative Politics), “Comparative
politics involves both a subject of study - foreign countries-
and a method of study - comparison.” Ruth Lane (The Art of
Comparative Politics) says, “What is comparative politics? It
is two things, first, a world, second, a discipline. As a ‘world’,
comparative politics encompasses comparative _ political
behaviour and institutions in all parts of the earth .... The
‘discipline’ of comparative politics is a field of study that
desperately tries to keep up with, to encompass, to
understand, to explain, and perhaps, to influence the
fascinating and often riotous world of comparative politics.”
Some like Arend Lijphart (Comparative Politics and
Comparative Method) argues that comparative politics has a
methodological focus and does not have any substance,
saying that it focuses on “how but does not specify the what
of the analysis”. Unlike Lijphart, Peter Mair (Comparative
politics: An Overview) holds the view that comparative politics
may be defined by a combination of a substantive focus on
the study of countries; political systems and a method of
identifying and explaining similarities and differences between
these countries using common concepts. Comparative
politics, considered as a study of method, becomes more or
less a social science while in terms of its substantive
concerns, it becomes nothing more than political science, for
what we study in comparative politics, we study in politics. We
may, thus, say with Mair, “If comparative method is
distinctive, therefore, then, it is really only in terms of the
combination of substance and method, and to separate these
out from one another necessitates dissolving comparative
politics either into political science as a whole or into the
social sciences more generally.” The nature of comparative
politics may be described as:
1. Comparative politics is about comparing political
phenomena, political institutions, political ideas, political
behaviour;
2. Its emphasis is on both the method of enquiry, i.e.
comparison, and on the substance, i.e., political
phenomena and the like;
3. Its study extends to its relationship with other social
sciences which means, it is, in_ its nature,
interdisciplinary;
4. Its substance includes the subject matter, vocabulary
and perspective.
5. Its methodology is not confined to analysing political
phenomena but extends to examining, enquiring and
enlisting the patterns and trends of what concerns
politics;
6. Its study is both general as well as particular; by studying
the institutions of one country; it relates it to the larger
comparative framework; by studying particular region, it
covers what may be described as case studies;
7. Its enquiries touch almost the thematic concerns of the
larger discipline of political science.
8. By highlighting differences and similarities, comparative
politics seeks to discover and identify relationships
among numerous political systems.
I.(b) Comparative Politics: Recent Developments

Though the origins of comparative study of politics may be
traced to Aristotle (384-322 BC) who had studied over 150
constitutions of his times so to classify numerous regimes
both descriptively and normatively, the writers such as
Polybius (201-120 BC) and Cicero (106-43 BC) too described
states formally and in legalistic terms. The comparative study
resurfaced in the early modern period, especially in the
writings of Machiavelli (1469-1527). The interest in
comparative study of politics increased during the period
between the late nineteenth century and early twentieth
century. James Bryce (Modern Democracies, 1921), Herman
Finer (Theory and Practice of Modern Government, 1932)
gave significant readings of this period. Roberto Michels
(Political Parties, 1915), Carl Friedrich (Constitutional
Government and Democracy, 1937), Maurice Duverger
(Political Parties, 1950) were all concerned with the
comparative study of institutions as well as with the
relationship between the different organs of the government.
All such studies were confined to comparing the political
institutions as they existed in Europe and the methodology
adopted was historical, descriptive, normative, legalistically or
formally.
The Second World War and the period that followed
witnessed the end of European hegemony, rise of the United
States as a super power and the emergence of newly
independent nations of Asia and Africa. The development of
the behavioural revolution in the USA brought into focus the
quantitive, empirical, scientific, observational, positivistic
politics which was to be value-free and fact-laden, in-
disciplinary in approach and comparative in methodology.
The behaviouralists sought to study social reality by seeking
answers to questions like “why people behave politically as
they do, and why as a result, political processes and systems
function as they do”. It is these “why questions” regarding
differences in people’s behaviours and their implications for
political processes and political systems, which changed the
focus of comparative study from the legal-formal aspects of
institutions, to analytical studies. Thus, in 1955 Roy Macridis
criticised the existing comparative studies for privileging
formal institutions over non-formal political processes, for
being descriptive rather than analytical, and case study-
oriented rather than genuinely comparative (Roy Macridis,
The Study of Comparative Government, 1955). Harry
Eckstein points out that the changes in the nature and scope
of comparative politics in this period show a sensitivity
towards the changing world politics urging the need to
reconceptualise the notion of politics and develop paradigms
for large-scale comparisons (Harry Eckstein, “A Perspective
on Comparative Politics, Past and Present” in Harry Eckstein
and David Apter (eds.) Comparative Politics: A Reader,
1963). Gabriel Almond and his colleagues of the American
Social Science Research Councils Committee on
Comparative Politics (founded in 1954) sought to develop a
theory and a methodology which could encompass and
compare political systems of all kinds— primitive or
advanced, democratic or non-democratic, western or non
western. The notion of politics was broadened so as to lay
emphasis on “realism”; or on politics “in practice” as
distinguished from mere “legalism”. Thus included in its scope
is the functioning of less formally structured agencies,
behaviours and processes; e.g. political parties, interest
groups, elections, voting behaviour, attitudes, etc. (Gabriel
Almond, Political Development). Political system came to
replace the state, taking into account the ‘extra-legal’, ‘social’
and ‘cultural’ institutions which were crucial to the
understanding of non-western politics and had the added
advantage of including in its scope ‘pre-state’/’non-state’
societies as well as roles and offices which were not seen as
overtly connected with the state. Also, with the change of
emphasis to actual practices and functions of institutions, the
problems of research came to be defined not in terms of what
legal powers these institutions had, but what they actually did,
how they were related to one another, and what roles they
played in the making and execution of public policy. This led
to the emergence of structural-functionalism, in which certain
functions were described as being necessary to all societies,
and the execution and performance of these functions were
then compared across a variety of different formal and
informal structures (Peter Mair, Comparative Politics: An
Overview). By sixties, as Wiarda tells us, comparative politics
had come of age. This period saw the mushrooming of
universalistic models like Easton’s Political System, Deutsch’s
Social Mobilization and Shil’s Centre and Periphery. The
theories of modernisation by Apter, Rokkam, Eisenstadt and
Ward and the theory of political development by Almond,
Coleman, Pye and Verba also claimed universal relevance.
This period was heralded by the appearance of works like
Apter’s study on Ghana. Published in 1960, Politics of
Developing Areas by Almond and Coleman sharply defined
the character of the new “Comparative Politics Movement”.
The publication of a new journal in the US entitled
Comparative Politics in 1969 reflected the height of this trend.
“Developmentalism” was perhaps the dominant conceptual
paradigm of this time. To a considerable extend, the interest
of developmentalism emanated from US foreign policy
interests in “developing” countries, to counter the appeals of
Marxism-Leninism and steer them towards a non-communist
way to development. (Howard J. Wiarda, /s Comparative
Politics Dead?) During late 1960s, later 1970s, the European
concept of developmentalism came under attack by the
advocates of “dependency” theory (see Andre Gundre Frank,
Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America, 1967;
Walter Rodney, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, 1972;
Malcolm CaldWell The Wealth of Some Nations, 1979), the
“corporatist” approach (see Ronald Chilcote Theories of
Comparative Politics), leading to the interest in the developing
nations. The non-Western political systems caught the
attention of the scholars all over the world, especially the
issues relating to their economy, social structure, political
development. The 1980s and the 1990s witnessed a
wholesome changes—the fall of the socialist models,
disintegration of the socialist countries, “the end of ideology”
and “the end of history” phenomena followed by efforts at
liberalisation and globalisation. The world, now, found itself
amidst new concerns such as issues of identity, environment,
ethnicity, gender, race and the like; comparative politics had,
now, an enlarged agenda for political analysis.
I. (c) Comparative Politics: Utility

The usefulness of comparative politics can hardly be denied.
Comparative study makes our efforts relevant in so far as
they help enhance our understanding of political realities. We
compare political phenomena so to have a control over them
—it is comparative checking, leaving out what is not
important, and concentrating on important variables. We
compare to understand political phenomena—it is
comparative interpreting, through comparison, arriving at
understanding and building general theories. We compare to
explain political phenomena—it is comparative analyzing
through comparative study that we _ give _ theoretical
explanations. Comparison, in short, helps us understand
political phenomena better.
Comparison constitutes both reasoning and thinking. As
reasoning, comparison provides us a method and a tool
through which we think, ponder, analyze and give conclusion
to our explanation—comparison leads us to the formulation of
generalisation; when we compare facts and events relating to
the politics and government of numerous countries, we do not
just collect information, but we relate them in relation to one
another and after doing so, we are able to conclude and
generalise. These conclusions and generalisations, i.e.,
through comparative political analysis, provide us theory-
building and theory-testing. This is where the merit of
comparative politics lies; a comparative study ensures that all
generalisations are based on the observation of more than
one phenomenon or observation of relationship between
several phenomena. The broader the observed universe, the
greater is the confidence in statements about relationship and
sounder the theories. The comparative method gives these
theories scientific basis and rigour. Social scientists who
emphasise scientific precision, validity and reliability, see
comparisons as indispensable in the social sciences because
they offer the unique opportunity of “control” in the study of
social phenomena (Giovanni Sartori, “Compare, Why and
How” in Mattei Dogan and Ali Kazancigil (eds.), Comparing
Nations, Concepts, Strategies, Substance). Comparison is no
more identifying similarities and differences but is one that
helps deepen our understanding and broaden the levels of
answering and explaining political phenomena. Timothy Lim
(Doing Comparative Politics) gives us two advantages of
comparative politics:
i. comparative analysis is uniquely suited for dealing with

peculiar complexities of social phenomena, for it deals
with them as a whole;
ii. it allows the researcher to better understand or explain
the relationship between and among factors affecting
social phenomena.
ll. COMPARATIVE POLITICS: APPROACHES

There are, generally speaking, two broad approaches of
comparative politics: traditional and modern. The traditional
approaches are mostly legal-formal and historical-descriptive
while the modern approaches are scientific and analytical.
l(a) Comparative Politics: Traditional Approaches

The traditional approaches to comparative politics, as Harry
Eckstein (Perspective on Comparative Politics: Past and
Present) says, are (i) historical, (ii) formal-legal, (iii)
configurative, (iv) problem relating (v) the area approach, (vi)
the institutional-functional approach. These approaches may
be discussed briefly as follows:
(i) Historical Approach

The historical approach has been used by philosophers such
as Aristotle, Montesquieu, Hegel, Marx, Maine, Jenks and the
like. While making use of the historical approach, these
philosophers developed new _ opprinciples’ of _ political
significance. Hegel’s theory of history developed towards the
realisation of ultimate reality: “state is a march of God on
earth”. Marx gave us the materialistic interpretation of history.
The historical approach provided a new form of political
evolutionism. This is evident from Maine’s Ancient Law and
Early History of Institutions, Jenks’ A Short History of Politics,
and The State and the Nation. Eckstein writes: “.. early
political studies . constituted a tremendous important phase in
the development of comparative politics. Above all, they keep
comparative study itself alive in a period when it was
threatened from every direction.” The historical approach has
its limitations: we do not swim in the same wave in the same
river twice; history seldom repeats.
(ii) The Formal-legal Approach

The formal-legal approach to comparative politics has its
advocates in scholars such as Withelm Roscher, Theodore
Woolsey, Widrow Wilson, A.V. Dicey and the present-day
intellectuals such as G.M. Carter, John Herz, Harold Zink and
the like. These scholars lay emphasis on the study of purely
political institutions, texts of the constitutions and the bare
Acts of the legislature. Indeed, the formal structures do matter
in the understanding of politics, but the approach suffers from
the fact that it ignores the social, economic, cultural and other
factors which play an equally important role in understanding
comparative politics. Legal truth is quite often, not a political
truth: “the government of the United Kingdom is, in theory, an
absolute monarchy; in form, a constitutional limited monarchy;
and in actual character, a democratic republic.” This approach
lacks analytical thrust.
(iii) The Configurative Approach
The configurative approach has been employed by R.G.
Neumann (European and Comparative Government) Carter
and Herz (Major Foreign Powers) and Dragnich (Major
European Governments). According to this approach, the
scholars present the configurative description of a couple of
governments within one volume and describe them in
accordance with their features. Such a trend became popular
after the first world war, especially in Europe. This approach,
like the historical one, came under attack for being
descriptive, parochial and non-comparative. That is why the
approach is not regarded as a suitable one for comparative
method.
(iv) The Problem-related Approach

The problem-related approach to comparative politics takes
into account the study of certain problems as the basis of
comparison. The relationships between democracy and
economic planning, the decline of the importance of
legislature, the role of pressure groups and like are identified
as the basic units of study and the political phenomena are
accordingly understood. Such studies are confined to formal-
institutional structures only. Though such an approach
provides a departure from the strictly traditional approaches,
this approach remains formal and legalistic and hence suffers
from all those defects as are faced by formal-legal approach.
(v) The Area Approach

The area approach is yet another approach to comparative
politics. According to Roy Macridis (The Study of
Comparative Government), “an area is a cluster of countries
in which there is enough cultural uniformity to make the
comparative study of political-institutional variables between
them possible.” The approach became popular during the
cold war era when the super powers began to work on
developing societies in order to attract them. Indeed, the
approach did manage to study the socio-economic progress
of the third world nations — how does democracy work in
such countries? or how are the military regimes established in
the developing nations? Some examples of the area
approach are Scalapino’s Democracy and the Party
Movement in Pre-war Japan and Blacksten’s Peron’s
Argentina. The area approach has been subjected to criticism
relating to methodology.
(vi) The Institutional-Functional Approach

The institutional-functional approach is described as one of
the significant methods of comparative politics. The important
studies, with regard to this approach, relate to Herman Finer’s
Theory and Practice of Modern Government, Carl Friedrich’s
Constitutional Government and Democracy, Wheare’s
Legislatures, Duverger’s Political Parties. Comparing the
functions performed by different institutions are indeed,
important. But this approach suffers from being too formal
and too legalistic. Additionally, it does not take into account
informal institutions such as political parties while their role,
as we know, are so important in making and unmaking the
government.
Conclusion
The traditional approaches, as described here, have their
peculiar features. These approaches are mostly
(a) non-comparative;
(b) largely descriptive,
(c) mainly parochial,
(d) essentially static, and
(e) are monographical.
The traditional approaches have their limitations and it is
because of these limitations that they are subjected to
criticism. These approaches are primarily and _ basically
addressed to Western systems, treating non-western politics
as non-democratic and hence insignificant for any study. The
traditional approaches to comparative politics have been
excessively formalistic, laying emphasis on the study and
analysis of formal institutions and ignoring, in the process, the
role of social, economic and other factors. These traditional
approaches, in their nature, have been predominantly
descriptive and hence lacked explanatory and analytical
elements. The lack of scientism is another criticism of the
traditional approaches, nor is effort made in such approaches
to relate political phenomena to contextual elements.
The traditional approaches are found wanting in many
respects. Blind comparison does not help much: comparable
variables have to be cautiously identified; hypotheses have to
be formulated carefully; tools and techniques have to be
scientifically used and investigation has to be made
objectively.
ll. (b) Comparative Politics: Modern Approaches

With the period that followed the World War Il, the interest
and study relating to comparative politics grew at an
unprecedented rate. Comparative politics has attained
maturity and is, now, modern, and has, therefore, become
relatively more scientific, systematic, analytical and
interdisciplinary. Macridis and Brown (Comparative Politics:
Notes and Readings) write: “As science aspires to the
establishment of regular patterns of behaviour, such patterns
in social sciences can be discovered only by studying as
many systems as possible in the light of common analytical
categories.”
The modern approaches to comparative analysis are more
probing and systematic; in that they go behind the fagade of
political institutions, and seek to discover relations between
political systems. These modern approaches are:
i. the system analysis approach,

i. the structural-functional approach,
iii. the political developmental approach,
iv. modernisation approach,
v. Marxist-Leninist approach.
Some of these approaches are as follows:
Il(b)(i) The Systems Analysis Approach

Derived from the natural sciences (Ludwig von Bertallanfy),
the concept of “system” means “a set of elements standing in
interactions,” denoting, thus, a complete whole. It is more
than an aggregation of elements, elements interacting and
interdependent on one another.
The systems analysis helps interpret political phenomena in
a new way, one that is oriented towards a systematic
empirical analysis. It provides some basic concepts and
working models to enable us to build up certain hypotheses in
comparative study. it can be useful in collecting facts and
data so to establish uniformity in them. One of the derivatives
of the systems analysis approach is the input-output model
developed by David Easton (A System Analysis of Political
Life) and Gabriel Almond (with Coleman, The Politics of
Developing Areas). Input-output model regards political
system as a set of processes converting inputs into outputs in
a complete cyclic way, and in the process organising, and
codifying data.
(i) Easton’s Input-output Model

According to David Easton, inputs and outputs are the
essential functions of every political system. “Inputs” are
received in the form of demands and supports while “Outputs”
are produced in the form of authoritative decisions and
policies. The outputs enter the environment so to give rise to
new demands through the mechanism of feedback. The
systems analysis also explains the nature of exchanges and
transactions which take place between a political system and
its environment. What is important is the substance which this
approach provides by the process of accommodation.
Easton’s “demands” appear in several forms:
(a) demands for goods and services, demands for a
law to determine the maximum hours of work,
educational and recreational facilities;
(b) demands for conduct rules, public security, control
of prices, management of health and sanitation;
(c) demands for right to vote, to have a share in
political power, to form political parties;
(d) demands to be informed of the authoritative
decisions and policies.
His “supports” are categorised as
(a) physical support in the form of payment of taxes
and other dues,
(b) obedience to the laws,
(c) particularly support in the form of debates and
discussion,
(d) abiding the administrative order.
The outputs, as the authoritative allocation of values, come
up in the form of legislative decisions and policies; they are
the finished products produced from the raw materials of
‘demands’ and “supports”.
Easton’s input-output model has limited areas of operation
—the Western political system. It does not take into account
what may be called as “hypotheses” and “propositions”. His
model is too “broad” as well.
(ii) Almond’s Structural-Functional Model

Almond also talks about input-output. Almond’s input has four
variables:
(a) political socialisation and recruitment;
(b) interest articulation,
(c) interest aggregation,
(d) political communication.
His output has three variables:
(a) rule-making,
(b) rule-application,
(c) rule-adjudication.
Political socialisation is the process by which political
cultures are formed, maintained and changed. Recruitment as
an instrument of input refers to the officials’ definite roles
which they play in a political system. If a political system has
to work, every one in the system must play their role: proper
socialisation for a specific role is essential for the successful
working of the system. Demands of the people in a political
system, when set in motion, become their interests. The
process of demand making is called interest articulation. The
task of converting demands into major policy alternatives is
called interest aggregation. Political Communication is the
process through which interaction is made possible. These
communication processes help communicate aggregated
interests (demands) to the decision-makers whose decisions,
through laws and policies are made available to the people
with legislatures making rules, executives executing rules and
judiciaries adjudicating decisions.
Almond’s model is also known as. structural-functional
model. As compared to Easton’s model, Almond’s model is
relatively more understandable and can be applied to non-
Western systems as well.
Both the models, however, help us to understand the new
trends of empirical investigation in comparative politics. Both
have made the study of comparative government and politics
more meaningful and realistic. And yet, it is possible to see
deficiencies in both. Both the models are criticised for being
purely static, having in them the status-quoist trends. The
Marxists condemn the two approaches for being indifferent to
the conflictive elements playing their role in the political
system.
Il(c) The Political-Development Approach

The political development implies a progression toward a goal
by means of economic growth. Numerous political scientists
have sought to evolve a new approach to the study of politics
of the developing nations. Among them, the names of David
Apter, Coleman and Lucian Pye can be specially mentioned.
Political development is understood in numerous ways:
growth of modern bureaucracies, development of the sense
of nationhood, the advent of political parties, the expansion of
peoples’ participation, the capacity of the political system to
mobilise resources so to accomplish its objectives.
Stephen Wasby (Political Science:The Discipline and Its
Dimensions) refers to two conceptual models for the study of
political development:
(a) the continuum model,
(b) the stage model.
The continuum model tends to view the developmental
process in terms of a series of discrete variables, each
identified by a range of possible states that national entities
may be in at various times with respect to some specific
criterion. This type of conceptual model can be very useful for
those who see a functional relationship between social,
economic, psychological and _ political indicators of
modernisation. The stage model, though not very satisfying,
is relatively more stimulating as compared to the continuum
model. Such a model postulates three stages of development:
i. the traditional
ii. the transitional, and
iii. the modern.
The political development model does not take into account

extra-political factors in bringing change. The model does not
fit in every case, especially the Marxian theories which lay
emphasis on the concept of “class” rather on “state”.
The modern approaches to the study of comparative
politics, as discussed here, have certain features of their own.
These approaches lay emphasis on analytical and empirical
investigations. They take into account informal structures and
institutions in explaining the formal infrastructure. These
approaches work on developing nations and their problems
together with the processes which relate them. What is
important to note in these approaches is their emphasis on
interdisciplinary study. Scientific as these approaches are,
they are largely value-free. And yet, their shortcomings can
hardly be ignored. Too much scienticism robs from these
approaches all criteria of evaluation. Value-free research is
usually directionless and without any purpose. These
approaches do not learn from the past, nor do they look
towards future: nothing beyond present interests them.
lll. COMPARATIVE POLITICS: PERSPECTIVES

Comparative politics has a substance in so far as it reflects on
political phenomena; it has a method in so far as it compares
so to learn and learns so to compare; through comparison it
interprets, understands, explains, examines and analyses
political phenomena. Political phenomena is not what politics
makes out of it, for politics is one of the numerous factors
which go on to make it. Politics, like any other social science,
is what it influences other social sciences on the one hand,
and is influenced by other social sciences on the other. We
have to understand political phenomena through numerous
perspectives. For purposes of illustrations, we may discuss
perspectives such as of political economy and _ political
sociology.
Ill.(a) Comparative Politics: Political Economy

Perspective
Political Economy as social science, deals with any sub-field
of Political Science, including comparative politics and
economics as a_ unified subject—the study of the
interrelationships between political and economic processes.
The traditional meaning of the term political economy is that
branch of the art of government concerned with the
systematic inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of
nations, though it is, at present, used often and loosely to
describe political aspects of economic policy-making.
However, three broad traditions of political economy are
identified which have a bearing on Political Science,
Comparative Politics included. These are:
(a) the classical political economy tradition,
(b) the Marxian tradition,
(c) the tradition of political economies which uses
statistical and modeling techniques to _ test
hypotheses about the relationship between
government and economy.
The classical political economy tradition, developed from
the opening decades of the seventeenth century with
physiocrats and the Scottish Enlightenment philosophers
such as James Stewart (Principles of Political Economy,
1787), Adam Smith (The Wealth of Nations, 1776). Political
economy came to be established as the forerunner of modern
social science, highlighting the relationship between
commerce and liberty, concept of self-regulating market,
freeing trade from the onslaughts of the state, the satisfaction
of the self-interest making up the needs of the community.
Later, from William Petty to John Stuart Mill, David Ricardo
(1772-1823, Principles of Political Economy and Taxation),
the concerns of the classical economists were to identify the
social classes which matter in the society (the traders, the
manufacturers, the capitalists propertied, the labour), define
the economic relationships between these classes and from
then we discover the laws which regulate these relationships.
The classical political economy, while forming the basis for
liberation of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in the
West, featured a new outlook of society:
i. that civil society exists independent of the state;

ii. the domain of economy belongs to the society and the
individuals composing it;
iii. economic activities have to be free from state
interference, the /aissez faire state;
iv. society and economy constitute self-regulated
institutions;
v. trade and commerce lead to prosperity;
vi. commerce and liberty go together.
The twentieth century liberalism becomes libertarianism

and later the market liberalism, the neo-liberalism, freeing
market from the clutches of the state. Political economy
perspective attempts to view politics and its sub-field
comparative politics one where economy plays a definite role
in discovering the relations between/among different nations,
policy decisions becoming the basis of a nation’s politics and
trade and commerce constituting the globalisation ethos. It is
really difficult to understand the comparative functioning of
the states without comparing their economic activities: we
think, now, globally; our politics has an absolutely different
image in the wake of globalisation; economy and not politics
guides us in relations to each other. Understanding states in
terms of their political structures has taken a back seat in
comparative politics. The new right as propounded by
Reagan, Mrs. Thatcher, Manmohan Singh, has _ given
capitalism a new life, with state as minimal as possible, and
trade/commerce as free as feasible.
The Marxian economics, while condemning the classical
political economy, provides the totality of human relations
emanating from value, surplus value and class: people live in
classes and not in the nations, and politics emerges from a
specific materialistic relations: “the autonomy of the civil
society”, Marx once wrote, “is to be sought in political
economy”; saw in capitalism the dominance of the capitalists
over the working classes. He hoped, working class would
abolish this dominance in a communist society; a system
without classes and a system without state. Lenin found
imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism, the exploitation
of the industrially backward nations by the _ industrially
advanced ones, bringing in the process imperialisation and
deadly wars. Philosophers such as Frank (dependency
theory), Wallerstein (the world economy system), the former
propounding the extraction-appropriation theory and the latter
advocating the looting and plundering of colonies by
metropolitan countries, give comparative politics a new
orientation.
lll. (b) Comparative Politics: Political Sociology

Perspective
Political sociology is the study of power and the intersection
of personality, social structure and politics. It is
interdisciplinary in the sense that political science and
sociology intersect with each other. It uses comparative
history to analyse systems of government and economic
organisation so as to understand the politics of societies. By
comparing and analysing sociological data, there emerge
political trends and political patterns which help understand
politics of numerous countries in a better way. Political
sociology looks at how major social trends affect political
process while exploring how various social forces work
together to change political policies of numerous states. It
undertakes the study of political systems in their sociological
background and in doing it, political sociology touches the
realities of political processes. It studies societies in regard to
their levels of social development and the leadership in their
social background, for societies are rooted firmly in their
historical culture. To understand societies and their politics in
relation to one another requires an in-depth study of their
roots.
Political sociology perspective does not view politics in
isolation; it seeks to relate political processes with their
sociological roots so as to understand the political systems
clearly. Crick (In Defence of Politics) feels that politics
depends on some settled order. Dahl (Modern Political
Analysis) treats any persistent patterns of human relationship
as political which involves power, rule and authority. Bendix
(State and Society) is of the opinion that political sociologists
have their interest in locating socially, related political issues.
Andrew Effart (Perspectives in Political Sociology) thinks that
political sociology is concerned with the causes, patterns and
consequences of the distribution and processes of power and
authority. Branngart (edited Society and Politics) says that
political sociology seeks to study the social origins of politics,
the effects of politics on society and culture. Political
sociology seeks to explain the interaction between social and
political structures emphasises that politics is present in all
social relations, and that it influences sociology and is
influenced by sociology. Its perspective, in understanding
politics of numerous political systems, can hardly be ignored
or set aside. Since 1960s, under the influence of Seymour
Lipset and Stein Rokkan, the sub-discipline now
encompasses the comparative and historical study of political
systems and nation building. By analysing the role of political
institutions in social development, political sociology has
contributed to the comparative analysis of welfare systems, to
studies of the relationship between democracy and
industrialisation, and to charting the role of the state in the
creation of national identity.
IV. COMPARATIVE METHOD AND ITS

LIMITATIONS
The genesis of comparative method in political analysis can
be traced to Aristotle (384-322 BC) who for the first time
employed the comparative method by studying 158
constitutions of his times. His approach was systematic in so
far as
i. he had observed facts, and

ii. he had used the law of limitations, the law of diffusion
and the law of similar causes in order to explain
similarities and dissimilarities.
During the times of Polybius and Cicero in the Roman

period, attempts were made to use the comparative method
for better understanding of the functioning of political
systems. Machiavelli, during renaissance, followed the
comparative method in making the study of the numerous
political systems. Montesquieu (The Spirit of Laws) also
adopted the comparative method by comparing the English
and the French political systems while theorising on the
theory of separation of powers. During the eighteenth and the
nineteenth centuries, comparative method was used by
philosophers such as August Comte, Darwin, Bagehot. J.S.
Mill (Considerations on Representative Government, System
of Logic) worked on the comparative method by using inverse
deductive method. We see the use of comparative method in
Hegel and Marx as well. During the twentieth century,
scholars such as Samuel Beer (with Ulam, Patterns of
Government), Roy Macridis (The Study of Comparative
Government), Roberts (Comparative Politics Today) David
Easton (The Political System), Jean Blondel (An /ntroduction
to Comparative Government) and several others used and
refined the comparative method.
Comparative method, in comparative politics is used both
horizontally as well as vertically, covering, thus, the macro
and micro aspects of political system. In systematic
comparison, processes involved are:
(a) definition of conceptual units,
(b) classification,
(c) formation and testing of hypothesis.
Conceptual units have to be clearly defined to find
similarities and dissimilarities in various political systems.
“Classification” helps us in reaching broad conclusions about
political systems. Hypotheses and their testing constitute the
basis on which the whole task of analysis of the political
system is done.
The comparative study implies a methodological enquiry.
Macridis describes the following steps in any comparative
study:
(a) collection and description of facts on the basis of
carefully constructed and generally adhered to
classificatory schemes;
(b) discovery of uniformities and differences;
(c) formation of interrelationship between component
elements of the political processes and other social
phenomena in the form of tentative hypotheses;
(d) verification of such tentative hypotheses by
rigorous empirical observation for purposes of first
amplifying and ultimately verifying the original
hypotheses; and finally
(e) process of the acceptance of certain basic
propositions.
Comparative analysis is an important part of the study of
politics. It helps us in finding out the similarities and the
differences among various political systems. Without the
framework of comparison, it is difficult to understand how
good or bad a government is. Why are the pressure groups
strong or weak in the state? Why is that the parliamentary
government is working successfully in Great Britain and the
presidential system is doing well in the United States?
Comparative study helps us answer such questions.
Comparative study of political system performs three major
functions:
i. It explains variables in the light of analytical schemes

and develops in the process, a body of verified
knowledge;
ii. It apprises policy measures and identifies problem
areas and trends;
iii. It reaches a stage where production of the institutional
trends or processes is possible.
Through the application of the comparative method, we are
able to ascertain relevant categories under which a number of
phenomena can be classified and_ interrelated, which
interrelationships can be made with the help of certain basic
theoretical propositions. Comparative method helps us
understand institutional structures through which functions
are performed and values realised. It also gives us a better
knowledge of instruments which can be used for the
attainments of certain brand goals on which there is an
agreement. The techniques used in the analysis help us give
generalisations which can be tested empirically in the light of
hypotheses made, providing us the knowledge that can be
used to reach a stage where prediction of the trends and
processes may be made possible.
There are limitations with regard to comparative method in
comparative analysis. These, to specify briefly, are: (a) the
problems of information gathering; (b) range of variables, (c)
the interaction between the law and pattern of behaviour.
(a) With regard to the problem of information gathering,
it may be stated that in the cross-national analysis,
it is often difficult to get necessary information.
While it is possible to obtain almost all the
information from the open-democratic systems, it is
difficult to get information from closed and secretive
totalitarian regimes. The fact of the matter is that
the totalitarian states do give certain information
which they want to give, and the democratic
systems do not give certain information in the name
of ‘public interest’ if they so choose not to give
information. Real and serious difficulties arise in
collecting data where there is a lack of precise
items: when one does not know the definition of a
particular item, how can we seek or ask for the
information of such an item? In numerous
countries, there are unique offices such as the
office of the British Prime Minister, the office of the
American President. More we know about these
unique offices, we still feel that there is still more
we need to know about them. In such cases,
comparison remains inadequate if not faulty.
(b) Range of Variable is yet another limitation in any
comparative analysis. Single-variable ex-planation
is always limited, and has, usually, been discarded.
Likewise the Marxist explanations, simplified as
they are, are not universally accepted. Multivariate
analysis help solve the comparative problems
relating to measurement in a better way. But even
in the use of a range of variables, there may arise
the difficulty of ascribing them relative weightage.
(c) The Interconnection between norms, institutions
and behaviour, important as these are in any
political system, present the difficulty of connecting
each of them to the other within a political system
and different political systems. We have to bear in
mind that each political system varies from the
other and in each political system, norms and
values, emanating from their respective culture do
having a varying degree of relationship with the
constituted institutions in the background of the
ever-changing behaviour of the people concerned.
Lijphart refers to two principal limitations of the comparative
method: “many variables, small number of cases.” He says
that these two are closely interrelated. According to him, “The
former is common to virtually all social science research
regardless of the particular method applied to it; the latter is
peculiar to the comparative method and renders the problem
of handling variables more difficult to solve.” To minimise
many variables, with small number of cases, Lijphart
suggests:
i. increase the number of cases as much as possible,

ii. reduce the cases of analysis: if the cases cannot be
reduced, combine them;
iii. focus the comparative analysis on comparable cases;
iv. focus the comparative analysis on the key variables.
We have, thus, observed that the comparative method in

comparative politics does have its limitations: there are
difficulties arising from the nature of data in the background of
the paucity of information; there are difficulties arising from
the range of variables to be used in the study of political
systems, there are the difficulties of interconnecting norms,
institutions and behaviour. Models or theories, built in the
comparative method, have to take into account all such
difficulties. Despite the difficulties, it may not be concluded
that it is not possible to study comparative method or that no
general theory can ever be built in comparative politics.
Comparative method of comparative politics belongs to the
domain of a social science and accordingly, its ‘scienticism’
can not be as exact as of any other natural science.
Practice
Questions
1. What is comparative politics? Describe

its nature. (700-800 words)
or
“Examining political phenomena

through a process of cross-global
investigation has become _ the
fundamental function of comparative
politics” Discuss. (2012) (700-800
words)
2. Give an account of the evolution of
comparative study of politics, especially
in the recent times. (700-800 words)
3. Discuss the utility of comparative
politics. (200-250 words)
4. Give briefly the traditional approaches
to the study of comparative politics and
describe their features. (700-800 words)
5. What are the modern approaches to the
study of comparative politics and give
their features? (700-800 words)
6. Explain either Easton’s Input-Output
Model or Almond’s Structural-Functional
model of comparative politics. (700-800
words)
7. State the political economy perspective
of comparative politics. (700-800 words)
Or
Elucidate the transdisciplinary nature of

modern comparative politics. (2012)
(200-250 words)
8. Write a short note on the Marxian
perspective of comparative _ politics.
(200-250 words)
9. Explain the political sociology approach
VY
to comparative politics. (200-250 words)
A
10. What is comparative method of
comparative politics? State its
limitations. (700-800 words)
The State In Comparative
Perspectives
7 he state has remained and shall always remain an

important institution of the society. Accordingly, its
role, as before, would always remain important. In all
the times that the state has existed, ever since history has
known it, it has come to protect the life of the people and
promote their interests. The ancient state, either the one that
existed during the Greek and the Roman times of the earliest
period or in the Eastern societies, it has sought to provide
people ethically good life. The medieval state of Europe,
besides associating itself with the rank and status of royalty
and nobility, provided the norms of Christian values. The
modern liberal state of the early modern period sought to
build itself as a political organisation, protecting its own
identity as also the interests of its people.
The ancient Greeks saw in the polis (city-state) more than
the state: city, state, school, etc. The ancient Romans
described it “res public”, republic meaning a form of
administration and hence, less than the state. During the
medieval period, the word, “commonweal” or “commonwealth”
was substituted for the “state”. It was Machiavelli who was the
first to coin the word “state”. The Greeks, the liberals and the
Marxists do not make any distinction between the state and
government, the absolutists like Hegel regard the state higher
than the society and the fascists merge in it every institution
either inside it or outside it. The different philosophical notions
of the state keep providing different notions: the conservative
tradition, drawing largely on medievalism, maintains state as
embodying the mutual rights and obligations of a
hierarchically arranged social order. The liberal tradition
oscillates between characterising the state as a necessary
evil designed for defences against external enemies and for
protecting property and policing contracts in society, but
against which individual liberties and autonomous “civil
society” had to be protected; and seeing it as a human
community designed to develop the potential of the individual
in market society. In the socialist tradition, especially the
Marxian one, the state is thought of as the product of class
divisions in society. In the anarchist tradition, the state is
regarded as the source of inequality and enslavement.
I. THE STATE: THE TWENTIETH-CENTURY

NOTION
The twentieth century notion of the state, as it has developed
in the American West, loses its name and fame, both when
the Americans profess to describe the word “political system”
as against the word “state”. Arthur Bentley (The Process of
Government, 1908), denies the relevance of the concept of
state for political analysis. He had said that the government is
“the first, last and always an activity” in the shape of a
“process”. What Bentley had said was later religiously
followed by David Truman (The Governmental Process), Dahl
(Pluralist Democracy in the United States), Harold Lasswell
(with Kaplan, Power and Society) and David Easton (The
Political System). Truman felt that the “group interpretation of
the political process, inevitably must ignore greater unity
designed as ‘society’ or ‘state’ “, and that the institutions of
government are nothing else than “centres of interest-based
power”. Lasswell and Kaplan dissolve “such _ political
abstraction as ‘state’ and ‘sovereignty’ into concrete
interpersonal relationship of influence and control.” Easton,
emphatically, says that the political scientist should
scrupulously avoid the use of the term ‘state’ in view of its
confusion in its connotation in traditional political theory. He,
therefore, suggests that comparative political analysis should
focus attention not on the nature and role of the state but on
differentiation and classification of political systems in terms
of “the authoritative allocation of values for a given society as
influenced by the use and distribution of power.”
That the word “political system” is a better word than the
state only as it implies that political system, as a concept, is
broader than the concept state and accordingly includes in it
the state and other non-political organisations of the society
which not only are influenced by the state, but,
comprehensively, influence the state itself. The American
contribution, in this respect, is, indeed, commendable.
On the one side of the scale stood the liberal-democratic
notion of the state and the Marxian one, professing a limited
state so as to make market work out its activities and making
the state to work as the instrument of social and political
change. On the other side of the scale, there appeared,
though for a short period, absolute and authoritarian fascist
regimes in Italy, Japan, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Argentina,
attempting to take away the liberties of the people and giving
them a totalitarian system. The liberal-democratic and the
Marxian concepts of the state dominated the public affairs in
the Western and Eastern European societies while there
appeared the post-colonial states in the emerging newly
independent countries of Asia, Africa and the asserting South
American states.
The liberal-democratic tradition, as conceptualised by
philosophers such as Robert Dahl (A Preface of Democratic
Theory) and S.M. Lipset (Political Man) thought of the state
as necessary for the purpose of creating, defining and
enforcing the rules within which various socio-economic and
political forces operate. The liberal-democratic perspective
assumed
i. the pluralistic nature of the Western society where

economic forces are independent of its political ones,
and
ii. the structurally differentiationed political power whose
institutions, while functioning, are influenced by various
political parties and pressure groups.
Richard Sease (The State in the Western Europe),

therefore, says the political in Western Europe, is irreducible
to the economic and that there are economic and political
rights, roles and obligations which are separable both
institutionally and legally and that no attempt is made, in
Western Europe, to erode their distinction. The two
tendencies of the liberal-democratic state at work are: the
conservative-liberal, and the social-democratic. In the former
case, the state is facilitative (provides general framework,
resolves problems within the market economy) and is passive
so far as it does not force social changes. In the latter case,
the social-democratic state is reformative (reforms within the
market economy, and seeks gradual changes in the capitalist
mode of production).
The Marxist perspective of the state regards the state as a
class institution and an instrument of exploitation in the class
society, exploiting the non-possessing classes and
strengthening the possessive classes while in the transitional
socialist classless society, the state, in the form of the
dictatorship of the proletariat, abolishes class distinctions and
establishes socialism, leading to work as the instrument of
social, economic and political change. The Marxian notion of
the state is that the state, as a product of class society,
remains only as an instrument of class exploitation and
withers away as the society enters into its communist stage.
With the liberation of colonial world leading to emergence
of the new independent states in the second half of the
twentieth century, the world came to be divided into three
‘worlds’. According to S.E. Finer (Comparative Government),
contemporary states fall into three states:
(a) the liberal-democratic states, i.e., the capitalist
states,
(b) the totalitarian Marxian states, e.g., the socialist
states, and
(c) the third world states i.e., the states of Asia, Africa
and Latin American, possessing the fagade
democracy, the quasi-democracy and the military
regimes at least in most of them.
With the failure of the socialist model and the disintegration
of the USSR, in the closing years of the twentieth century, the
world came to be divided into two: developed nations on the
one hand and developing nations on the other.
Whatever the development of the state (though in most of
the East Asian societies, the state has attained enormous
economic development), it has attained certain trends over
the years. These trends are:
(a) the state has taken over additional numerous
functions for itself: education, health, housing,
labour;
(b) it has not only added to its functions, it has also
enhanced its powers and in the process, has
become more centralised;
(c) it has increased its intervention in varying degrees,
though with globalisation, and the process is on the
decline.
ll. THE CHANGING NATURE OF THE STATE IN THE

CAPITALIST ECONOMIES
The liberal-capitalist ideology is the product of the demand of
private system of accumulation that helps structure the public
conception about the state. As capitalism developed so
developed the role of the state. The first wave of capitalist
industrialisation, around the period of transformation from
semi-capitalist society to the emerging capitalistic order,
made accumulation its own mechanism of legitimation. The
rise of accumulation state was not as much committed to
laissez faire as to state’s active intervention so to provide
accumulation: defining the parameters of the emerging
capitalist society, preserving discipline among the workers,
providing subsidies to the emerging capitalists. Such a state
was a compromise between the authoritarian mercantile state
and a relatively flexible state of the industrial capitalist. The
harmonious state arose during the second phase of industrial
accumulation. During this phase, the state sought to
legitimise its position while declaring capitalism as an
instrument for the welfare of all social classes and seeking
least interference in the economic activities of the individual:
laissez faire came to be practised. With the capitalists
assuming political power, the state was now ready to expand
(i.e. expansionist state). The expansionist state sought for the
capitalists, during the later years of the nineteenth century,
unrestricted immigration, export of capital to the colonies,
spread of education and culture, Christianisation of the
people: imperialism had its roots so to look towards its future
of colonisation. The franchise state emerged during the early
decades of the twentieth century West when the working and
other social classes were assimilated into the political system,
basing its ideology on the pluralist dispersal of power. The
dual state, one with bureaucracy, military and police sought to
establish peace on the one hand, and on the other, the
electoral parliamentary apparatus, professing the democratic
values. The transnational state is the recent model of the
state in the capitalist economies, which gave rise to
multinational corporations (MNCs) _ and _ transnational
corporations (TNCs) that regard the whole world as their
market.
The rise of liberalism, with its capitalistic mode of
production, from John Locke to the Reagan-Thatchar
combine of the new right, has always advocated a limited role
of the state. The state, for the liberal-capitalists, has been a
means which exists for the individual moving between /aissez
faire to the minimal sort of institution. The welfare-capitalist-
liberals identified certain areas of the state as “domains not of
Caesar” (see Maclver, The Modern State). The capitalist
economy views politics with doubt and disdain: more of it
means less of individual - more functions of the state means
more laws of the state and more laws of the state means less
liberties of the individual. Liberalism is the political philosophy
of the propertied-capitalist class which wants economy, trade
and commerce free from the interference of the state: state
regulation of economy always tantamounts to restricting
individual's initiative, managing his own economic affairs.
Though, the liberal-capitalists separate the state from civil
society and regard the latter as more social and less coercive,
they want the state to work under the aegis of the society and
under its control. They also want for the state only its own
affairs, confined only to the protection of the people. They are
not statists like the Hegelians and the Burkeans, but they are
not the anarchists as well. Their state is always limited,
limited for certain ends, ends which are only politics-related,
security-related, law-order-related. Morals, culture, economy,
religion, ethos, literature and in short anything and everything
related to the development of human personality constitutes
an area out of bounds for the state.
The state in the capitalist society exists for the capitalists,
for the promotion of the business interests of the capitalists,
facilitating their activities so to help them accumulate as much
wealth as possible, gearing all institutions to support them,
and even using the state apparatus for their benefits. What is
more important to note is that it is not the capitalists who work
under the control of the state, but it is the state which works in
the interests of the capitalists: the state becomes an
instrument in the hands of the capitalists. The capitalist
economy exists independent of the state and makes the state
work up its rules and regulations to strengthen and promote
its own economy, capitalists manning the government itself.
Ralph Miliband (The State in the Capitalist Society) says
“Businessmen constitute, today, the largest simple
occupational group in cabinets of all capitalist countries.
Business predominance over other groups is found in the top
layers of bureaucracy and especially in the financial and
credit institutions of the state”. It may be noted that the state
elite in the capitalist societies is largely drawn from the upper
as well as the middle classes of the business community.”
Obviously, the state in the capitalist economy promotes the
capitalists in relation to the working and the labouring classes
whose interests are made subordinate to those of the
capitalists. The capitalist state safeguards the capitalist
values, the capitalist culture and the capitalist ethics. It is, in
short, government of the capitalists, by the capitalists, and for
the capitalists. The fascist and the Nazi states which arose
after the First World War in Italy and Germany or elsewhere
in Portugal, Spain or Argentina were, in character, capitalistic,
though the capitalist enterprise, in these countries, were
subject to state control in the corporate types of economy
they had adopted. Referring to Italy and Germany of the inter-
war period, Miliband observes, “the most telling fact of all
about the real nature of the fascist system is surely that, when
they came to an end, twenty years after Mussolini’s March on
Rome” and twelve years after Hitlers assumption of the
chancellorship, the economic and social structure of both
countries had not been significantly changed. The classes
which occupied the higher reaches of the economic and
social pyramid before the Fascists came to power were still
there and so was the capitalist system which sustained these
classes.” In short, the capitalists in the capitalist economies
are always powerful while the state, in such societies, is
always weak.
lll. THE CHANGING NATURE OF THE STATE IN

THE SOCIALIST ECONOMIES
The French poet, Paul Valery, once had said: “if the state is
strong, it will perish us; if it is weak, we will perish.” The latter
is true with regard to the capitalist economies in which the
state survives on the mercy of the capitalists because the
workers, the poor, the unemployed, the weak lead the life of
deprivation and degeneration. It is true in the former case
when the state, in the name of the workers and the peasants,
is strong through the rule of the dictatorship of the communist
party, is strong and wherein people live the life of slavery with
no freedom of either their life or the liberty of their person.
The strong state crushes us.
The socialist economies are those economies where there
is the social ownership of the means of production, production
is done through planning, resources are owned by the
society, social production is distributed equitably: everyone
has employment in accordance with one’s abilities; adequate
wages are available to everyone; where the labour is not only
respected but is also honoured. Such societies either replace
the capitalist societies through social ownership of all
enterprises or come up through revolutionary overthrow of the
capitalistic mode of production. Such economies were
established in the former USSR in 1917 and in the present
Peoples’ China in 1949. Where the socialist or the labour
political parties have come into power, there the governments
sought to control capitalism, if not abolish it, introduce social
legislation for the workers, peasants, and the poor, implement
economic plans so to help distribute national economic
equitably and bring about social and economic equality — all
through the state and through the democratic means. The
communist regimes are examples of socialist economies
through revolution and the non-Marxian socialist forms of
societies are example of socialism through evolution. In the
latter, non-Marxian socialist societies, capitalism is not
abolished, the state is not wholly controlled by the working
class only, all property does not become public property, no
single political party rules the country; rather the state,
instead of its possible withering away in any future, near or
remote, plays a significant role in the society which is largely
plural, and democratic. In the former, Marxian societies which
came up in the early decades of the twentieth century or after
the Second World War through capturing power with single
communist party are described as the Marxian socialist
economies.
Karl Marx (Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts and the
Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte) and Friedrich
Engels (The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the
State) had given an outline of the nature of the state in the
socialist society after abolishing the capitalist one. Engels
writes: “The proletariat seizes the state power and transforms
the means of production in the first instance into state power.
But in doing this, it puts an end to itself as the proletariat, it
puts an end to all class differences and class antagonisms, it
puts an end also to the state as a state.” But as capitalism is
abolished through the proletarian revolution, the dictatorship
of the proletariat comes into existence whose main task
would be first the establishment of socialism and thereafter
the eventual transformation of socialism into communism—is
classless and a_ stateless society, a society without
exploitation, and a society where the welfare of each would
mean the welfare of all and where the welfare of all would
mean the welfare of each. Marx (see Melotti: Marx and the
Third World) outlined the main features of a socialist state,
saying: “The standing army should be replaced by a people at
arms. Responsible councilors, mostly workers or recognized
representatives of the working class, should form an
assembly that would essentially be a labour body rather than
having purely legislative or decorative function, election would
be by universal suffrage and could be revoked at any time.
The police should be converted from being a component of
the central government into a responsible agency of the
assembly, deprived of any political assignments and liable to
suspension at any time. Every branch of administration
should be converted in a similar way. Public office should be
made really democratic, ceasing to be the private preserve of
the central government and its creatures and _ being
discharged at all levels by workers for a wage.” But as such
socialist societies were established in some of the Eastern
European countries after the World War Il, there did exist,
contrary to the propagated declarations, large standing
armies, single (communist) party rule, all socialised and
nationalised property, production through planning,
bureaucratic, military and party elite dominating all walks of
public life. Charles Bethlehem calls it the rule of “the state
bourgeoisie”. The characteristic features of the state in such
socialist economies can be briefly, summed up as under:
1. The power seized by the proletariat transforms the
capitalist ownership into social ownership: all property
becomes social property.
2. The proletarian power is consolidated into public power.
3. As all property is socially owned, production is planned
and there is hardly any powerful organisation outside the
state to pressure the production process. Hence, no
pressure groups in socialist economies, though different
sections of society advance their interests through the
Communist Party of the respective countries.
4. All production in the economy, both industrial and
agriculture, is done through state planning which works
from top to bottom.
5. The official communist ideology is the political ideology
that operates in the state.
6. Democratic centralism is followed in the party and in the
government: at all units, the officials are elected
periodically (so, democratic) but each lower unit follows
the dictates from the higher unit (so, centralism).
7. The multi-national character is culturally allowed but
politically, the character of the polity, is unitarian.
8. Participation is the rule in public life: in each election, the
voting turnout is over 98 per cent; control over the public
life is the privilege of hardly 5 per cent which constitutes
the political leadership.
9. Bureaucratisation is evident—both that of the party and
that of the professionalism.
10. The party elite and the state elite exist side by side,
though the state elite is eclipsed by the party elite.
The socialist states of the Marxian type did make massive
economic and scientific and technological developments in
their respective societies. But such systems had to yield to
pressures of liberalisation as times passed on. There had
been liberalising tendencies during the times of Khrushchev,
and Brezhnev in the USSR as also during the regime of
Mikhail Gorbachev with his policies of glasnost (openness)
and perestroika (restructuring of the polity). The disintegration
of the USSR and the socialist model were not so much the
failure of socialism and ideology as was the failure of the
monolithic communist leadership. The unification of two parts
of Germany (1989) and the failure of the Communist regime
in other parts of the Eastern Europe (Poland, Czechoslovakia,
Rumania, Yugoslavia and the like) can also be attributed to
the strong state as expressed by the dictatorship of the
Communist Party in each of these countries. In People’s
China, reforms done during and after the days of Deng
Xiaoping, either economic, social, political or in the party,
there exists official Marxian-socialist ideology, with ample
scope of liberalisation.
The development of the concept of the state in the socialist
economies, with the passage of times, becomes nothing more
than a state of the capitalist type where “left” or “right” does
not matter but what matters is the “state” itself. The one-time
opponents of the state because then it was a “bourgeois”
state becomes, after it comes in the hands of the Communist
Party in the name of the proletariat, a good state. There is all
admiration of the state; no matter if the proletarian state as
dominated by the communists crushes liberties of the people.
That was the kind of state that appeared in the communist
regimes, at least in the initial years of the seizure of the
power. Liberalisation in economy is always more satisfying
than the imposed rules and regulations. The state officials
who command economy in the socialist societies are only
party’s committed members and not economic experts and
they realize the virtues of “market” economy very late in life.
The communist regimes, either in the former USSR or of the
present-day China introduced market norms as soon as they
realised. The fallacy of their economic planning provided
them to think afresh. The “civil society” element of the
socialist economies could not keep itself indifferent and
became assertive which led to the disintegration in one
country (the former USSR) and massive liberalization
measures in other countries, Peoples’ China especially.
IV. NATURE AND ROLE OF THE STATE IN
ADVANCED INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES
The relatively advanced industrial societies are those
countries which have a high level of development with fairly a
high per capita income together with a high gross domestic
product. Countries where tertiary and quarternary sectors of
industry dominate are also described as developed nations.
The Human Development Index combines in an advanced
industrial society three high rating of measures: national
income, indices of life expectancy and education. Such
countries are usually referred to more economically
developed countries. Kofi Annan defined an advanced
industrial state as “one that allows all its citizens to enjoy a
free and healthy life in a safe environment’. The United
Nations notes, “In common practice, Japan in Asia, Canada
and the United States in northern America, Australia and New
Zealand in Oceania and Europe are considered as
‘developed’ regions or areas.” The International Monetary
Fund (IMF) identifies 33 advanced countries while the
developed countries club has 30 members and the World
Bank talks of 66 developed nations.
With the advanced socialist states gone from the map of
the world, there are now advanced industrial societies,
included among them are states such as Iceland, Norway,
Canada, Australia, Sweden, Japan, France, Denmark, the
United States, Spain, Italy, New Zealand, United Kingdom,
Germany, Israel, South Korea, Singapore. These nations
maintain, among other things, the capitalist mode of
production based on private ownership of property and a free
market, capitalistic economy based on_ the _ individual
entrepreneurial initiative, limited central planning (generally in
social welfare sectors), a tendency towards monopolistic
control of finance and industries with a phenomenal growth of
corporate wealth, emphasis on consumer goods production
and services. The state regulates economy in a general way
but is always guided by the relics of the market forces so to
keep up internal balance. What a state in usually such
societies does is that it encourages voluntary savings by the
individuals, through of course a liberal tax system, thus
makes no attempt to restrict private investment. All decisions
relating to economy are taken by “business, banks, credits
and capital markets,” leaving for the state only to maintain
stable currencies. The state does what the capitalists want it
to do. Agriculture remains five to twenty percent of GNP while
the industrial level of development is usually kept high.
Consumption is encouraged through advertisements and the
standard of living remains quite high, labour unions are strong
and are highly organised; they keep agitating for economic
demands within the framework of the capitalist society.
The role of the state, during 1940s and 1950s, as a welfare
institution with enormous tasks to perform, declined, for what
the state was doing more and more came to doing less and
less well. Accordingly, the core activities of the state suffered
and people came to justify crime on the basis of social
conditions. As a result, the state in the advanced developed
societies came to rediscover the role of the market: public
enterprises were privatised, trade restrictions were reduced or
removed, so were reduced the credit and interest rates.
Economy became free from the state and that led to
government spending less, regulations becoming less
stringent, and guarantees becoming more assured.
The state, in the advanced developed societies, came to be
considered unnecessary, if not useless, because the state
could do what the private sector did better; came to be
thought of ineffective because anything the state does, the
private sector could not only do, but could also undo as well;
came to give benefits to some groups, often less deserving
while the private sector would bestow benefits to those who
really deserved.
The state, in the developed societies, is most minimal in the
economic field, minimal in the social field and less minimal in
the political field. It is to establish law and order, provide
protection and security, maintain justice and give services of
transport and communication, whether the political system is
parliamentary as in Britain, presidential as in the United
States or semi-parliamentary and semi-presidential as in the
France or Germany. In the social field, the role of the state is
to maintain unity, preserve diversities and _ eliminate
discrimination. In the economic field, the job of the state is to
protect the private property system, encourage economic
initiatives, make trade and commerce as free and open as
possible, promote competition, establish justice, introduce as
many enterprises as possible, keep market rule the individual
and the society.
It is in the interest of the advanced developed societies to
maintain the democratic set up in the state, for democratic
polity alone can ensure people liberties and freedom, a
system of civil, economic, and political rights, an open
system. It is the democratic polity which can provide them a
legislature where they can express themselves, an executive
which can be accountable to them, and a judiciary which can
provide them justice. It is democratic polity which can keep
the military at a distance, for the centres of actual power, in
democracies, are dispersed, the navy always floating, the air
force always in the air and the military in the billets. The
advanced industrial societies are always controlled by the
capitalists, middle-classes always aspiring to become the
capitalists while the lower classes, mostly workers and the
labour, seeking economic benefits which are usually available
at the asking. The state, in the advanced industrial societies,
has to maintain stability and discipline.
V. NATURE AND ROLE OF THE STATE IN THE

DEVELOPING SOCIETIES
Karl Marx once well said: “The country that is more developed
industrially only shows to the less developed the image of its
own future.” The developing societies, once called the third
world nations, are those societies which have low standard of
democratic government, low level of industrialisation and
consequently low social progress. Usually called
underdeveloped world, the developing nations are not equally
underdeveloped: the level of development usually varies.
Some of the developing nations, or the third world nations
as they are called, are those countries which, at one point of
time, in the past, were once colonies of numerous Western
nations which exploited them, both economically and
politically. Almost all the developing countries of Asia, Africa
and Latin America are backward, and all of them, without
exception, seek modernisation and development.
In the developing world, the formal state systems are
almost everywhere republican in character, while their rea/
political systems are nearly always authoritarian. They are
neither monarchies nor total dictatorships. They have
constitutions but their constitutionalism is at the mercy of the
dynamic leader of the single or dominant party. They have a
higher political elite often controlled by an even more
conservative military elite. They have neither developed
parliamentary system nor the kind of stable and competitive
political parties as are found in developed capitalists’ states.
Where parliamentary regimes have been permitted to exist,
they have become a conservative force which has served to
fragment the political power of progressive social groups.
Parliamentary or presidential rule is often established in some
Latin American countries which have achieved formal
independence much earlier than their Asian or African
counterparts. Here, as elsewhere, the rural and working
masses have been systematically excluded from effective
participation either through denial of suffrage or through
electoral frauds of various kinds. In such circumstances, the
legislature becomes the stage for the property-owning class.
In Africa and Asia, some developing states have avoided
this situation by abandoning the multi-party system. Thus, in
Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, Kenya, Tanzania and
Guinea, there has been the gradual erosion of parliamentary
norms in the name of mass participation. Irving Horowitz
(Three Worlds of Development) observes: “The parliament
has become an upper-class forum, while the president has
become the hope of the masses. This struggle is simply
another way of describing the differences between formal and
real political systems in emerging nations.” In a developing
society, the national state is often identified in the minds of
the people with the nationalist party which led the struggle for
independence. Hence, the Congress Party, despite its
amorphous structure, has been able to retain monopolistic
control of state power in India with just a brief interruption.
This is even truer regarding the PRI which has been ruling
Mexico since 1911 without interruption.
Thus, even in those states which are identified with
Western liberal values, parliamentary systems are more
formal than real. To achieve even a minimum rate of growth
or to enter the “take-off stage, the state in a developing
society must undertake central planning. The politics of
planning necessitates an authoritarian state structure, not
particularly concerned with the observance of parliamentary
norms. A parliament is a forum of conflicting interests and
contrasting opinions. As such, it is deemed incapable of
serving the whole people. Military dictators, taking advantage
of parliamentary rifts, proclaim their authoritarian rule and
abrogate the constitutions as in some of the Asian and
African nations.
The state plays a major role in directing and regulating
economic development in practically all developing countries.
It generally promotes a mixed economy with both private and
public sectors. While in Brazil and India (until 1990), public
sector accounted for less than 25 per cent of the economy, it
accounted for 7 per cent share in the national economies of
Algeria and Egypt. Economic policies of the state in the
developing societies work for development and modernisation
in economic terms and social and political integration so to
protect their national sovereignty.
Although, the typical economy in the developing societies is
based on the peasant sector and basic economic production
is agricultural, the state policy stresses industrial
development. The state desires contraction of the primary
sector. It promotes mechanisation of agriculture either on
cooperative or capitalist basis. The quality and efficiency of
state planning decides whether a successful shift from a
predominantly agrarian economy to an industrialised society
is possible or not. The state tries to control growth in
consumerism by following inflationary policies. In planning,
the state relies on finances, which are limited and variable. So
the state depends on foreign aid, credits and investment. The
state makes an attempt to control imbalances in the economy
through governmental regulation. The desire of the private
sector to maximise its short-run profits vitiates the effects of
long-run public sector planning. Frequent strikes by radical
labour unions also affect production. Growth rates may be
high in percentage but not in terms of per capita production.
At times, the private sector fails while at another; the public
sector does not cooperate.
In addition to its role in economy, the state, in developing
societies, takes upon itself the task of modernising social and
welfare activities. The state seeks to promote mass literacy
as well as technical and scientific education with planning to
integrate industrial needs into educational programmes.
Despite lack of funds, the state facilitates the growth of mass
media but tries to enforce conformity in opinions. High
birthrate and a declining death rate creates the problems of
rising population of depressing consumption rates which are
already very low. The state tries but faces difficulties in
promoting birth-control policies. Islamic, Catholic, Buddhist
and Hindu ideologies resist policies of birth control and other
modernisation programmes of the ruling elites in developing
countries.
Despite the fact that most of the developing nations follow a
non-alignment foreign policy, the states in such societies
develop a strong military establishment. The basic feature of
the military elite in developing country is its politicisation. The
military elite soon becomes a rival to the political-bureaucratic
elite as a formulator and executor of political decisions at
state level. Horowitz says, “The ‘new nations’ witness the rise
of military politics, either as a prime mark of sovereignty or
directly, as the ruling political group.”
The state in developing societies makes use of Rousseau-
style “mass democracy” legitimated through “high articulated
and politically grounded ideology of nationalism and
socialism” with charismatic leadership. The political idiom is
radical and socialist with considerable variation, polycentric
rather than monolithic, deriving inspiration from Islam,
Christianity, Gandhism or half-backed Marxism. The state
promotes centralisation and aims at maximum control and
suppression of conflict groups without distinguishing between
“policy-makers and policy-im-plementers.” It may fail to
achieve this objective due to low level of party discipline and
lack of efficiency on the part of the bureaucrats. Except in
revolutionary situations, the state in the developing countries
formulates its policies by adjusting the interests of a
modernising bourgeoisie with those of a_ conservative,
traditional land-owning class.
The developing countries do not remain developing nations
forever. They keep marching ahead. India is, for example, on
its way towards a developed state. For attaining benefits of
globalisation, India has adopted _ liberalisation and
privatisation policies.
VI. DEVELOPED AND DEVELOPING NATIONS: A

COMPARISON
Gabrielle Watson (UNDP, Human Development Report 1996-
97) as updated by Tito Bianchi, compares the developed and
developing nations in criteria given below:
Table 30.1 Comparison of Nations
COUNTRIES
Least All Industrial

Developed Developing
General
Development
Indicators
Real GDP per 965 2,904 15,986

capita in US$
Life Expectancy 51 61.5 74.3

at Birth
Adult Literacy 48.1 69.7 98.5

Rate (%)
Infant 110 70 13
Mortality/1000
births
Table 30.2 Contribution of Economic Sectors
COUNTRIES

Rural population 79 64 27
as a % of total
Access to
Health Services
Urban Areas -
Rural Areas 76
Access to Safe
Water
Urban Areas 65 87
Rural Areas 48 60 85
Access to
Sanitation
Urban Areas 61 72
Rural Areas 24 20
Percentage of 74 61 10
labour force in
agriculture
Table 30.3 Urban-Rural Comparison
COUNTRIES

Agriculture as 37 15
% of GDP
Industry as % 19 36 35
of GDP
Services as % 44 50 62
of GDP
Table 30.4 Wealth, Poverty and their Distribution
COUNTRIES

% of Pop. below 40 16 (no

poverty line 55 18 figures)
Urban Rural (no
figures)
Ratio of GDP 8.06 6.7

per capita of
20%
richest/20%
poorest
Regional figures
for the same
ratio
L. America & South Asia S.E. Asia & North

the Caribbean Pacific America
18.6 4.8 6.6 8.7

Thus, the world we live is a divided one: the northern
hemisphere nations are, generally, but are fairly developed
while the countries of the southern hemisphere are generally,
the developing ones. The developed nations have all the
comforts of the world and the developing nations, only
backwardness and poverty. The developed countries have
relatively less problems than those faced by the developing
nations. In the developed world, the population living
standards are higher. People have jobs and stable income.
That is why basic survival needs such as food, housing,
education and health care are solved. Such problems do exist
in the developing world. While the efforts to attending the
ecological issues are important in the developed world, the
developing nations have the additional social and economic
problems to attend to. We may note that the developing
nations remained mixed in economic crisis as the disparities
between the North and the South became increasingly
pronounced. The gap between the rich and poor has doubled
in the past 30 years, so that we now live in a world in which
20 per cent of its people consume more than 80 per cent of
its wealth. During the 1980s, per capita incomes fell in many
developing countries; in sub-Saharan Africa, for example, per
capita income dropped 25 per cent from levels that were
already severely depressed. Poverty, famine and disease
remain widespread. Ironically, the changes in Eastern Europe
and the former Soviet Union have exacerbated the problem,
as the developing world is now competing with this region for
scarce Western aid.
The international community often blames the developing
countries themselves for their own failed development. They
suggest that these governments should spend less on the
military and inefficient government enterprises and more on
structural adjustment programmes and priority areas of
human development such as basic health care and primary
education. But clearly there is a critical international
dimension to development. The developing world countries
cannot reverse the current trend on their own; in an
increasingly inter-dependent world, they need the assistance
of the industrial North, who had been, in fact, responsible for
the backwardness of the developing nations. The developed
nations should, of necessity, help the developing nations
overcome their backwardness.
Development is not merely economic, it is political as well.
The developed nations have a considerable measure of
democratic norms ascribed to their society: faith in democratic
values, respect for human rights, political accountability,
peoples’ active participation in politics, observing rule of law,
transparency in the exercise of powers. These values,
missing in the developing nations, need to be imbibed in the
society if development has to be attained. Developing nations
have to learn political culture through political socialisation if
political development has to be attained. While the
democratic experience of the developed world is fairly long,
that of the developing nations is almost negligible. One need
not teach the lessons of social and political citizenship to the
people living in the developed societies while such a
curriculum has to be a part of elementary education in the
developing world. Illiteracy, poverty, backwardness are lot of
the underdeveloped world, such problems exist scarcely and
have almost no affect on the developed societies.
Indeed, the state is no more a collectivist state in both the
developed and the developing nations. The traditional role of
the state in providing welfare facilities such as education,
defence, maintenance of order and as engine of economic
growth is being regarded secondary, for most of these
activities are being taken over by the private and philanthropic
organisations. The globalisation has expanded _ the
government role, in both the developed and developing
nations, into areas such as playing a pivotal role in economic
integration, financial capital flows and productivity growth.
Economics has become a powerful task today, facilitating the
economic activities in the developing nations. The
government plays, now, the role of facilitator for individual
entrepreneurship. Private sector is being encouraged and the
welfare state concept is becoming a non-viable proposition.
The state is no more a means to create wealth but has
become or is becoming an instrument not to waste it. People
are demanding more information to make their own decisions,
freedom to be entrepreneurs and access to quality products
and services at the lowest prices. Tariffs, in the developing
nations are used for revenue purposes and not for the
protection of domestic producers as in the case of advanced
industrial economies.
Privatisation, together, with liberalisation, in the
globalisation era is the mantra in both the developed and the
developing nations. It improves efficiency and what is more is
the fact that the state thinks that the private sector can be a
better instrument for economic growth than the government
itself, particular when the proceeds from privatisation are
reinvested in the infrastructure in the form of
telecommunication and power. The example of Malaysia is
one that can be stated here. The privatization, in Malaysia,
energised the private sector during the 1990s and moved the
economy from a public deficit of 21.8 per cent of the GDP in
1983 into a surplus of 6.5 per cent in 1997. It decreased, to
take the case of Malaysia again, government spending in the
economic sector and increased its spending on the social
sector from 20.6 per cent in 1983 to 31.6 per cent by 1997.
Government can be a promoter or inhibitor of civil society.
Civil society can be described as the network of
organisations, associations and citizens that are not subject
to the state influence or marketplace but may be based on
similar interests, religion, professions or a given ideology.
These civil societies may have global interests such as
concern for the environment, micro-credit, human rights and
peace.
The state, market and civil societies need an integrated
approach in dealing with development and not a hierarchical
or separate approach to development. Civil society is very
weak in most developing countries. Transparency, integrity,
accountability (financial, political and administrative), access
to information, enforceable codes of ethics and the media in a
proactive role are essential elements of a successful public,
private and civil social organisation in a democratic society.
Civil societies, labour unions, universities, professional
associations, religious communities, and non-governmental
organisations can be more effective in solving issues that the
state used to believe were completely within its domain, such
as the social and economic problems facing society. These
civil societies can contribute volunteers, ideas and financial
resources to solve social and economic problems.
Government needs to improve the relationship between
citizens and their civil servants by making sure that the public
institutions work for all without favouring the rich and
influential at the expense of the poor. Government can be an
instrument to promote peaceful coexistence, which is an
essential ingredient for economic growth.
The government in the new era of globalisation acts as a
coordinator for negotiation and decision-making by different
governments, regions, occupations, and governmental
organisations. Also, governments establish social safety nets,
democratic institutions, maintain justice departments to
mediate conflicts, protect the weakest groups of society such
as the women, elderly, the sick, children, and minorities, and
ensure that the benefits of globalisation are fairly distributed
across different groups of society, reducing the negative
impact of globalisation on a given segment of society and
establishing a fair tax system, safety nets in the form of
programmes for the unemployed, the poor, health, education
to combat poverty and invest in human capital and public
infrastructure.
In the developed societies, the role of the state is to protect
economic interests of the big business without damaging the
economies of the developing nations. It must facilitate supply
of goods, encourage competitiveness and keep making
innovations in new arenas of economy.
Globalisation, changing technology, spread of knowledge,
and freer financial capital mobility require the state to rethink
its role in order to improve the welfare of its citizens. In order
for the state to be relevant, it needs to promote the production
of goods and services that have the competitive advantage,
provide better infrastructure, and encourage more
participation in the decision-making.
Vil. AWORD ABOUT THE MINIMAL STATE

The minimal state, by its nature is not a welfare state. It is a
neolibertarian state, a state that stands to protect the natural
rights, liberty of the individual and the protection of his
freedom. The best and appropriate reason for minimal state
was provided by Locke, who viewed human life as a gift from
God and had reasoned that the creator of human life gives
each person the right to use force to defend his life, a right to
the product of his labour, a right to defend his possessions
and a right to use his life as he desires in the interest of
efficiency, men transferred to government the right to use
force in their own self defence.
Freedom or liberty being a natural trait of the individual, is
the natural condition of the individual. Each person birth, think
the later neoliberals /neo-libertarian, has the ability to think his
own way and thinking and control his own energies to act
according to those thoughts. Men are free to initiate purposive
action when they are free in their efforts from man made
restraints; when there is an absence of coercion by other
individuals, groups of people, or the government. Freedom is
not the ability to get what we want. It means the absence of
coercion constaints but it does not mean the absence of all
restraints. It follows that freedom is a necessary condition but
not a sufficient condition for one’s happiness. If individuals
are to remain free there must be a legal system with the
power to punish the violation of that freedom. Self-defence, a
negative right, is the right of every person to defend his own
life, liberty or property. It follows that the powers of the state
are logically limited to the nature of the rights of the
individuals who transferred them to the state. The idea of a
minimal state is thus based on a clear understanding of
human nature, natural rights, and the requirements of reality.
Equality before the law (i.e. political equality) is derived from
the nature of the human person. However, since people are
unequal in intellegence, motivation, ability, physical attributes,
etc., the result in a free society will be different incomes,
amounts of wealth, achievements, social statuses, etc.
Inequality and diversity are intrinsic to the natural human
order. Benevolence, compassion, charity and virtue can only
exist in a social system that recognises that people are free
and unequal. The good of the individual is inextricably
connected with the common good of the political community.
It follows that the common good of the political community is
procedural in nature and involves the protection of each
man’s natural right to liberty through which he can freely
pursue additional actions, self-actualise, and pursue his own
vision of the common good of the human community. The
common good of the political community thus involves a set
of social and legal conditions based on a person’s natural
rights.
Practice
Questions
1. Discuss briefly the role of the State in

the twentieth century. (700-800 words)
2. Explain the changing nature of the state
in the capitalist economies. (700-800
words)
3. Discuss the changing role of the state in
the socialist economies. (700-800
words)
4. Describe the characteristic features of
the socialist economies. (200-250
words)
5. What is the nature and role of the state
in the advanced industrial societies?
(700-800 words)
6. State the nature and role of the state in
the developing societies. (700-800
words)
7. Compare the developed and developing
nations in matters’ relating to
development and economy. (200-250
words)
8. What is the role of the state in the
globalisation era? (700-800 words)
9. Examine major principles of state
centric world views. (2013) (700-800
words)
fA
)\)
10. “A minimal state ensures maximum
individual liberty.” (2013) (700-800
words)
Representation, Participation,
Party Systems, Pressure Groups,
Social Movements
[) emocracy, as a political system, is far better than any

other form of government. It is democracy that helps
represent all sections of society and all possible
interests which make up the society itself: no other form of
government ever represents all groups of people and
interests. It is, again, through democracy that participation of
the people is made possible. Indeed, democracy is a difficult
form of government and unless there are political parties in
the society, there can be no democratic system that can
function effectively. Though, political parties are evil in so far
as they put the social and national interest secondary to the
party’s interest, but it is through political parties that
democracies work. Political parties, in their zeal to capture
political power, make adjustments and compromises with
numerous institutions and organisations, pressure groups in
particular. Lest the state becomes an instrument in the hands
of political parties, and lest political parties become tools in
the hands of the pressure groups; it is important that the civil
society, expressed through numerous non-political institutions
and movements rise to discipline the state.
Il. REPRESENTATION: FORMS AND THEORIES

Democratic government is a government that rules in the
interest of the people; it is government for the people. It does
so because it is the government that represents the people, is
responsible or answerable to those who elect it.
Representation narrows down the distance between those
who rule and those on whom they rule and accountability
ensures that those who rule do not go astray. A government
in which rulers are representatives and accountable to those
they rule, and in which they rule in the public interest, is a
democratic government.
Democracy expresses itself through representation. During
monarchies even the heads of the state would, through the
system of nomination, explore some sort of representation.
While in the medieval and early modern periods,
representation of interests was regarded as a convenient
method of representing people. Though Rousseau had no
faith in the representative system (“As soon as a _ nation
appoints representatives, it is no longer free, it no longer
exists”), others such as Locke, Burke, Bentham, Montesquieu
and J.S. Mill did explore the meaning of representative
government and the conditions which make its functioning
successful.
Hanna Pitkin (The Concept of Representation) identifies
four different models of representation: formalistic (with two
dimensions: authorisation, obtaining some standing, status
and accountability, and ability of the constituents to make the
representative accountable), symbolic (for what the
representative stands for), descriptive (the extent to which a
representative resembles those being represented). In any
case, representation indicates a relationship between one
who represents and those who are represented. It is standing
for or acting on behalf of a larger body. Often, four models of
representation i.e., representatives are advanced:
(a) a trustee model (advocate: Burke), one where a
representative serves one’s constituents by the
exercise of one’s judgment and ‘enlightened
conscience’;
(b) a delegate model, one where a representative acts
on the basis of a clear guidance, a conduit
conveying the views of others, not exercising one’s
judgment or conscience;
(c) a mandate model, one where a representative
carries out a mandate, a promise made to the
electorates during the elections;
(d) a resemblance model, one where a representative
resembles group he_ represents: a woman
representative representing women; a_ doctor
representative, representing doctors.
Various scholars have offered different approaches of
representation. The jurists and the constitutional lawyers
prefer the institutional approach and discuss the procedural
aspects and details of representative government. David
Apter (The Politics of Modernization) and Carl Friedrich
(Constitutional Government and Democracy) describe the
pluralistic approach and the behaviouralists like Robert Dahl
(Who Governs?), the behaviour approach. While the pluralists
concentrate on the representation of the groups and elites,
the behaviouralists, on the behavioralistic traits of political
analysis. Then, there have been scholars such as Almond
(with Verba, The Civil Culture), Powell (with Almond,
Comparative Politics), Lucian Pye (Aspects of Political
Development) refer about the functionalistic approach to
representation, developmentalism of Apter being one form of
functionalism.
As with the approaches, so also with the theories of
representation, Shepherd refers to three theories: tribal (as in
ancient Greece), feudal (as in the medieval ages, and ethical
(as in our times). Often, the four theories of representation
are: authoritarian (advocates: Hobbes and Hamilton) a theory
in which those once having represented obtain all authority;
radical (advocates: Rousseau and the New Left) a theory in
which the people themselves participate in the process of
governance; mirror (advocates: Locke and Jefferson) a theory
in which the representatives act as the agents of the people;
elite (advocates: Schumpter, Sartori, Mannheim) a theory in
which the representatives having been elected have a special
responsibility to provide leadership. We may, however,
describe the following theories relating to franchise form of
representation:
1. The Tribal Theory: Engels and Maclver speak of early
tribal democracy. The conception of inclusive citizenship
developed among the early Greek, Roman and Germanic
societies led to this theory of suffrage. Within a narrow
citizen-class, community affairs were decided by voting.
It was a necessary attribute of membership of the
community. Slaves and women had no voting rights as
they were not considered citizens.
2. The Feudal Theory: According to this theory, developed
during the medieval period, the right of vote depended on
a particular social rank and was generally associated
with the ownership of land. The medieval parliaments in
England and _ other European’ countries gave
representation only to feudal barons and the priests who
owned land.
3. The Bourgeois Theory: Locke was of the opinion that
voting rights should be restricted to owners of property.
Gradually, other bourgeois thinkers like Bentham and Mill
started advocating manhood or universal suffrage but
also recommended devices to safeguard the dominant
position of the elite in the political system. The foreman,
the employer, the banker should be given more votes in
an ascending order than a worker who should have only
one vote.
4. The Legal Theory: According to this theory, franchise is a
legal privilege, and not a natural or ethical right, granted
by a particular state. It may be restricted or extensive,
according to the Constitution. Voting is a public function
and the size and character of the electorate, which can
discharge the function, ought to be regulated by law.
5. The Idealist Theory: Green is an important advocate of
this theory. This theory regards the right to franchise as
an ethical right, i.e., as a means for the self-expression of
the individual in political affairs. By enabling the citizen to
associate himself with the Government, franchise
ensures the development of human personality.
Samuel Beer (with Ulam, The Patterns of Government) has
mentioned the following different interpretations of the
meaning of representation:
(a) The conservative or traditional view upholds the
desirability of authority, hierarchy and order, and
emphasises that a hereditary monarch can
represent the general interest of the community
better than any other organised groups claiming to
speak for the minority or the majority.
(b) The aristocratic or elitist view upholds the idea of a
mixed or balanced constitution symbol-ising the
differences of rank and status. The elite is the
natural representative of the masses. The popular
assembly may discuss the policies framed by the
elite without any power to alter them. The gentry
should be supreme.
(c) The liberal view maintains that the popular
assembly should represent individuals rather than
corporate bodies and accepts middle class
leadership in legislation and administration.
Property and educational qualifications are also
recommended by the liberals. The bourgeoisie
should be assured ascendancy in the system.
(d) The radical view affirms that ultimate sovereignty
should be vested in the community and the will of
the majority, expressed either directly or through
interest groups, should prevail over the will of the
minority. The assembly should act as an instrument
of social change.
(e) The modern conservative and socialist parties see
representative government essentially as party
government. Social classes and vocational groups
articulate and integrate their sectional interests
through pressure groups and political parties.
The liberal theory of representation can best be expressed
through John Stuart Mill (Considerations on Representative
Government). Those who are not fit for democracy should not
venture for a representative government. He says, “
representative institutions are of little value, and may be an
instrument of tyranny or intrigue, when the generality of
electors are not sufficiently interested in their own
government to give their vote, or if they vote at all, do not
bestow their suffrage on public grounds, but sell them for
money, or vote at the back of someone who has control over
them.”.
The ideally best form of government is that in which the
sovereignty in the last resort is vested in the entire aggregate
of the people. Every citizen should not only have a voice in
the election of his rulers but, at least occasionally, may be
called upon to take an actual part in the government, by the
personal discharge of some public function, local or general.
The superiority of representative government rests on two
principles. The first is that the rights and interests of every
person are only secure when the person interested is himself
able and habitually disposed to stand up for them. The
second is that the general prosperity increases and is more
widespread in proportion to the amount and variety of the
personal energies enlisted in promoting it. While it is essential
to representative government that the supremacy in the state
should reside in the representatives of the people, it is the
functions of this representative assembly to control the
business of government. The assembly may approve the
taxes but cannot prepare the estimates. The popular
assembly is neither fit to administer nor to dictate in detail
those who have the charge of administration.
John Stuart Mill supports the idea of universal adult
franchise but also advocates plural votes for the elite. He was
also an enthusiastic champion of suffrage for women. He also
preferred open ballot to secret ballot. In order to provide
suitable representation to minorities, ethnic or political, he
suggests the adoption of proportional representation by single
transferable vote.
Mill’s classical theory of representation has travelled farther
than he had thought. His plural voting has not been accepted,
nor the open ballot system. This is also true about the
representation of the interest which together with the
representation of number constitutes true democracy.
Functional representation represents doctors, workers,
teachers, lawyers and the like but not the citizens.
Representation in its general connotation, Coker and Rodee
(Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences), implies that the
representatives represent the interests of their respective
groups and not of the entire electorate. That is why the
functional representation has become, as compared to the
territorial representation, of | Secondary importance.
Representation is not delegation. Maclver (The Web of
Government) says, “Delegation involves the choice of men,
but representation also involves the choice of measures.
Delegation in its completed form ... assigns no limitation of
tenure, and no conditions of the exercise of power.
Representation implies both direction and control. Delegation
requires the consent of the governed whereas representation
requires the fulfillment of their will.”
John Wahlke in The Legislature System speaks of three
different roles of the representative. First, we can mention the
trustee-deputy role, according to which a representative can
perceive himself as a delegate of his electors and be
prepared to accept their mandate, or can act as he thinks fit
without consulting them. Secondly, we can refer to the
facilitator-neutral role, according to which the representative
consults various interest groups frequently and tries to
perform specific services for his electors. Thirdly, we may
describe as the’ regional-national role, when the
representative is expected to balance the demands of his own
particular region with the interests of the nation as a whole.
The Marxist theory of representation, as against the liberal
theory, represents classes rather the individuals. During the
medieval age, the landlords and feudal classes were
represented in whatever the form of legislatures used to be
then. In the modern so-called liberal societies, despite
political equality of one person—one vote, there are the
capitalists who find their representation in the legislatures.
Accordingly, in the socialist societies, the workers have their
representation in the legislative assemblies. The job of the
representatives in the socialist system is not to represent the
electorate but is to educate them in matters relating to
socialism and communism; they do not express the
grievances of the people to the government but they inform
the people as to what the government is doing for them. In
the socialist societies, the electorates select the
representatives and do not elect them; they choose the
representatives from a number of sisterly political parties
headed by the Communist Party and not those which are
opposed to one another. There is a mass participation (over
90 per cent people who turn out for elections) with no
corresponding mass control.
ll. ELECTORAL SYSTEM AND ELECTIONS

Joseph Schumpeter describes elections as the heart of
democracy. If representative democracy is only what is really
practicable, there are elections, which can make democracy
feasible. It is really difficult to imagine democracy without
elections. Elections provide candidates from whom the voters
choose their representatives; they make the government as
well as the opposition; those who are able to have majority
make the government and those who are not able to get the
majority make the opposition. Through elections parties
recruit politicians and future rulers; leadership emerges
through elections; they are the means which provide
representation. Through elections, people and groups are
represented; elections educate people; during election
campaigns, people get familiarised with issues of public
concerns which make them politically awakened. Elections
give legitimacy to the government. They justify as to who
would be legally authorised to rule. In a way, they confer
authorisation to rule upon those who are chosen to represent
the electorate.
The electoral system provides the mechanism which makes
elections possible. It specifies the offices/positions which are
to be elected, the voters who are entitled to vote, the methods
as to how they would vote, the constituencies from where the
officials would be elected, the ways the elections would be
held. The electoral system, in fact, includes both the elections
and electioneering.
Elections make representation possible. There have to be
candidates and they have to be chosen. Suffrage: (from Latin
word Suffragium) also referred to franchise (from the French
word, Franc) means right to vote. Universal suffrage is the
term used to describe the situation in which right to vote is
given to all without any restrictions, except for a minimum age
which is different in different countries. New Zealand was the
first country to grant universal suffrage in 1893, and Finland
was the first European country to bestow universal franchise
in 1906. Universal adult franchise was introduced in 1919 in
Germany; in 1920 in the USA and in Sweden; in 1928, in
Great Britain, in 1945 in France, in India in 1950, in
Switzerland in 1971. Different countries have specified
different minimum ages for voting. In most countries, the
usual voting age is 18 years, though in countries like Iran, it is
15; in Brazil, Cuba, Nicaragua, and the Isle of Man (though
the Isla is not a sovereign state), the voting age is 16; in East
Timor, Indonesia, North Korea, the Scychelles and Sudan, it
is 17, in Cameroon, Japan, Nauru, Tunisia, it is 20, in South
Korea the age is 19. Countries like Central African Republic,
Figi, Galion, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Samoa,
Singapore, Solomon Island, Taiwan and Tonga have 21 years
as the voting age. In Uzbekistan, the voting age is 25. For
electing the Pope, only cardinals under the age of 80 years
have the right to vote. Some countries grant right to vote to a
person with lesser age if he or she is employed—for example
Croatia, Slovenia. There is no suffrage in Brunei. Voting is
compulsory in Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil,
Cyprus, Ecuador, Fiji, Greece, Luxemburg, Mexico, Nauru,
Peru, Singapore, Turkey and Uruguay. If eligible voters do not
go to the polling booth, they are liable to punitive measures
such as fines (Australia and Brazil), disenfranchise ment
(Belgium), denial of goods and services (Peru and Greece)
and denial of salary (Bolivia). “In our brief national history, we
have shot four of our presidents, worried five of them to
death, impeached one and hounded another out of office.
And when all else fails, we hold an election and assassinate
their character.” ... O’ Rourke
Elections Quotes
e “Apparently, a democracy is a place where numerous

elections are held at great cost without issues and with
interchangeable candidates.” ... Gore Vidal
e “Every election is a sort of advance auction of sale of
stolen goods.” ... Mencken
e “A politician thinks of the next election, a statesman, of
the next generation.” ...Clarke
e “lf elected | shall be thankful; if not, it will be all the
same.” ... Abraham Lincoln
e “Votes should be weighed, not counted.” ... Schiller
e “Fifty percent of people won't vote and fifty per cent do
not read newspapers. | hope it’s the same fifty percent.”
...Gore Vidal
e “Hell, | never vote for anybody. | always vote against.”
...Fleds
e “People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war
or before an election.” ...Bismarck
Secret Ballot is a voting method in which a voter’s choices

are secret; when through raising of hand, it is an open ballot.
The secret ballot system is also known as Australian Ballot
because it originated in Australia during the 1850s. It came to
be introduced in New Zealand in 1870, in Great Britain in
1872 and in Denmark in 1901. Direct election is an election in
which the voters elect their representatives or other public
Officials; indirect election is an election in which directly
elected electors elect the representatives or public officials. In
some countries, the head of state is directly elected as in
Afghanistan, France, Sri Lanka, Russia; in some countries,
the head of state is elected by the legislature as _ in
Bangladesh, People’s China, Cuba, Greece, Italy, South
Africa, Switzerland. In some other countries, the head of the
state is elected by an electoral college as in Germany, India,
Pakistan and the USA. In countries where there are
monarchies, the office of the head of state is hereditary as in
Belgium, Britain, Bhutan, Kuwait, Monaco, Nepal, Saudi
Arabia, Spain and Sweden.
In dominion states such as Canada, Australia and New
Zealand, the heads of state (i.e., governor-general) is
nominated by the King or Queen as the case may be; in
certain other countries, the head of state is self-appointed as
in Eritrea, Mauritania, Myanmar. Where there are legislatures,
the lower house is usually directly elected and the upper
house is either directly elected (Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria,
Chile, Indonesia, Italy, New Zealand, both Koreas, Vietnam or
USA) or indirectly elected (Austria, Ethiopia, France, India
Pakistan) in some countries, the upper house represents the
federating units as in Germany, South Africa, Malaysia,
Russia, while in some others, the upper house is wholly or
partly appointed house as in Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bots,
Canada, Egypt, Jordan, Great Britain. In some countries,
some members of the upper house are hereditary as in
Botswana and Britain while in some others, the house is
represented by traditional leaders as in Somaliland. In some
other countries, the upper house is made up of some
members chosen from the functional constituencies as in
Hong Kong, Ireland, Morocco and Slovakia.
Gerrymandering is a form of delimiting the electoral
constituencies in such a way that a certain political party,
which does so, obtains the maximum advantages of seats
and the other political parties, the minimum. The word
‘gerrymander’ comes from the name of Governor of
Massachusetts Elbridge Gerry (1744-1814). Gerrymandering
is used to advantage or disadvantage by particular
constituents, often in favour of the ruling party. The strategy is
to waste as many votes of the opponent party as is possible
and use a few votes of one’s own party as are necessary to
win the election. One form of gerrymandering, packing, is to
place as many voters of one type into a single district to
reduce their influence in other districts. A second form,
cracking, involves spreading out voters of a particular type
among many districts in order to reduce their representation
by denying them a sufficiently large voting block in any
particular district.
The electoral system, used in representative democracy, at
present, may be divided into majoritarian, and proportional
representation.
Il(a) Majoritarian Systems

In majoritarian electoral systems, winning candidates are
those having attracted the most votes in a given electoral
district. Majoritarian systems differ according to the number of
representatives elected in an electoral district and the kinds of
majorities (simple or absolute) that winners must achieve.
1. Single-Member Plurality Systems: Single-member
plurality (SMP) systems are those in which one member
is elected in an elected assembly, by simple rather than
absolute majorities, suffice to determine the winner in a
contest. Each elector marks a single “X” (or a similar
mark) beside the name of the candidate of his or her
choice. Although, several candidates may compete for
the seat, the winner needs only to attract the largest
number of votes cast. For this reason, this kind of
electoral system is referred to as a “single-member
plurality” or a “first past the post” system. The system is
also known as ‘binary voting method’, ‘relative majority’,
“winners-take-all”. Electoral systems of this sort are used
in Canada, USA, New Zealand, United Kingdom and
India.
2. Multi-Member Plurality Systems: In some maijoritarian
electoral systems, more than one mem-ber per electoral
constituency can be sent to the assembly. Voters in this
kind of system mark off as many names on their ballots
as there are seats to be filled. As in the case in
singlemember systems, the candidates winning the
largest number of votes are declared elected.
3. Single-Member Majoritarian Systems: In contrast to
these systems, single-member majoritarian systems seek
to ensure that the winning candidate has the support of
an absolute majority of the voters in his or her
constituency.
There are essentially two ways of achieving this outcome.
(a) The Alternative Vote: Countries that employ an
alternative vote (also referred to as a preferential
voting system or PV) require votes to rank-order
their preferences on their ballots. Electors write
number 1 down or beside their first choice, 2 beside
the second, and so on. If, when the ballots are
tallied, no candidate receives an absolute majority,
the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and
his/her ballots are redistributed according to the
second choices marked on them. This process
continues until a winner emerges with more than
half of the total vote. The alternative vote system
has been used for elections to the Australian House
of Representatives.
(b) The Two-Ballot System: The two-ballot or second-
ballot system is another means of ensuring that the
winning candidate is supported by a full majority of
voters. Under this system, balloting may take place
in two stages. During the first, voters have a choice
among several candidates, only one of whom they
may vote for. If no clear winner emerges from this
first round of voting, a second ballot is held
between the two candidates with the best showing.
Il(b) Proportional Representation
The second major category of electoral system is known as
proportional representation or PR. PR_= systems are
specifically designed to allocate seats in proportion to votes,
in the hope that assemblies and governments will accurately
reflect the preferences of the electorate. PR systems are now
the most frequently used electoral systems in western
democracies. All PR systems rely on multi-member
constituencies. PR systems are of two basic types: party list
systems and single transferable vote (STV) systems.
1. Party List Systems: Under party list systems, voters in an
electoral constituency choose from among a group of
candidates put forward by the various parties contesting
an election. When the votes are tallied, each party is
entitled to seat the number of members from its list that
corresponds to its share of the popular vote; for example,
if a given party obtains 30 percent of the vote, then it
would send 3 members out of a list of 10 candidates to
the legislature. After a party’s share of the available seats
has been determined, it must be decided which of the
candidates on its list will be declared elected. In most
cases, this depends on the order in which candidates’
names appear. Those whose names appear at the top of
their party’s list of candidates thus have the best chance
of being elected, those at the bottom, the least.
2. Single Transferable Vote (STV) Systems: In contrast to
party list systems, STV systems emphasize the individual
candidate rather than the party. As in the case of all PR
systems, electoral constituencies using STV are
represented by several members in an assembly. Voters
are asked to rank-order their choices among the
candidates whose names appear on the ballot. When the
ballots are counted, the first step is sorting them
according to the first choice. In order to be declared
elected, a candidate must obtain a certain threshold of
the votes cast. Those candidates who obtain the
threshold during the first stage of counting are declared
elected and any votes they have received in excess of
the threshold are redistributed according to the second
choices marked. The second stage of counting involves
the redistribution of these “surplus” ballots: once more,
those candidates achieving the threshold are declared
elected and any surplus votes redistributed. This process
continues until all vacant seats have been filled.
A hypothetical case shows how the STV system, using a
Droop Quota works. If a three-member electoral district has
1,000 voters, the number of votes required to win would be:
1,000 1,000
41052504 1= 251
3+i 4
Representation, Participation, Party Systems, Pressure

Groups, Social Movements 31.9 The following table illustrates
the point:
Table 31.1 Three-member Constituency, 1,000 Votes

Cast, five Candidates, STV System
Candidate Party Ist 2nd 3rd 4th

Count Count Count Count
A V 175 +10 + 100 — 34
= 185 =285 =251*

B WwW 200 +3 + 31 +8
= 203 = 234 = 242
C X 150 +1 — 151
= 151 =0 =0
D Y 270 - 19 = 251 = 251*
= 251
E Z 205 +5 + 20 + 26
=210 =230 = 256"

Total 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
* = declared elected
The table shows how the votes would be tallied. At the first
count, candidate D obtained the threshold of 251 votes, was
declared elected and had his or her 19 surplus votes
redistributed. These surplus votes were redistributed
according to the second choices marked on them, giving the
new totals, which appear in the second count column. No
candidate (apart from D) reached the threshold on the second
count so candidate C, who had the least votes, had all of
his/her ballots redistributed for the third count: as a
consequence candidate A was declared elected. Now the
fourth count, A’s surplus ballots were redistributed, giving E
the necessary threshold. Thus, after three redistributions and
four counts, the three seats were filled by candidates A, D
and E. It is noteworthy that candidate B, who received the
second highest number of first preference votes, was not
elected in the final outcome.
( '
Persons Case
The Famous or the Valliant Five were five Canadian

women who sought to know from the Supreme Court of
Canada whether the ‘women’ were persons, so to be
elected to the legislature. The case came to be known as
Persons Case. The Supreme Court decided that they are
not persons and hence were not qualified to be senators.
The women went to the Privy Council which decided the
case in their favour, in 1930. Four months later, Cairine
Wilson became the first woman to sit in the Canadian
Senate.
Il(c) Mixed Systems

Some states have chosen to use a mixture of majority and
proportional representation systems in order to achieve the
benefits of both. Since the late 1940s in Germany, for
example, one half of the seats in the Bundestag (the lower
house of parliament) have been filled by plurality, using
singlemember constituencies, while the other half are filled
using party lists. Voters mark two choices on their ballot
papers: one from a list of parties, the other from a list of
candidates for district representation.
People vote and vote consciously. When they identify with
the political parties, we call this type of voting party -
identification model; when they vote for a group we call it the
sociological model; when they vote on the basis of their self-
interest, we call it dominant-ideology model.
For a better democratic government, reference is usually
made to certain minority representative theories. Proportional
representation is one such theory. The other theories are:
i. The Cumulative Vote: It is a system which gives as

many votes to the voters as are the seats allotted to the
constituency. It permits the voters to cast all or a few
votes to any candidate they want. The well-organised
minority group can ask its members to cast all the votes
in favour of the minority candidate seeking elections.
ii. The Limited Vote: It is a system in which a voter has a
little less number of votes than the allotted seats. But he
has the right to cast all his votes for one candidate
(presumably his minority candidate) or can divide them
amidst different candidates.
iii. Joint Electorate: It is a system in which the seat of the
legislature is reserved for a particular minority
community, but the voters may or may not belong to
that minority. So, under this system, the evils of
communalism are avoided but it enables minority
groups to get represented in the legislature. In India, the
joint electorate system, for some seats, has been
adopted.
lll. POLITICAL PARTICIPATION
Political participation, Townsend (Political Participation in
Communist China) says, “includes all those activities through
which the individual consciously becomes involved _ in
attempts to give a particular direction to the conduct of public
affairs excluding activities of an occupational or compulsory
nature.” This definition relates political participation to
activities which have an impact on the whole community. It is
so broad a definition that it includes individual’s involvement
in the making and executing of the decisions. It is a political
activity. Political participation, therefore, means involvement
in politically significant activities ranging from the simple act of
casting a vote in an election to the shooting of a class enemy
with a rifle in a revolutionary guerrilla war.
In our societies where the political elites themselves are
more deeply involved in the political process, the average
citizen can have only a limited involvement. Lestor W.
Milbrath (Political Participation) proposes a_ scale for
measuring the extent of participation by different categories of
participants as distinguished from apathetic or passive
individuals. The lowest on the scale are the spectator
participants who barely expose themselves on_ political
stimuli, exhibiting a campaign button or by requesting a few
friends to vote for a particular candidate. The highest on the
scale are the gladiator participants, who are active party
members, raise funds, contest elections and hold positions in
the party organisation or government. In between the
spectators and the gladiators are the transitional participants,
who have contacts, with political leaders, contribute funds and
attend public meetings and political rallies.
Milbrath’s scale does not include political activities like
mass demonstrations, working-class strikes with political
aims, guerrilla struggles of the peasants or violent revolution,
which characterise the politics of the countries of the
developing world. His list is obviously a scale of levels of
political participation found in a Western liberal state when it
is in a condition of political equilibrium. More drastic,
particularly violent forms of political participation including
revolutions do characterise the politics of these Western
democratic states during their early formative periods. Further
they have recurred in these countries during the periods of
crises and disequilibrium.
As regards the American politics, Milbrath’s study reveals
that the percentage of adults participating in the political
process declines sharply with increasing levels of
involvement. No more than 15 per cent are involved in the
spectator activities and about 5 per cent are engaged in the
transitional activities. The number of the gradiators, i.e., party
activists is even less than 3 per cent. The voting turnout may
be as high as 70 per cent in a presidential election but it is
much lower in congressional, state and local elections.
Almond and Verba’s Civil Culture still presents the broadest
cross-national study of political participation. They studied the
nature and degree of political participation in the United
States, Great Britain, Mexico, Germany and Italy and
obtained a scale of 51 to 10 per cent in the ranking order
given above. In all the five countries, a high sense of civic
duty to participate was correlated with levels of education,
income and occupational status. Regarding the methods of
political involvement, the Americans and _ Englishmen
preferred to resort to cooperative actions such as organising
friends and neighbours, Englishmen also suggested to take
the assistance of an elected local official. The Germans,
Mexicans and Italians preferred to complain to administrative
as well as elected local officials.
As Peter Merkl (Modern Comparative Politics) points out,
political participation in developing countries is likely to be
affective and expressive rather than instruments-oriented. As
he puts it: “The grand spectacle of achieving independence,
the flamboyance of charismatic men on horseback, and the
direct appeals to sub-conscious personality needs cater to the
expressive style. So do the violent eruptions, riots and
demonstrations by means of which protest can express itself
far more dramatically than with petitions or ballots.”
In Asia, Africa and Latin America, revolutionary peasant
movements represent an important form of political
participation. Johnson and Bianco highlight the significance of
peasant struggles in the politics of China before the
Communist takeover. As E.J. Hobsbawm points out,
prenationalistic peasant mass movements are often the result
of external invasion or the organisation of an underground
resistance that activates pre-political men and women into
forms of political and military organisation far superior to any
other political force in their countries.
The experience of the Third World nations suggests a
considerable modification of the popular concept of civic
participation and its relevance to democratic theory. Peter
Merkl says: “From the days of democratic Athens, when
slaves carrying ropes painted with vermilion were supposed
to drive the laggard citizenry towards the town meeting of
ekklesia we have believed that democracy requires a higher
measure of political participation in order to function well. A
survey of participation patterns around the world and at
different periods of history, however, supplies many object
lessons to modify that ideal. On the one hand, many
developing societies have hardly any participation, and large
parts of all societies seem to experience little inducement to
political participation in the process of their political
socialization at home or at school. On the other hand, some
forms of mass participation, erupting in particular among
these otherwise inarticulate people, are so violent and
disruptive that they would break up democracies no less than
traditional oligarchies’.
Milbrath refers to four factors which influence political
participation:
(a) stimuli from the environment help individual to
participate in political activities. Election days
create such environment, though stimuli vary from
region to region;
(b) personal factors such as attitudes, beliefs and
personality traits make and unmake the measure of
our participation in political activities;
(c) political participation is influenced by political
setting as well: political setting implies politicking,
the nature of political system and the level of
political campaign;
(d) the socio-economic status of the individuals too
influences the degree of political participation.
Political participation can take numerous forms: voting in
elections, in referendum, canvassing in election campaigns,
membership of the political party, holding an office in the
political party, activities in a pressure group, membership in
the non-governmental organisations, various forms of
community actions, etc. are such forms of political
participation.
Political participation, in any form, strengthens democracy.
It keeps citizens informed about and active in politics which
enables the democratic government to function properly;
makes officials responsive through maintaining open
channels of communication; helps balance political system;
creates faith in democratic values and norms; supervises the
proper functioning of the government; and controls and
disciplines the activities of the state.
Participation and democracy go together. It is participation
which makes a democratic system (a form of government
which is the best of all the forms the world over) a success. It
is participation which integrates civil society into a whole
social fabric. It is participation which mitigates any possibility
of violent revolution. Participation is an umbrella term which
includes different means for the people to directly participate
in public affairs. In Political Science, it means _ political
participation, i.e., participation in the formation and
functioning of a polity wherein people actively participate in all
those activities which concern them. Its basic feature is active
citizenship: citizens taking active part in political life. Barber
(Strong Democracy), Robertson (Political Participation),
Pateman (Participation and Democratic Theory) insist on
greater political participation. Participation takes different
forms: voting in election, election campaign, involvement in
governmental activities and in decision-making: if confined to
voting only, it is only spectator’s activity, and if extended to
forms such as holding office etc., it is called gladiatorial
activity. Obviously, the more the participation, the stronger is
democracy. The advocates of participatory democracy
(Pateman, Macpherson; Democratic Theory, Poulantzas:
State, Power Socialism) seek democratization of parliament,
bureaucracies and political parties and in the process want
direct participation of the citizens in the regulation of all fields
in the society. “The West won the world by its superiority in
applying organised violence, Westerners often forget this fact,
non-Westerners never do.” .... Hungtington
Participation, indeed, is a solution to all the ills of
democracy. But it is not without its inherent problems. Its chief
limitation is that it is largely an impracticable exercise.
Howsoever vertical and horizontal it may be made through
procedural rules, it remains wanting in respects more than
one. And then, for any political participation, there has to be
social participation. Participation has to be procedural,
institutional as well as substantive. Because participation’s
graph is always demanding, there have arisen doubts about
its efficiency and efficacy. This has made scholars such as
John Burnheim invent a new term ‘demarchy’, advocating a
type of political system without state or bureaucracies, and
basing, instead on randomly selected groups of decision-
makers. Among the critics of elections, Benjamin Ginsberg is
of the opinion that they make mass participation impossible
under bureaucratic or military rule.
Political participation, in India, during the elections of the
Lok Sabha, indicates the fact that the electorates in the
country are well awakened. In the first general elections, the
turnout was 47.5 per cent while in 1999 elections it increased
to 59.5 per cent. The turnout in the 1967 Lok Sabha elections
was 61.3 per cent, 64.1 per cent in 1984 and 62.0 per cent in
1989, with electorate about 17.32 crore in 1952 to 48.84 crore
in 1991; candidates contesting elections in 1952 were 1874
and in 1991, they were 8953. However, political apathy and
lack of political socialisation and political education are
obstacles which hamper the growth of political participation in
India.
IV. PARTY SYSTEMS

Party system is a modern phenomenon, about 200 years old.
Political parties emerged clearly in the first half of the
nineteenth century in Europe, North America and in Asia,
though they seemed to have existed without being called as
political parties in the medieval and early modern periods.
There were, for example, Lancastrians and the Yorkists,
Cavaliers and Roundheads in England long before the
American War of Independence where after that had
emerged the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. These rival
factions paved way for political parties.
IV.(a) Political Parties: Meaning and Functions

A political party is an organised body of people who advocate
a set of agreed principles and policies on political and general
matters, and who through peaceful and constitutional means
seek to capture political power so to put them in practice. It is
not a faction, for it has to be an organised body; it is not
characterised by sharp differences, for it has to stand by
certain principles and clear-cut agreed policies; it has not to
be violent and underground group of _ rovatutionsies
attempting a coup or overthrowing a government, for it has to
seek political power through peaceful and constitutional
means. A political party is an organisation, an organisation of
like-minded people, an organisation which is goal-oriented, an
organisation which exists to capture and retain power.
Duverger (Political Parties) defines political parties as
organised groups seeking political power whether by
democratic elections or by revolution. A pragmatic definition
of a political party has been provided by Robert Huckshorn
(Political Parties in America). He says, “A political party is an
autonomous group of citizens having the purpose of making
nominations and contesting elections in hope of gaining
control over governmental power through the capture of
public offices and the organisation of the government.” It is,
thus, an organised group of people, with at least roughly
similarly political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence
public policy by getting its candidates elected to public offices.
Burke had defined political party as ‘a body of men, united for
the purpose of promoting, by their joint endeavours, the public
interests upon some principles on which they are all agreed.”
Maclver gives an elaborate definition of a political party,
saying that it is “an association organised in support of some
principles or policy which, by _ constitutional means,
endeavours to make the determinants of government.”
Political parties play a definite role in democracies. They
help make representative government possible; they provide
a link between the citizens and the government as also, a link
between the electorates and their representatives. As Lowell
had once rightly said, they act as brokers of ideas,
transmitting opinions. They provide political education to the
people, widen their awareness, and mobilise their political
participation. They help create leadership and_ recruit
membership; they make and unmake governments; and they
help conduct elections and act as vehicles of public opinion. It
is through political parties that people are represented in the
legislatures and executives. It is through political parties that
the leaders are born. It is through political parties that the
goals are articulated, set and achieved. It is through the
political parties that the people are politically socialised and
mobilised. It is through political parties that the ruling elite and
opposition are organised. Without political parties, there are
no elections; without elections, there is no democratic
government; without democratic government, there is all
chaos, anarchy, and lawlessness.
IV.(b) Party System: Types

Political parties are classified on numerous grounds. Some of
them are:
(1) Number of political parties which exist in a country—
one-party, tw-party, or multi-party system: one-party
system is again divided into
(a) ideological one-party system (Fascist, Nazi,
Communist regimes),
(b) authoritarian one-party system (as in Myanmar,
Iran, Syria, Egypt, Kenya, Ghana, Tanzania),
(c) dominant one-party system (as in India for
sometime until 1967). Two-party system exists in
the USA, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand.
Multi-party system prevailed/ prevails in France,
Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, and_ the
Netherlands.
(2) Party-orientation such as a charismatic leader-
oriented party (say Sukarno in Indonesia) Lee Kuan
Yew (in Singapore), an ideology-oriented party and
interest-oriented party;
(3) Ideological persuasion which can be divided into
leftist, rightist, and centrist parties;
(4) Geographically-influenced such as national parties
and regional parties.
Maurice Durverger classifies party-system into four types,
structure-wise: caucus, branch, cell and militia. These are:
(a) Caucus type is a small group of activists, opinion-
makers and local influentials. They are mainly
concerned with electoral activities such as
mobilising voters through propaganda. Between
elections, these groups remain dormant. Examples:
US political parties.
(b) Branch type is a mass party with open membership
and a hierarchical party structure dominated by the
central leadership. It has a permanent body
continuously active always. Examples: the British
Labour Party, Indian National Congress.
(c) Cell type is smaller than the branch type party. It is
more cohesive relatively. It is organised at the work
place, not geographically. Its work is usually
secretive. The party is interested more in changing
the society than mere winning elections. Examples:
the Communist Parties in the capitalist societies.
(d) Militia type party is usually modelled on the army
pattern. Its organisation is hierarchical and _ its
membership expects complete loyalty towards the
leader. Examples: the Fascist party under
Mussolini; the Nazi party under Hitler.
The classification of political parties as single party, two-
party, multiparty and dominant party are usually common,
though the scholars too talk about partyless or no-party
system as well. These can be discussed as under:
IV.(b)(i) Single Party System

A single party system is a type of government in which a
single party forms the government, and no other political
parties are allowed to run candidates for elections. In such a
system of government, the ruling political party is guaranteed
of its position while all the other political parties either do not
exist or exist only in jails. Single party system usually outlaws
opposition; somewhere oppositions are allowed to exist as
subordinate allied parties (as in the communist countries);
somewhere they exist as part of some popular front. It may be
noted that single party systems have existed in fascist,
socialist/communist or nationalist regimes. The ruling single
party, wherever it exists, controls all aspects of life within that
state. Some examples of single party states are Peoples’
Republic of China, Cuba, North Korea, Eritrea, Syria,
Turkmenistan and Vietnam.
IV(b)(ii) Two-party system

A two-party system state is one where there are two major
political parties—which share power among themselves.
There may exist other political parties—third, fourth and so
on, but some political parties do not have any political
significance. Of the two major political parties, one becomes
the ruling party, another the opposition party. The United
Kingdom and the United States of America have a two-party
system: Labour party and the Conservative party in UK, and
the Republican party and the Democratic party in the United
States are examples of two party system.
The two-party systems have their merits: policies and
governments do not change rapidly; stability and
accountability exist side by side; effective administration is
possible. But its demerits are no less unimportant. The
dictatorship of the ruling party does not allow the moderate
rule possible; rigid dictatorial dominance of the parties is
usually observed; the party dominance dominates national
interest; legislatures and governments become the tools in
the hands of the political parties; voters have very limited
choice, have much less to choose from; the parties usually
put the state to ransom.
IV(b)(iii) Multi-party System
A multi-party system state is one where more than two
political parties, usually equally powerful, have impact in the
state’s political life. Each party competes for votes and the
legislature so composed of representatives from different
political parties characterize the real mirror of people’s choice.
Such a system does have the merit of not having any political
party usurping power and act despotically. But it risks
stability. The multi-party system governments are usually
unstable. Canada, Germany, France, and Israel are examples
of multi-party system states.
IV.(b)(iv) Dominant-party System

A dominant-party system is also known as_ one-party
dominant system. It is a system where only one political party
has its government. Thus, in contrast to single-party systems,
which are almost always authoritarian, dominant-party
systems can occur within a context of a democratic system. In
a single-party system other parties are banned, but in
dominant-party systems other political parties are tolerated
and (in democratic dominant-party systems) operate without
any impediment, but do not have a realistic chance of
winning; the dominant-party genuinely wins the votes of the
vast majority of voters every time (or, in authoritarian
systems, claims to). Not all dominant-party systems are
undemocratic. In many cases, such as the presidency of
Hugo Chavez (PSUV, dominant-party in Venezuela or the
government of Tommy Douglas in the Canadian province of
Saskatchewan, sheer populism can keep the momentum of
the government going for quite some time. In other cases,
sheer inertia preserves the dominant-party, as with the Liberal
Democratic Party (LDP) in Japan, where the Japanese
people as well as Japanese special interests have become so
accustomed to LDP rule that until quite recently they found it
hard to imagine it any other way. At one point of time, the
Indian National Congress, in India, was an example of
dominant party system, before 1967, usually referred to as
the Congress system.
IV. (b)(v) Non-partisan Democracy

It is also described as no-party democracy. It is a system of
representative government where universal and_ periodic
elections, through secret ballot, take place without political
parties. A government may be called non-partisan if:
i. the law does not permit political parties,

ii. government officials are not members of political parties
iii. government policies are decided by a direct democracy
or
iv. officials are chosen in non-partisan election.
In such a system of state, elections are held and

candidates to an office are chosen strictly by the conscience
of the individuals voting for them. Familiarity with all potential
candidates is not seen as a necessity or even a possibility.
Non-partisan democracies can also have indirect elections
whereby delegates are chosen, who in turn vote for the
representative(s). (The system works with first past the post
system but is incompatible with proportional representation
systems other than single transferable vote.) A non-partisan
system differs from a single-party system in that the
governing faction in the latter identifies itself as a party. M.N.
Roy and Jaiprakash Narayan, in India, favoured non-partisan
democratic system. A state without democracy, such as
Saudi Arabia, cannot claim to be a non-partisan democratic
state. Tuvalu, Micronesia and Palau have a nonpartisan
legislatures. Some Swiss cantons where there are
landsgemeide, are non-partisan.
lv.(c) Political Parties: Major States
Single Party States
China Communist Party of China
Cuba Communist Party of Cuba
Eritrea : People’s Front for Democracy

and Justice
Laos : Laos People’s Democratic

Republic
Syria : Syrian Arab Republic
Turkmenistan: Democratic Party
Vietman : Communist Party of Vietnam
Multi-Party System States

South Africa
e African Christion Democratic Party (ACDP). Social

conservatism, Centre-right.
e African National Congress (ANC). Democratic
socialism, Left-wing nationalism.
e African Peoples’ Convention(APC). Pan-Africanism,
Left-wing.
Azanian People’s Organisation (AZAPO). Socialism,
Left-wing nationalism.
Congress of the People (COPE)
Democratic Alliance (DA). Progressivism, Centre-left.
Freedom Front + (Vryheidsfront+, FF+). Right-wing.
Minority Front (MF). Pro-Indian community
National Democratic Convention (NADECO).
Conservatism, Centre-right.
Sudan
United Democratic Liberal Party

Nile Valley Unity Party
Democratic Unionist Party
Liberal Democrats (Hizb AL-Demokhrateen AL-Ahrar)
National Congress (Sudan: Al Muttamar al Watani)
National Democratic Alliance
Islamic Socialist Party
National Islamic Front
Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (Sudan People’s
Liberation Movement/Al-Harakat Al-Shaabia Le Tahreer
Al-Sudan)
Sudanese Ba’ath Party (formerly pro-lraqi Command)
Tanzania
e Chama Cha Mapinduzi (Revolutionary State Party)

e Civic United Front (Chama Cha Wananchi)
Chama cha Demokrasia na Maendeleo (Party for
Democracy and Progress)
e Tanzania Labour Party
e United Democratic Party
Zambia
e Movement for Multiparty Democracy (MMD)- ruling

e Patriotic Front (PF)
United Democratic Alliance coalition
e United Party for National Development (UPND)

e United National Independence Party (UNIP)
e Forum for Democracy and Development (FDD)
United Liberal Party

National Democratic Focus
Zimbabwe
International Socialist Organisation

Movement for Democratic Change-Mutambara
National Alliance for Good Governance
Patriotic Union of MaNdebeleland
United People’s Party
Zimbabwe African National Union - Ndonga
Zimbabwe African People’s Union - Federal Party
Zimbabwe People’s Democratic Party
Zimbabwe Youth in Alliance
El Salvador
Christian Democratic Party (Partido Demécrata

Cristiano, PDC)
Christian Force (Fuerza Cristiana)
Democratic Change (Cambio Democratico, CD)
National Action Party (Partido Accién Nacional, PAN)
National Liberal Party (Partido Nacional Liberal, PNL)
Nationalist Republican Alliance (Alianza Republicana
Nacionalista, ARENA) - ruling party
Paraguay
e Authentic Radical Liberal Party (Partido Liberal Radical

Auténtico)
e Revolutionary Febrerista Party (Partido Revolucionario
Febrerista)
e National Encounter Party (Partido Encuentro Nacional)
e Party for a Country of Solidarity (Partido Pais Solidario)
e Christian Democratic Party (Partido Democrata
Cristiano)
e Movement for Socialism (Movimiento al Socialismo)
e Broad Front (Frente Amplio)
e Progressive Democratic Party (Partido Democratico
Progesista)
Venezuela
A New Era (Un Nuevo Tiempo)

Justice First (Primero Justicia)
For Social Democracy (Por la Democracia Social)
Fatherland for All (Patria para Todos)
Movement for Socialism (Movimiento al Socialismo)
Independent Electoral Political Organisation Committee
(Comité de Organizacion Politica Electoral
Independiente)
Political Parties in Asia

Japan
e Liberal Democratic Party (LDP)

Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ)
Indonesia
Golkar (Partai Golongan Karya; Party of Functional

Groups)
Indonesian Democratic Party-Struggle (Partai
Demokrasi Indonesia Perjuangan)
e National Awakening Party (Partai Kebangkitan Bangsa)
e United Development Party (Partai Persatuan
Pembangunan)
Democratic Party (Partai Demokrat)
Prosperous Justice Party (Partai Keadilan Sejahtera)
National Mandate Party (Partai Amanat Nasional)
Crescent Star Party (Partai Bulan Bintang)
Singapore
National Solidarity Party

People’s Action Party - Ruling party
Singapore Democratic Alliance
Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Melayu Singapura (Singapore
Malay National
Organisation)
Singapore People’s Party

Singapore Democratic Party
Workers’ Party of Singapore
Democratic Progressive Party
Russia
Major European Powers: Russia

e United Russia (Edina® Rossi® Yedinaya Rossiya)
e Communist Party of the Russian Federation
(KommunistiEeska® parti®
RossiYskoY Federacii, Kommunisticheskaya partiya
Rossiyskoy Federatsii)
e Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LiberalYno-
DemokratiEeska® Parti®
Rossii (LDPR), Liberal’no-Demokraticheskaya Partiya
Rossii (LDPR))
e Fair Russia (Spravedifiva® Rossh®: Rodina/PensioirY,,/
iznY,
Spravedlivaya Rossiya: Rodina/Pensionery/Zhizn)
Table 31.2 Forms of Party System: Statewise
No Party Single Party Dominant-Party States

States States
American Cuba Angola Paraguay

Samoa
Brunei Eritrea Botswana Russia
Kuwait Laos Cambodia Rwanda
Libya North Korea Cameroon Singapore
Mau Turkmenistan Chad South Africa
Micronesia Vietnam China Sudan
Tuvalu East Timor Thailand

Ethiopia Zambia
The Zimbabwe
Gambia
Malaysia
Monaco
Two Party Multi-Party States

States
Bermuda Argentina Israel South Korea
Bhutan Australia Italy Spain
Dominica Austria Japan Sweden
Ghana Bangladesh Jordan Switzerland
Guyana Belgium Kenya Taiwan
Malta Brazil Mexico Turkey
Mozambique Canada Nepal Ukraine
Namibia Chile Netherlands Venezuela
Sri Lanka Denmark New

Zealand
United Ecuador Niger
Kingdom
United Estonia Nigeria

States
France Norway
Germany Pakistan
Greece Poland
Guatemala Portugal
Hungary Romania
Indonesia Slovakia
IV. (d) Political Parties in the Third World Countries

The domains of the third world countries extend to Asia,
Africa and Latin America. Most of the countries in Asia and
Africa emerged free after liberation struggle. The imperialist
nations, most of them of the Western Europe owing largely
due to their internal weaknesses and the compulsions of the
outgoing imperialism following the Second World War, had to
free their colonies. The newly independent nations of Asia
and Africa, together with some Latin American states had
certain similarities: all of them were traditional societies, all of
them were under-developed states; all of them were to seek
modernisation; national integration and independent foreign
policy. The party system that emerged in such developing
areas was to be of a paternal type. Usually the political
parties, which fought their respective liberation struggles,
became the ruling parties taking upon themselves the task of
building their societies. The Indian National Congress, in
India, the Muslim League in Pakistan and the like began the
task of modernisation. Unfortunately, mumerous such
countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, because of the
lack of political awareness, socialisation and administrative
experience internally and because of the mounting
international pressure of the big powers (US-USSR rivalries
and the cold-war) could not make much headway in their
march towards democratic system; and fell to military
regimes. This led to the end of party-system in some
countries, though, of late, democratic forces are attempting to
raise their voice (as, for example, in Pakistan). This general
survey of politics in the third world countries is an indication of
the way party systems, in these areas, have worked. A
tentative and brief description of the features of the political
parties, in developing nations, is not out of place here:
(a) The independent nations of Asia, Africa as also of
Latin America witnessed a spate of political parties
around the major political party that had either
fought the liberation struggle or had a dominant say
in the working of the government (see India in Asia,
Chile in Latin America);
(b) frequent elections leading to instability caused
military dictatorship somewhere while in other
places, brought about coalitional governments;
(c) economic reconstruction opened the way for
diversified politics as also rise of the regional
political parties seeking better facilities for their
region;
(d) major issues helped some earlier political parties
give way to the newer political parties or a new
combination of political parties;
(e) era of instability of political parties, lack of strong
opposition party, absence of clear-cut ideologies
focusing the socio-economic problems saw some
political parties dwindling away.
We may conclude, as in the words of Kenneth Janda
(Political Parties: A Cross-National Survey),. “The party
systems in the Third World excluding South America have
experienced substantial changes since the 1950s. Fewer than
50 percent of the original parties in Asia, Africa, the Middle
East, and Central America have continued to 1979, and 33 of
the 50 new parties came from countries in these regions.
Party instability in many Third World nations can perhaps be
attributed to the relative infancy of their political systems.
Western and South American nations have longer traditions
of nation-state government institutions. Although control of
these institutions may shift abruptly (especially following
coups in South America), the institutions, themselves tend to
continue, providing the thread of continuity to sustain parties
waiting for yet another change in governmental control. But
memories of governmental systems with functioning parties
are rare in Third World nations, and it is difficult to maintain
the will to continue without a clear and common vision of the
purpose of survival.” A_ shift towards one-party system
somewhere, and towards multi-party system elsewhere,
together with the downfall of the ‘centrist’ party system is
being seen, especially in the third world countries/developing
countries.
V. PRESSURE GROUPS AND INTEREST GROUPS

Interest and pressure groups constitute a part of any political
system. These are organised groups which exist for the
fulfillment of their specific interests. They are called interest
groups because they have interest of their own and for its
fulfillment they seek to make efforts. They are called pressure
groups when they exert pressure on the authorities for the
pursuit of their interests. In terms of their purpose, nature,
tactics and role, both pressure groups and interest groups are
often used interchangeably. What is important to note are
certain features in these groups.
i. Pressure and interest groups are organised groups.

ii. These organised groups work for collective interests of
their respective members.
iii These groups tend to influence decision-making by
putting pressure.
iv. They do not participate in forming the government, and
as such do not contest elections, but they do help
political parties in capturing power.
v. Unlike the political parties, the interest and pressure
groups have their specific and limited objectives,
concerned mainly with their members.
vi. Unlike political parties, these groups are informal,
closed and unrecognised part of the political system.
vii. Pressure, for example as lobbying in USA, is a
characteristic of interest and pressure groups.
Political parties and interest/pressure groups differ from

each other. Political parties are political in nature whereas
interest/pressure groups are non-political. Political parties
seek political power; whereas, interest and pressure groups
have no political ambitions; they only seek the satisfaction of
their specific demands. There are political parties with
interest/pressure groups of their own; whereas,
interest/pressure groups owe allegiance to political parties.
Accordingly, the objective of the interest groups is limited and
specific; whereas, political parties have general objectives,
and hence, are relatively large.
Pressure groups can be communal, institutional and
associational. Communal interest/pressure groups are those
groups where membership is based on birth (families, castes,
ethnic). /nstitutional interest/pressure groups are those where
membership is limited to bodies which are parts of the
government, attempting to exert influence on government for
protecting and promoting the interests of members of such
government. Associational interest/pressure groups are those
groups, which are formed by people to pursue, shared,
though limited, objectives; such groups are usually voluntary
groups. Some such pressure groups, as in India, may be
described as follows:
i. Institutional Interest Groups;

ii. Associational Interest Groups;
iii, Anomic Interest Groups; and
iv. Non-Associational Interest Groups.
Institutional Interest Groups

These groups are formally organised which consist of
professionally employed persons. They are a part of
government machinery and try to exert their influence. But
they do have much autonomy. These groups are found in
political parties, legislatures, armies, bureaucracies and
churches. An example of institutional groups can be the West
Bengal Civil Services Association. Whenever such an
association raises protest it does so by constitutional means
and in accordance with the rules and regulations.
Associational Interest Groups

These are organised specialised groups formed for interest
articulation, but to pursue limited goals. These include trade
unions, organisations of businessmen and industrialists, and
civic groups. Some examples of Associational Interest
Groups in India are Bengal Chamber of Commerce and
Industry, Indian Chambers of Commerce, Trade Unions such
as AITUC (All India Trade Union Congress), Teachers
Associations, Students Associations such as_ National
Students Union of India (NSUI), etc.
Anomic Interest Groups

These are the groups that have analogy with individual self-
representation. In such types of groups, perpetual infiltrations
such as riots, demonstrations are observed. These groups
are found in the shape of movement demonstrations and
processions, signature campaigns, street corner meetings,
etc. Their activities may either be constitutional or
unconstitutional.
Representation, Participation, Party Systems, Pressure
Groups, Social Movements 31.23 Non-Associational
Interest Groups
These are the kinship and lineage groups and ethnic,
regional, status and class groups that articulate interests on
the basis of individuals, family and religious heads. These
groups have informal structure. These include caste groups,
language groups, etc.
Interest groups, in a way, are groups with specific and
limited objectives, relatively with more objectives and less
pressure. Interest groups can be sectional as well as
promotive. Sectional interest groups (also called protective or
functional groups) exist to protect the interests of their
members; whereas promotive interest groups exist to
advance shared values, ideals or principle. Former protect the
interests and the latter promote the interests of their
respective members. Indeed, each such group supplements
the other. Interest groups are also classified as
(a) insider interest groups, which enjoy regular
institutionalized access through routine consultation
or representation;
(b) outsider interest groups which do not enjoy such
access as the insider interest groups do.
The pressure groups follow numerous methods in realising
their objectives: they keep close association with the political
parties, even, at times, financing them and providing them
workers during elections. They keep close rapport with the
state apparatus; i.e., the bureaucracy, even, at times,
corrupting them by offering money while some employ liaison
officers to appease the bureaucratic machinery. They keep
close contact with the legislatures, even, at times, giving them
financial and non-financial services. For the satisfaction of
their objectives, they keep doing research, prepare reports
and collect data so as to convince the concerned officials of
their demands. They, sometimes, arrange seminars, organize
people, demonstrate and even resort to strikes for getting
their objectives fulfilled. Their organisational abilities are
usually flawless; their relationship with mass media is never
wanting; their economic base is always strong; and their
mobilisational techniques are never in doubt.
In liberal-democratic countries, the pressure groups are
always very effective. In the United States, they play an
important role in the formulation of country’s policies,
notwithstanding their role in election campaigns. In other
countries also, they perform almost the same role, though
with a relatively less degree of success. In authoritarian
states, they, work under the state control, mobilize and at
times, demonstrate in favour of their respective governments.
VI. SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

“Social movements”, according to Oxford Concise Dictionary
of Politics, “are change-oriented political formations, using,
often tactics such as direct action, with loose and informal
organisational structures.” “They”, the dictionary continues,
“are organised around ideas which give the individuals (who
adhere to the movement), new forms of social and political
identity.” Charles Tilly (Social Movements, 1768-2004)
defines social movements as a series of contentious
performances, displays and campaigns by which ordinary
people make collective claims on others. He says that
through social movements, ordinary people participate in
public offices. He refers to three major elements in a social
movement:
1. campaigns: a sustained, organised public effort making
collective claims on target authorities;
2. social movement repertoire: employment — of
combinations from among the following forms of political
action: creation of special purpose associations and
coalitions, public meetings, solemn processions, vigils,
rallies, demonstrations, petition drives, statements to and
in public media and pamphleteering, and;
3. WUNC_ displays: participants’ concerted public
representation of worthiness, unity, numbers and
commitments on the part of themselves and/or their
constituencies.
Sidney Tarrow (Power in Movement: Collective Action
Social Movements and Politics) defines social movement as
“collective challenges (to elites, authorities, other groups or
cultural codes) by people with common purposes and
solidarity in sustained interactions with elites, opponents and
authorities.”
‘Social movements’, the term was introduced in 1850 by a
German sociologist, Lorenz von Stein in his book, History of
the French Social Movements from 1789 to the Present,
though Tilly claims that social movement did not exist before
the late 18th century, stating that social movements were
invented in England and North America during the first
decades of the 19th century and had since then spread
across the globe.
The early growth of social movements was connected to
broad economic and _ political changes _ including
parliamentarisation, market, capitalisation, and
proletarianisation, while political movements that evolved in
late 18th century, like those connected to the French
Revolution and Polish Constitution of May 3, 1791 were
among the first documented social movements. Tilly notes
that the British abolitionist movement has “some claim” to be
first social movement (becoming one between the Sugar
Boycott of 1791 and the second Great Petition Drive of 1806).
The labour movement and the socialist movements of the late
nineteenth century are seen as the prototypical social
movements, leading to the formation of communist and social
democratic parties and organisations.
In 1945, Britain after victory in the Second World War
entered a period of radical reforms and changes. In the
1970s, women’s rights, peace, civil rights and environmental
movements emerged, often dubbed as New Social
Movements. Some find in the end of the 1990s, the
emergence of a new global social movement, the anti-
globalization movement. Some social movements scholars
posit that with the rapid pace of globalization, the potential for
the emergence of new type of social movement is latent -
they make the analogy to national movements of the past to
describe what has been termed a G/obal Citizens Movement.
The process of urbanisation and that of industrialisation
helped in the emergence and evolution of early economic and
social movements. With the development of communication
technologies, and growth of universities, creation and
activities of social movements became easier. The spread of
democracy and political rights made the formation of social
movements much easier. Occasionally, social movements
have been involved in democratizing nations, though they
have flourished more after democratization. Sociologists have
distinguished between several types of social movements:
Scope
(i) Reform Movements

Movements dedicated to changing some norms, usually legal
ones. Examples of such a movement would include a Trade
Union movement with a goal of increasing workers’ rights, the
Green Movement advocating a set of ecological laws, or a
movement supporting elimination of a capital punishment or
right to abortion. Some reform movements may advocate a
change in customs and moral norms, for example,
condemnation of pornography or proliferation of some
religion.
(ii) Radial Movement
Movements dedicated to changing value systems. Those
involve fundamental changes, unlike the reform movements.
Examples include the American Civil Rights Movement which
demanded full civic rights and equality under the law to all
Americans regardless of race, the Polish Solidarity
(Solidarnose) movement which demanded the transformation
of communist political and economy system into democracy
and capitalism or the South African shack dwellers’
movement, (Abahlali base Mjondolo), which demands the full
inclusion of shack dwellers into the life of cities.
Type of Change
(i) Innovation Movement

Movements which want to enable particular norms, values,
etc. The singularianism movement advocating deliberate
action to effect and ensure the safety of the technological
singularity is an example of an innovation movement.
(ii) Conservative Movement

Movements which want to preserve existing norms, values,
etc. for example, anti-immigration groups. The anti-machines
19th century Luddites movement or the modern movement
opposing the spread of the genetically modified food could be
seen as conservative movements in that they aim to fight
specific technological changes; however, they are
progressive in ways that movements that are simply being
anti-change (e.g. being anti-immigration) for the sake of it can
never be.
Target
(i) Group-focussed Movements
Focussed on affecting groups or society in general, for
example, advocating the change of the political system. Some
of these groups transform into or join a political party, but
many remain outside the reformist party political system.
(ii) Individual-focussed Movements

Focussed on affecting individuals. Most religious movements
would fall under this category.
Methods
(i) Peaceful Movements

These are seen to stand in contrast to ‘violent’ movements,
but in reality rely on such force— American Civil Rights
Movement, Polish Solidarity Movement or Mahatma Gandhi's
Civil Disobedience Movement would fall under this category.
(ii) Violent Movements

Various armed movements, which do not include terrorist
organisations, e.g., the Zapatism Army of National Liberation
or Rote Armee Fraktion.
(iii) Terrorist Movements
Hazbollah, Basque Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA) or

Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) movement.
Old and New
(i) Old Movements

Movements for change have existed since the beginning of
society, most of the nineteenth century movements fought for
specific social groups, (Such as the working class, peasants,
whites, aristocrats, protestants, men). They were usually
centered around some materialistic goals like improving the
standard of living or, for example, the political autonomy of
the working class.
(ii) New Movements

Movements which become dominant from the second half of
the twentieth century like the Feminist movement, Pro-choice
movement, Civil Rights movement, Environmental movement,
Free Software movement, Gay Rights movement, Peace
movement, Anti-Nuclear movement, After-Globalisation
movement, etc. Sometimes they are known as new social
movements. They are usually centered around issues that go
beyond but are not separate from classes.
Range
(i) Global Movements

Social movements with global objectives and _ goals.
Movements such as the First, Second, Third and Fourth
Internationals (where Marx and Bakunin met), World Social
Forum, the PGA and the Anarchist movement seek to change
society at a global level.
(ii) Local Movements

Most of the social movements have a local scope. They are
based on local or regional objectives, such as protecting a
specific natural area, lobbying for the lowering of tools in a
certain motorway, or squatting a building about to be
demolished for gentrification and turning it into a social
center.
(iii) Multi-level Movements

Social movements which recognise the complexity of
governance in the 21St century and aim to have an impact at
the local, regional, national and international levels.
Social movements have their dynamics. They are created,
they grow, they succeed or they fail. Social movements exist
everywhere, both in liberal as well as in authoritarian
societies; they get polarised: they are the old social
movements fighting for the material gains with, the workers
asking for them, the capitalists, resisting them; there are the
new social movements with differences about customs,
values and the like, not just material aspect. Initiating event
may give birth to a social movement as the Civil Rights
Movements in America (whites reacting to a black woman,
Rosa Parks) or the Polish Solidarity Movement in Poland,
following the expulsion of a _ trade unionist, Anna
Walentynowicz; As against this, there is the volcanic model
where a social movement is often created after a large
number of people realise that there are others sharing the
same value and desire for a particular social change. Some
charismatic leader may help create a social movement while
some outside elements make social movements possible.
Diana Kendall (Sociology in Our Times) has developed
several theories with regard to the social movement.
Chronologically they are usually described as under:
1. Collective Behaviour/Collection Action Theories (1950s)
2. Relative Deprivation Theory (1960s)
3. Value-Added Theory (1960s)
4. Resource Mobilisation (1970s)
5. Frame Analysis Theory (1970s) closely related to Social
Constructionist Theory)
6. New Social Movement Theory (1980s).
VI. (a) Social Movements: Theories

Numerous theories with regard to social movements are
usually offered. The deprivation theory believes that the social
movements have their foundations among the people who
feel deprived of certain goods, benefits, services, resources,
etc. Accordingly, such people organise themselves so to
improve their conditions (see Denton Morrison “Some Notes
toward Theory or Relative Deprivation, Social Movement and
Social Change”). This theory has a very weak argument:
evidence of this movement is only deprivation; deprivation
may have any form, and at any time. The mass society theory
argues that the social movements are made up of individuals
in large societies who feel insignificant or socially detached.
Social movements, according to this theory, provide a sense
of empowerment and belonging that the movement members
would otherwise not have (see William Kornhauser, The
Politics of Mass Society) Aho (Politics of Righteousness).
Some criticise such a theory on the ground that it does not
have sufficient support, for members of the movements may
not be socially detached as they are expected. The structural
strain theory, Nail Smelser (Theory of Collective Behaviour)
refers to the following factors which encourage social
movement:
1. structural conduciveness—people come to believe that
society has problems.
2. structural strain—people experience deprivation
3. growth and spread of a solution—a solution to the
problems people are experiencing is proposed and the
solution spreads
4. precipitating factors—discontent usually requires a
catalyst (often a specific event) to turn it into a social
movement.
5. lack of social control—the entity that is to be changed
must be at least somewhat open to the change; if the
social movement is quickly and powerfully repressed, it
may never materialise.
6. mobilisation—this is the actual organising and active
component of the movement; people do what needs to
be done.
Like the deprivation theory, strain, like deprivation, is the
only indication of social movements. The _ resource
mobilisation theory lays emphasis on the importance of
resources in social movement, sources including knowledge,
money, media, labour, solidarity and legitimacy. The theory
argues that social movements develop when individuals with
grievances are able to mobilise sufficient resources to take
action. The critics lay too much emphasis on resources while
social movements such as the Civil Rights Movement in the
United States emphasise on members and their role. The
political process theory lays emphasis on _ political
opportunities. This approach argues that there are three vital
components for movement formation: (1) insurgent
consciousness, (2) organisational strength, (3) political
opportunities. The critics oppose the theory for having ignored
the culture component. The culture theory builds both on the
political process and resource—mobilization theories while
emphasising on the importance of culture. The theory suffers
from defects as do the political process and the resource-
mobilisation theories.
We may, however, summarise some of the other major
theories together with their characteristics as follows.
Functionalist Perspectives
i. In 1950s, view was that Social Movements were

outgrowth of particular type of social behaviour, known
as collective behaviour.
ii. These arise out of a breakdown of traditional order with
some underlying shared source of excitement or stress
or anxiety or frustration.
iii, Breakdown of traditional patterns of order and social
control produce the elementary forms of collective
behaviour which, if they persist, may lead to Social
Movements and then may evolve into integrated
structures and new established norms (follows very
much the functionalist view of order and change-
gradual).
iv. Social Movements are adaptive responses to strains in
transition from traditional to modern mass societies.
v. Social Movements emerge out of spontaneous and
amorphous mass discontent.
vi. Functions: Social Movements contribute to the
formation of public opinion; serve as the training ground
for leaders of political establishment.
Value-added Theory
Smelser emphasises ongoing interaction between
movement and_ society, and _ identifies six conditions
necessary for development of Social Movements, each
necessary and each added on to the other.
i. Structural conduciveness: organisation of society can
facilitate the emergence of conflicting interests;
ii. Structural strains: conduciveness of social structure to
potential conflict gives way to a perception that
conflicting interests do in fact exist.
iii. Growth of a generalised belief system: ideology, a
shared view of reality that redefines social action and
serves to guide behaviour.
iv. Precipitating events, triggering events, found within or
outside social structure.
v. Mobilisation of participants.
vi. Operation of social control; response of others in
society, e.g. counter movements or governmental
authorities, latter could either open channel of
communication or influence i.e. co-operation, or alter
underlying structural conditions that gave rise to Social
Movements, or suppress movement (prevent, delay or
interrupt).
Criticisms
Causal links between six factors remains unclear. It dose
not clarify the kinds structures, strains of the movement.
Therefore, the links mentioned are more descriptive than
explanatory.
Conflict Theory Perspectives

Social Movements are special sorts of interest-group
collectives that attempt to:
i. gain benefits for individuals.

ii. produce social reforms.
iii. gain entry into the established structures of society.
Movement Theory
Emphasises the consciousness and culture, ideology,

generalised beliefs, values, and focus on modern
societies.
. Developed by European scholars: movements emerged
in short time span in different Western nations all having
different cultural traditions and national structures of
political opportunity.
Developed as reactions to modernising process in
advanced industrial capitalist societies, reactions to
erosion of traditional ways of family and work life post
World War Il.
Overriding issue is one of “life space” and the struggle
to regain control of private spheres of life from state
bureaucratic regulation (Same as postmodernism which
comes from literary critics of modernity); promotes
autonomy and self-determination as well as
improvements in quality of life.
Have complex agenda that go beyond single issue.
Vi. Do not view government as an ally, inclined to not
accepting established political or scientific authority.
Vil. Moral crusades, the politics of righteousness, agents of
cultural renovation, goals are more cultural rather than
political, to change moral climate of nation, frame issues
in absolute terms with little room for compromise.
Differences from Social Movements of previous decades:

(a) Ideological contexts are different: framed by
concerns about individual and cultural rights,
articulating claims about fundamental economic
justice or human or political rights, an ideology
shaped by values about _ self-actualisation,
community and personal satisfaction.
(b) Preferred action forms are different: distrustful of
politics, favouring small scale and decentralized
organisations, anti-hierarchical, advocating direct
democracy, and;
(c) Not associated with the grievances of the lower
classes.
VI.(b) New Social Movements

The term new social movement refers to those movements
which have come up since mid-1960s. The new social
movement theory looks at various collective actions, their
identity and on their relations for culture, ideology and politics,
most of them the products of the development of post-
industrial economy. These differ from the old in that
(a) they are concerned with non-material phenomena;
(b) they work for quality of life, rather for merely life;
(c) they are cooperative and not conflictive;
(d) they are follower-oriented rather leader-oriented;
(e) they are decentralised, rather than centralised
ones.
The new social movements include among others the
Women’s movements, the Ecology movement, Gay Rights
movements and various Peace movements. Thinkers have
related these movements with the post-materialism
hypothesis as put forth by Ronald Inglehart. Important
contributors in the field include sociologists such as Alian
Touraine, Claus Offe, and Jurgen Hubermas. Most of these
movements tend to emphasise social changes in life style and
culture, rather than pushing for specific changes in public
policy or for economic changes. Some theorists argue that
the key actors to these movements are members of the “new
middle class”, or service-sector professionals (such as
academics). They are informal, loosely organised social
network of ‘supporters’ rather than members. Paul Byrne
described new social movements as ‘relatively disorganised’.
Some of the major new social movements are as follows:
Environment Movements
It is a term which is also used to include the conservation
and green movements. It is a diverse scientific, social and
political movement which addresses the concerns of the
environment. In general terms, the environmentalists
advocate sustainable management of the natural resources.
The movement is centred around ecology, health and human
rights. Its base is very broad, including private citizens,
professionals, statesmen, intellectuals, and the like. Among
its advocates, we may mention Thoreau (Walden, or Life of
the Woods), and Marsh between 1830 and 1960. During the
1960s and 1970s, mention may be made about Rachel
Carson (Silent Spring), Paul R. Ehrlich (The Population
Bomb) and the like. The scope of the movement includes:
i. The Environment Movement is broad in scope and can

include any topic related to the environment
conservation, and biology, as well as preservation of
landscapes, flora, and fauna for a variety of purposes
and uses.
ii. The Conservation Movement seeks to protect natural
areas for sustainable consumption, as well as traditional
(hunting, fishing, trapping) and spiritual use.
iii. Environmental Health Movement dates at least to
Progressive Era and focuses on urban standards like
clear water, efficient sewage handling, and stable
population growth. Environmental health could also deal
with nutrition, preventive medicine, aging and other
concerns specific to human well-being. Environmental
health is also seen as an indicator for the state of the
natural environment, or any early warning system for
what may happen to humans.
iv. Environmental justice is a movement that began in the
US in the 1980s and seeks an end to environmental
racism and prevent low-income and minority
communities from an unbalanced exposure to
highways, garbage dumps, and factories. The
Environmental Justice Movement seeks to link “social”
and “ecological” environmental concerns, while at the
same time preventing de facto racism, and classism.
v. Ecology Movement could involve the Gaia Theory, as
well as Value of Earth and other interactions between
humans, science and responsibility.
vi. Deep Ecology is often considered to be a spiritual spin-
off of the Ecology Movement.
vii. Bright Green Environmentalism is a currently popular
sub-movement, which emphasises the idea that through
technology, good design and more thoughtful use of
energy and resources, people can live responsible,
sustainable lives while enjoying prosperity.
Peace Movements
It is a movement that seeks to achieve ideals such as the
ending of a particular war (or all wars), minimise inter-human
violence in a particular place or type of situation, often linked
to the goal of achieving world peace. Means to achieve these
ends usually include advocacy of pacifism, non-violent
resistance, diplomacy, boycotts, moral purchasing, supporting
anti-war political candidates, demonstrations, and lobbying
groups to create legislation. The Political Cooperative is an
example of an organisation that seeks to merge all peace
movement organisations and green organisations. The Day of
Silence for Peace holds rallies when participants wear a piece
of white cloth across their mouths with Peace written on it to
symbolise their unity and readiness to change their world.
Feminist Movements
It is also known as the Women’s Movement or Women’s
Liberation. \t is a strong campaign which focuses on the rights
of women. It started in 1862, held in southern California.
Women’s Movement campaigns for gender equality, women’s
identity, and the end of women’s exploitation. Numerous
strands of feminism are working to produce positive results to
end patriarchal dominance and bring about gender justice.
Some other new social movements are:
(a) Abahlali BaseMjondolo (South Africa)
(b) Anti-nuclear Movement
(c) Landless Peoples Movement (South Africa)
(d) Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra
(Brazil)
(e) Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign (South
Africa)
(f) Zapatista Army of National Liberation (Mexico)
Paul Bagguley and Nelson Pichardo (New _ Social
Movements: A Critical Review) have criticised new social
movements for being concerned with non-materialistic issues
which even existed in the pre-industrial and traditional times
and that the new social movements do not have the new
theories to explain their contents. They even doubt if the new
social movements are the product of the post-industrial
society. They allege that the new social movements have the
left-wing orientation. Steve Cake (Different Political
Movements) argue that the new social movements are neither
new, nor social, nor movements and may better be described
as “Different Political Movements’.
VI.(c) Social Movements in Developed and Developing

Societies
Social movements vary from society to society, for they
respond to the social conditions in which societies find
themselves. In most advanced developed societies, problems
are different, the way the people lead their lives are also
different and their attitude towards life is also different. As
against such societies, the developing nations view life and
problems differently. Accordingly, the social movements differ
from society to society, situation-to-situation, time to time and
attitudes to attitudes. The United States, for example, the
nation of mixed races, will have social movements which lay
emphasis on the ethnic movements relating to identity ones
(civil rights movement). The country would have _ social
movements which would seek respect for diversities, stress
on integration, conversion of ‘mob’ into collectivity, political
and cultural freedoms, movements against apartheid, against
amassing wealth, against terrorism. The more developed
nations indulge in debates so to form social movements
which help reconcile the claims of modernisation and of
globalisation, the demands of globalisation and civil society,
the process of ecological balance and of sustainable
development, and the like. The social movements such as the
Royal Society for the protection of animals as in Britain are
one such movement. In such developed nations, social
movements which are popular relate to environmentalism,
peace-concerning, anti-nuclear ones. The nature of social
movements in the developed societies is the emphasis on
matter than on life, life as also on good life, i.e., on quality of
life rather on more life.
In developing nations, the fundamental conditions of social
movements are quite different from those in the developed
countries. In developing nations, developed, as they are not,
the major incentives for social movements are often related to
fundamental needs and socio-economic problems facing
them.
The social movements in the developing nations are of
numerous forms. This is so because the social, economic,
political, cultural conditions in the developing countries vary
drastically. In India, as part of South Asia, the social
movements include tribal movements relating to dalits
(National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights), Chipko
movement (environmentalist campaign), Friends of Narmada
River (Narmada Bachao Andolan), the Enron Project
(Maharashtra), Small Hands of Slavery, Bhim Sanga,
Movement in India for Nuclear Disarmament, the Women’s
Movement in India. Other social movements of Asia include
Child Labour Movement in Pakistan, Pakistan Trade Union
Movement, India-Pakistan Make Love, Not War movement,
Peace Brigades International in Sri Lanka. In Africa, the social
movements have helped bring unity among the numerous
ethnic groups and in almost all the countries in Africa are
working to modernise the continent. ACCORD is such an
example of African identity. The Latin American social
movements are increasingly cooperating across borders,
within the region as well as with movements in Europe and
United States. In many parts of Latin America, the focus of
the social movement is on identity.
Practice
Questions
1. What do you mean by ‘representation’?

Describe its various models. (700-800
words)
2. Discuss the different approaches to the
concept of representation and state its
major theories. (700-800 words)
3. State either the liberal or the Marxist
Theory of representation. (700-800
words)
4. Write a note on ‘political participation’.
(200-250 words)
5. Describe the electoral process as is
followed in democracies. (700-800
words)
6. What do you mean by ‘Political Parties’
and mention its various types/forms?
(700-800 words)
7. In what respect are the new social
movements new in nature. (2014) (200-
250 words)
8. What do you mean by social
movements? Compare them with new
social movements. (200-250 words)
9. Give a comparative explanation of
social movements in developed and
participation societies. (700-800 words)
10. Describe the theories of social
movements. (200-250 words)
11. How did the struggle for representation
increase the level and quality of
democracy in the industrial societies.
(2012) (200-250 words)
12. ‘Party system in India is_ neither
Western nor indigeneous.’ Explain.
(2014) (200-250 words)
13. Compare and contrast the social
movements in advanced, industrial and
developing societies. (2013) (700-800
words)
14. Examine the significance of ideological
and policy aspects in the structural
growth of modern political parties.
(2012) (700-800 words)
15. Critically evaluate the approaches
towards environment concerns. (700-
800 words)
Globalisation: Perspectives
T he term Globalisation is a fairly familiar one. About three decades back, the
term was hardly used. Anthony Giddens (born 1938, famous work, The Third
Way and Its Critics) claims to have used the term extensively when it was not
used either in academics or in media, and certainly not in business discourses.
Within a short span of time, the term ‘globalisation’ has travelled from a ‘nowhere’
position to an ‘everywhere an’ one.
|. GLOBALISATION: MEANING, DEFINITIONS, NATURE

Globalisation is the widening, deepening and speeding up of the worldwide
interconnectedness. In the literal sense, it is a process of transformation of local or
regional or national phenomena into global one, though some, the hyperglobalists,
see in it the demise of the nation-state while the others, the skeptics, doubt whether
it is globalising at all; while its admirers, the transformationalists are of the view that
it is leading towards the globalisation of politics. The term ‘globalisation’ has been
defined in a variety of ways with varying emphases: on social, economic, political,
cultural and the like. The main emphasis on the meaning of globalisation is on
‘connectivity’, which as Heywood (Key Concepts in Politics) means that the
geographical distances are deepening and that the territorial boundaries are
becoming insignificant. It is, as Heywood rightly warns not the subordination of the
local, regional or national to the global but is the broadening of the processes where
things at local, regional, national or global levels interact with one another. In its
economic dimension, globalisation is the internationalisation of world economies
bringing goods, services, capital, technologies, and the like closer to each other. In
the larger sense of the term, globalisation is a process of bringing people, nations,
civilisations, cultures together, a process, which combines economic, technological,
socio-cultural and political forces. Saski Sassen (Territory, Authority, Rights: From
Medieval to Global Assemblages) says that “a good part of globalisation consists of
an enormous variety of micro-processes that begin to denationalise what had been
constructed as national—whether policies, capital, political, subjectivities, urban
spaces, temporal frames, or any other of a variety of dynamics and domains.
Though described as “westernisation” or “Americanisation’, at times by some, the
term ‘globalisation’ refers to fundamental changes according to which the
significance of space or territory or time or things undergoes shifts so to compress
them all.
Globalisation’s definitions are numerous. David Held (Global Transformations:
Politics, Economics and Culture) defines globalisation as “the widening, deepening
and speeding up of worldwide interconnections in all respects of contemporary
social life. Giddens (The Consequences of Modernity) says that globalisation is the
intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way
that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice-
versa.” Scholte (Globalisation: A Critical Introduction) describes globalisation as “the
deterritorisalisation—or—the growth of super-territorial relations between people”.
Harvey (The Conditions of Post-modernity) calls globalisation as “time-space
compression”. The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western
Asia (UNESCWA) has written that when used in economic context, globalisation
“refers to the reduction and removal of barriers between national borders in order to
facilitate the flow of goods, capital and labour ...”. According to Tom Palmer
(“globalisation is Grearreat”), globalisation is “the diminution or elimination of state-
enforced restrictions on exchanges across borders and the increasingly integrated
and complex global system of production and exchange that has emerged as a
result.” Gilpin (Global Political Economy) defines globalisation as “the integration of
world economy”. Baylis and Smith (The Globalisation of World Politics) define
globalisation as “historical process involving a fundamental shift or transformation in
the spatial scale of human social organisation that links distinct communities and
expands the reach of the power relations across regions and continents.” Viotti and
Kauppi (/nternational Relations and World Politics) say that “globalisation refers to
enormously increased transnational and worldwide interconnection in virtually every
human pursuit.”
( )
Globalisation Quotes
e “We have a cultural phenomenon; the emergence of a global culture, or of

cultural globalisation.” ... Berger
e “Globalisation, far from putting an end to power diplomacy between states,
has, on the contrary, intensified it.” . Bongo
e “Globalisation is talking about the internet, talking about cell phones, talking
about the computers. This does not affect two-thirds of the people of the
world.” ...Jimmey Carter
e “Globalisation is a fact of economic life.” ... de Gortari
e “In the current form, globalisation cannot be sustained. Democratic societies
will not support it. Authoritarian leaders will fear to impose it.” .Sweeney
e “Globalisation in the sense of the world becoming smaller has been going
on, since Adam and Eve.” . Walfensohn
e “It has been said that arguing, against globalisation is like arguing against
the laws of gravity.” .Kofi Annan
\ J
Globalisation is an attempt at shared social space; it is both the deterritorialisation

of power as well as deterritorialisation of social, economic and political activities. It is
a conceptual shift in our thinking from a primarily geopolitical perspective to the
perspective of geo-centric or global politics. It is not the end of the sovereign nation-
state but is an attempt to share power between national, regional and global
authorities. It is not the end of the countries’ borders, but is one that makes borders
soft. It is less the creation of a world state as it is of creating a global thinking, i.e.,
the realisation that the mankind is one.
Globalisation, as is clear from the above, is the process of integrating nations and
peoples — politically, economically and culturally—into a larger community. By its
very nature the term ‘globalisation’ is not internationalisation. In fact, it is different
from internationalisation; to be more specific, it is more than internationalisation.
Internationalisation remains confined to the nation-states, accepts their isolated and
separate existence while globalisation, going beyond the nations, extends to the
people, their culture, their civilisation. It implies togetherness, connectivity, and
relationship, dissolving, thus, the barriers of time, distance and boundaries. The
focus, as the term ‘globalisation’ suggests, is not on nations but on the entire globe.
The emphasis, so far as the nature of globalisation is concerned, is on the process,
the process that integrates people, businesses, non-governmental organisations and
nations into a larger network. globalisation promotes convergence, harmonisation,
efficiency, growth, democratisation and homogenisation.
In its implications, globalisation has the following rudiments as its features or
principles:
1. Globalisation means deterritorialisation: Global events occur anywhere and
everywhere and in situation where latitudinal and longitudinal location seems
immaterial. Business people on continents now engage in electronic commerce;
television allows people situated anywhere to observe the impact of wars;
academics make use of the latest video conferencing so as to organise
seminars; Internet permits people to communicate instantaneously with one
another. globalisation has made it all possible, rendering territorial restrictions
almost insignificant.
2. Globalisation means /nterconnectedness: Through globalisation, we not only
associate ourselves with others, we also expand our activities. Any event
happening anywhere influences events situated faraway, though the magnitude
and impact of the event could be relatively minimal. Interconnectedness across
frontiers is, now, no longer haphazard; it can be predictable and regularised.
3. Globalisation means compression of space and time: The proliferation of high-
speed trans-portation, communication and information technologies constitutes
the most immediate effect of compression. Without these fast flows, it is difficult
to see how distant events could possibly possess the influence they now enjoy.
4. Globalisation means a process: A process whose effects are of long-term
nature. Deterritorialisation, social interconnectedness, compression of space
and time have their impact sooner or later on people working thousands of
miles away from their homes.
5. Globalisation is a process of multi-pronged nature: It is so because
deterritorialisation, interconnectedness and acceleration (i.e. compression of
time and space) have their impact in numerous arenas such as economic,
social, political and cultural.
Baylis and Smith, while concluding on these principles of globalisation, refer to
(a) the stretching of social, political and economic activities across political
frontiers (i.e. deterritorialisation),
(b) intensification of interconnectedness in almost every sphere of social
existence (i.e., social interconnectedness),
(c) the accelerating face of global interactions and processes (i.e., time-space
compression leading to acceleration);
(d) the growing extensity, intensity and velocity of global interaction is
associated with a deepening enmeshment of the local and global in so far
as local events have global consequences and global events have the
serious local consequences (i.e. globalisation is a multi-pronged process).
ll. GLOBALISATION: EVOLUTION

Globalisation is a centuries-old process. The early forms of globalisation existed
during the Roman Empire, the Parthian empire, and the Han Dynasty, when the Silk
Road started in China, reached the boundaries of the Parthian empire, and
continued onwards towards Rome. The Islamic Golden Age is also an example,
when Muslim traders and explorers established an early global economy across the
Old World resulting in a globalisation of coups, trade, knowledge and technology;
and later during the Mongol Empire, when there was greater integration along the
Silk Road. Globalisation in a wider context began shortly before the turn of the
sixteenth century, with two Kingdoms of the Iberian Peninsula—the Kingdom of
Portugal and the Kingdom of Castile.
Portugal’s global explorations in the sixteenth century, especially, linked
continents, economies and cultures to a massive extent. Portugal’s exploration and
trade with most of the coast of Africa, Eastern South America, and Southern and
Eastern Asia, was the first major trade-based form of globalisation. A wave of global
trade, colonisation and enculturation reached all corners of the world. Global
integration continued through the expansion of European trade in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries, when the Portuguese and Spanish Empires colonised the
Americans, followed eventually by France and England. Globalisation has had a
tremendous impact on cultures, particularly indigenous cultures, around the world. In
the fifteenth century, Portugal’s Company of Guinea was one of the first chartered
commercial companies established by Europeans in other continents during the Age
of Discovery, whose task was to deal with the spices and to fix the prices of the
goods. In the seventeenth century, globalisation became a business phenomenon
when the British East India Company (founded in 1600), which is often described as
the first multinational corporation, was established, as well as the Dutch East India
Company (founded in 1602) and the Portuguese East India Company (founded in
1628). Because of the large investment and financing needs and the high risks
involved with international trade, the British East India Company became the first
company in the world to share risk and enable joint ownership of companies through
the issuance of shares of stock: an important driver for Globalisation. globalisation
was achieved by the British Empire (the largest empire in history) due to its sheer
size and power.
The British ideals and culture were imposed on other nations during this period.
The fact of globalisation can be associated with the expansion of railways as well.
Writing in 1839, the English journalist commented on the implications of rail travel,
saying that as distance was “annihilated, the surface of our country would, as it
were, shrivel in size until it became not much bigger than one immense city.” A few
years later, Heinrich Heine, the émigré German-Jewish poet, captured this same
experience when he noted: “space is killed by the railways. | feel as if the mountains
and forests of all countries were advancing on Paris. Even now, | can smell the
German linden trees; the North Sea’s breakers are rolling against my door.” Another
German émigré, the socialist theorist Karl Marx, in 1848 formulated the idea that the
imperatives of capitalist production inevitably drove the bourgeoisie to “nestle
everywhere, settle everywhere, and establish connections everywhere.” The other
developments such as economic and social trends, too, helped globalisation to
emerge. The Americans such as Henry Adams and John Dewey noticed such
developments.
The nineteenth century is sometimes called “The First Era of globalisation.” It was
a period characterised by rapid growth in international trade and investment
between the European imperial powers, their colonies, and, later, the United States.
It was in this period that areas of sub-Saharan Africa and the Island Pacific were
incorporated into the world system. The “First Era of globalisation” began to break
down at the beginning of the twentieth century with the First World War. John
Maynard Keynes said, “The inhabitant of London could order by telephone, sipping
his morning tea, the various products of the whole Earth, and reasonably expect
their early delivery upon his doorstep. Militarism and imperialism of racial and
cultural rivalries were little more than the amusements of his daily newspaper. What
an extraordinary episode in the economic progress of man was that age which came
to an end in August 1914.”
The “First Era of globalisation” later collapsed during the gold standard crisis and
Great Depression in the late 1920s and early 1930s. In the late 2000s much of the
industrialised world entered into a deep recession. Some analysts say the world is
going through a period of deglobalisation after years of increasing economic
integration. Up to 45 per cent of global wealth had been destroyed by the global
financial crisis in little less than a year and a half.
Globalisation, since World War Il, is largely the result of planning by politicians to
break down borders hampering trade to increase prosperity and interdependence
thereby decreasing the chance of future war. Their work led to the Bretton Woods
conference, an agreement by the world’s leading politicians to lay down the
framework for international commerce and finance, and the founding of several
international institutions intended to oversee the processes of globalisation.
These institutions include the International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development (the World Bank), and the International Monetary Fund. Globalisation
has been facilitated by advances in technology which have reduced the costs of
trade, and trade negotiation rounds, originally under the auspices of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which led to a series of agreements to
remove restrictions on free trade.
Since World War Il, barriers to international trade have been considerably lowered
through international agreements such as GATT. Particular initiatives carried out as
a result of GATT and the World Trade Organisation (WTO), for which GATT is the
foundation, have included:
e Promotion of free trade:

e Elimination of tariffs; creation of free trade zones with small or no tariffs
e Reduced transportation costs, especially resulting from development of
containerization for ocean shipping.
Reduction or elimination of capital controls
Reduction, elimination, or harmonisation of subsidies for local businesses
Creation of subsidies for global corporations
Harmonisation of intellectual property laws across the majority of states, with
more restrictions.
e Supranational recognition of intellectual property restrictions (e.g. patents
granted by China would be recognized in the United States)
The Uruguay Round (1986-94) led to a treaty to create the World Trade
Organisation to help accelerate the process of globalisation, raising the world
exports from 8.5 per cent of gross world product in 1970 to 16.1 per cent in 2001.
Though the September 11, 2001 attack on the American Trade Centre heralded the
end of the globalisation era by some scholars, and as a result of it, the movement of
money, goods, ideas, people has come to almost a halt. But ever since that event
the world has come to more or less integrated. Baylis and Smith give us three waves
of globalisation:
(a) the age of discovery (1450-1850) when globalisation was decisively
shaped by European expansion and conquest;
(b) the age of the spread and entrenchment of European Empire between
1850 and 1945;
(c) the third wave (1960 onward) which marks the beginning of the new era of
human affairs.
The story of globalisation can be explained from the Westphalian Constitution of
World Order (1648) when geopolitics came into effect through
(a) the territorial organisation of the state,
(b) states possessed with sovereignty, and
(c) states autonomous in social, political and economic spheres.
The world order changed to global and cosmopolitan politics in the age of
globalisation:
(a) state sovereignty came to be transformed (and not eroded) so to enable
the states to share power and authority between national, regional and
global authorities;
(b) the state autonomy comes to be so composed that it enables the states to
use power in the interests of the citizens’ global demands; and
(c) the state territory becomes so soft that it heralds the era of
deterritorialisation.
Heather de Wet (Globalisation—Brief Paper) indicates the following major
features of globalisation:
1. It is a set of economic processes through which production, marketing and
investments are increasingly integrated across borders and between/among the
states and businesses. The opening up of markets to the global economy is
leading to the emergence of a single global market.
2. It is a development strategy. This is so because economic growth, as a result of
globalisation, has become a means to reduce world poverty. It helps provide
basic needs and improves living standards.
3. As an ideology, it is underpinned by neo-liberalism. Accordingly it stimulates
competition, advocates free and unhindered trade, minimises state interference
in markets and eliminates protectionist measures.
4. It is a socio-political process in so far as it helps to reduce cultural diversity and
brings different communities closer to one another.
5. It becomes a powerful instrument for domestic reforms. It brings changes so to
reduce social spending, dismantle the welfare state, deregulate labour market,
emphasise on export led development.
6. It expands trade and investments by encouraging commerce. Through
globalisation, favourable tax laws are, for example, introduced which promote
world trade.
Globalisation and modernisation do have certain similarities. Modernisation
through industrialisation has helped globalisation in more ways than one. In both,
the role of the state becomes increasingly less significant; in both, international
politics becomes an arena of negotiations by the states rather than going to war on
any or every issue. And yet, modernisation is globalisation’s precursor, and one
where economic aspects are relatively more dominant. ‘Economic growth’ also has
its relationship with industrialisation: only industrially developed nations have their
developed economy. The aspect of economic growth too has set the path of
globalisation going. Here also, as with modernisation, economic growth
concentrates on ‘economic’ factor while in globalisation, other factors have their co-
equal status. Economic interdependence is an essential component of both
modernisation and economic growth and as such does have the main theoretical
themes of globalisation anticipated in the latter, but this again is an aspect which is
relatively associated with the developed nations rather than with globalisation. The
advances in electronic communication have compressed both space and time and
have, to that extent, the picture of globa/ village in view (see McLuhan’s
Understanding Media), and in the process, have theoretical themes of globalisation.
But Mcluhan wrote primarily and basically for communication revolution rather than
for globalisation. The concept of ‘world society as developed by John Burton (World
Society) does make the traditional state system outmoded and this is what brings
the concept of world society close to globalisation. But Burton wrote about the world
society in the context of world politics, and not what relates to globalisation. The
advocates (such as Mendlovitz, On the Creation of a Just World Order and Falk, A
Study of Future Worlds) of the World Order Models Project (WOMP) did visualise
what were to be the themes of globalisation. But these themes remained WOMPers
only. There is much what is similar between the concept of international society and
globalisation, but the exponents of the international society (see Harvey Bull, The
Anarchical Society) formed a society rather than the institutional system. The
globalisation theory has much in common with Fukuyama’s ‘End of History’,
heralding the victory of market economy. But Fukuyama’s focus was nowhere close
to globalisation. There are marked similarities between globalisation and ‘liberal
peace theory’, the latter emphasising on the close relationship between the liberal-
democratic countries. There was, however, no indication of globalisation efforts in
the writings of the advocates of this theory (See Russett, Grasping the Democratic
Peace, and Doyle’s Kant’s Liberal Legacies).
Globalisation has been made possible due to numerous factors such as
i. pace of economic transformation,

ii. developments in communication,
iii. movement toward global culture;
iv. growing homogenous activities,
V. compression of time and peace,
vi. emerging global polity,
vii. rising consciousness for cosmopolitan culture.
lll. GLOBALISATION: THEORIES, FORMS AND ESSENCE

The four theories relating to globalisation are as follows:
1. Realist Theory: For the realists, globalisation and its entry into world politics
does not alter its nature. The world, for them is divided into nation-states; each
nation stands for its own national interest and each nation-state meets the other
on the strength of its own power. States, in the world politics, accroding to this
theory remain states, i.e., as fundamental actors in the world politics; they retain
their sovereignty. Globalisation does not make state sovereignty obsolete, nor
surrender it in favour of any international system. It, indeed, affects economy,
people, culture, and covers almost all fields of human life—social, economic,
political and cultural. But it accepts nations as international persons.
2. Liberal Theory: For the liberals, globalisation is the end product of a long
process of transformation of world politics. Unlike the realists, the liberals think
that due to globalisation, the states are no longer the central actors in the world,
for the revolution in communication and technologies have brought fundamental
changes in the attitudes of the nation-states. These nation-states, the liberals
rightly feel, are interconnected and interdependent on one another and this has
led to different patterns of world political relations.
3. Marxist Theory: For the Marxists, globalisation is no new system and it is the
latest stage of the development of capitalism. The Marxists hold the view that
globalisation has not brought any qualitative shift in world politics. Globalisation,
the Marxists insist, is a western capitalistic phenomenon which only furthers the
development of international capitalism. Through globalisation, the pattern of
relationship among the states, the Marxists tell us, is that of the center or the
core nation surrounded by the periphery or the semi-periphery states.
4. Constructivist Theory: For the constructivists, globalisation tends to be
presented as an external force acting on the states whose reality cannot be
challenged. The constructivists argue that since it cannot be challenged,
globalisation can hardly help shape events.
Globalisation has its numerous forms: Economic Globalisation is the process of
increasing economic integration and the nations which process, essentially leads to
the emergence of a global market place as a single world market. It helps the flow of
goods and products, trade and commerce, informations and technologies, import
and export, capital and people with least state regulations. While economic
globalisation is occurring for the last several centuries through trade, it has begun to
occur at an increased rate over the last 20-30 yeas. This recent boom has been
largely accounted for as developed economies integrate with less developed
economies, by means of foreign direct investment, through the reduction of trade
barriers, and the modernisation of these developing cultures. It is the stretching of
economic activities across frontiers; it is the intensification of economic
interconnectedness—it is the acceleration of economic interdependence through
trade and communication. Political globalisation is the stretching of economic
activities in such a way that people belonging to different communities come closer
to each other. Politics is effectively stretched across frontiers as developments or
decisions in one locality come to have significant consequence to the people of
distant communities. Globalisation is the strengthening of the infrastructures of
worldwide political interaction. Since the nineteenth century, nations of the world are
coming together whether in war or in the formation of the international organisations.
Globalisation is the speeding up of the dynamics of politics of numerous
communities. A change of political nature occurring in one nation influences the
politics of another nation, howsoever distant it may be. The great depression in the
1920s, an event occurring in the USA, had political impact on the countries of
different regions. Globalisation is the deepening up of political processes as well. To
answer what effects global warning would have, we require the cooperation of
numerous political communities. Social globalisation is the socialisation of the
people of different communities into the people of the world. The Marxists, Marx in
particular, wants the workers of the world to unite so as to make a society of the
working class. Social globalisation is the stretching of the local into regional, regional
into national, and national into the global people. It is the intensification of the
interconnectedness of the people of different communities into one whole. It is the
acceleration of social interdependence and it is the creation of universal
brotherhood/sisterhood. Social globalisation is the deepening up of peoples’
relationship into a single whole. Cultural globalisation is the rapid traversing of ideas,
attitudes and values across national borders. This is the stretching of the
local/regional/national into the global culture. Globalisation is not merely a physical
linking of the world. If interconnectedness has to continue apace, there has to be a
set of shared cultural understanding. Part of the process of globalisation is the need
to develop a culture that transcends diverse economic, ethnic, political, racial,
religious background. Such a global culture has to be built on Asian, African or
European identity and each such identity has to go beyond the national identities as
national identities Nave to leave behind local/regional identities. Cultural
globalisation makes it possible to exchange knowledge, information and festivities. It
is not the domination of one culture over the other, it is the bringing of the numerous
cultures together.
The essence of globalisation lies in its power to make the notion of state
sovereignty almost irrelevant. As the global interconnectedness increased, the
number of political instruments available to the nation-states show a marked decline;
border controls lessen. With the expansion of transitional forces and interactions,
largely through globalisation, there come a reduction of states’ influence. The growth
and development of global interconnectedness forces the nationstates to
compromise their rules and regulations so as to obtain the benefits of collaboration.
Globalisation has not eroded state sovereignty, but has forced the nation-states to
bring about fundamental changes in their attitudes towards global politics. The
nation-states do not, now, resort to war on every issue, big or small. They rather
prefer to sit and debate their issues. They do not stand, now, firm on the question of
state sovereignty; they rather tend to cooperate and accommodate each other's
position. They, now, know for certain that they gain more by cooperation than
through confrontation. The fact of world politics is the recognition that the nation-
states have to do much more than just confront each other. Globalisation tends to
focus more attention on global structures and processes of rule-making, problem-
solving and the maintenance of security and order in the world system. Global
politics is associated, for example, with the post-Cold War functions of NATO or the
diversion of World Bank’s money towards eradication of diseases. Global policy
concentrates, now, on world problems of social and economic nature. Global politics
directs its attention, now, on fragile global politics within which ‘interests are
articulated and aggregated, decisions are made, values are allocated and politics is
conducted through international or transnational processes” (see Ougaard, Political
globalisation). In other words, the global politics is, now, concerned with how the
global order can be best governed.
Global politics, indeed, is a step forward in so far as it has brought the nation-
states away from their position of isolation as a result of state-sovereignty and has,
in the process, found them collaborating with one another. Global politics has not
solved our problems and that the present global order is without any disorder. Baylis
and Smith call the present day global order as distorted global politics (power
asymmetries, global institutions enhancing the interests of global elites, highly
unrepresentative character of institutions, weak democratic credentials and the like).
The present day distorted global politics has to direct itself towards cosmopolitan
global politics. Cosmopolitanism offers an account of the desirability and feasibility of
the democratisation of global politics. The strength of globalisation lies in bringing
about cosmopolitan democracy.
IV. GLOBALISATION: EFFECTS AND CRITIQUE

Scholars such as David Held, Anthony McGraw (The Global Transformations
Reader) David Goldblalt and Jonathan Perraton have provided an overview of
different perspectives on globalisation, identifying them as:
e The Hyperglobalist perspective,

e The Skeptical perspective,
e The Transformationalist perspective.
IV.(A) HYPERGLOBALIST PERSPECTIVE

The hyperglobalist perspective is an approach which sees globalisation as a new
epoch in human history. This new epoch is characterised by the declining relevance
and authority of nation-states, brought about largely through the economic logic of a
global market. Economies are becoming “denationalised.” While hyperglobalist
scholars may agree on the general factors behind globalisation and the likely
outcome of this process, they disagree sharply over whether these forces are good
or bad. They distinguish between neo-liberal versus neo-Marxist orientations, and
describe their different assessments of the outcomes of globalisation.
On the one hand, the neo-liberals view this largely as a good thing. They say that
nearly all countries have a comparative advantage in one way or another within the
global economy. There will be groups who would be worse off, but on the whole, the
benefits are greater than in the past. On the other, the neo-Marxists view the neo-
liberal optimism with deep suspicion. Global capitalism, they believe, will only create
and reinforce inequalities within and between countries. The hyperglobalists see in
globalisation the demise of the nation-state with increasing economic globalisation,
transnational governance organisations will become increasingly important. The
result is that national governments will lose influence and be forced to operate
increasingly accordingly to rules they do not create.
IV.(b) SKEPTICAL PERSPECTIVE

The skeptical perspective on globalisation views current international processes as
more fragmented and regionalised than globalised. In fact, according to skeptical
view, the “golden age” of globalisation occurred at the end of the nineteenth century.
Current processes show, at best, a regionalisation. The skeptics also disagree
whether the old cleavages are becoming increasingly irrelevant. The third world is
not being drawn into a global economy that destroys old lives of benefit and
exploitation. Quite the contrary, the third world, say skeptic, is becoming increasingly
marginalised. The skeptical perspective view global capitalism as a myth. The
growth of multinational corporations does not mean that nation-states are no longer
relevant for governing the flows of economic benefits. The skeptics feel that the
multinational corporations are still tied to their home states and these ties produce
benefits for these states only. They reject the notions of the development of a global
culture and if at all they exist, they exist as a disguised version of the neo-liberal
economic strategies that benefit the West.
The transformationalist perspective differs fundamentally from the other two
perspectives in that:
e There is no single cause (that is, the market or economic logic) behind
globalisation,
e The outcome of processes of globalisation is not determined.
So, even though transformationalists describe many of the same general changes
involved in globalisation, their approach is considerably less certain about the
historical trajectories of these changes and less limiting of the factors driving
globalisation. For instance, hyperglobalists believe that the power of national
governments is waning. Skeptic authors argue that the power of national
governments is growing. Transformationalist authors, however, view the nature of
national governments as changing (being reconstituted and restructured) but a
description of this change as merely growing or waning is oversimplified.
Hyperglobalists describe the erosion of old patterns of stratification. Skeptics argue
that the global South is becoming increasingly marginalised. Transformationalists
understand that a new world order “architecture” is developing, though the exact
nature of the emerging patterns of stratification are not yet clear. In general, the
transformationalist perspective has a much less determinate understanding of the
processes of globalisation than the other perspectives. For transformationalist
authors, the range of factors influencing processes of globalisation is much greater,
and the outcomes are much less certain.
Studies engage themselves in describing certain countries more globalised while
others as less. One KOF (Switzerland) index, 2008, the world’s most globalised
nation was Belgium followed by Austria, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the
Netherlands while the least globalised countries were Haiti, Myanmar, the Central
African Republic and Burundi. Another globalisation Index of 2006 (A.T. Kearney
and Foreign Policy Magazine) says that the most globalised nations were
Singapore, Ireland, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Denmark and the least
globalised countries, in 2006 were Indonesia, India and Iran.
Globalisation has aspects, which have affected the world in several different ways.
Mention about these effects may be made as follows:
(a) Industrial * world wide production markets;
* access to a range of foreign products for consumers and

companies;
*« movement of raw material and goods between and within

the states.
(b) Financial « worldwide financial markets;
* access to external financing for borrowers;
¢ with increase in the global financial infrastructure,

financial crises in late 2008
(c) Economic * emergence of a global common market
¢ freedom of exchange of goods and capital
* interconnectedness of the markets
* possibilities in the occurrence of economic collapse in

any given country.
(d) Political * bright chances of the emergence of world government
«rise in the position of power for industrially advanced

nations
¢ USA likely to help the emerging advanced countries as

she did for People’s Republic of China
(e) Informational « increase in information flows between geographically

remote locations
¢ increased technological changes
* increased availability of telephones and internets
(f) Competition * increasing competition makes improved productivity

possible
« worldwide companies keep upgrading their products
« use of skilled technology is enhanced.
(9) Ecological « solution to global environmental challenges from climate
changes, water-air pollution, over-fishing, etc. possible

through international cooperation
(h) Cultural * growth of cross-cultural contacts
« cultural diffusion possible
* increase in one’s standard of living by enjoying the

benefits of products and ideas
* spread of multiculturalism greater immigration, although

at times illegal
¢ worldwide expansion of fads and pop culture
(i) Social « development of the system of NGOs, as agents of public

policy
¢ increase in humanitarian and international activities
(j) Technical « development of a global communication infrastructure
* greater transborder data flow
« increase in the number of standards applied globally
(k) Legal/Ethical creation of the international criminal court and justice

movements
* rising awareness about contain crimes
* emergence of global administrative law
In material terms, globalisation has helped reduce poverty, double life expectancy
in the developing countries, close the gap between the developing and the
developed world, increase global literacy from 52 per cent in 1950 to 81 per cent in
1999.
Although critics of globalisation complain of Westernisation, a 2005 UNESCO
report showed that cultural exchange is becoming mutual. In 2002, China was the
third largest exporter of cultural goods, after the UK and US. Between 1994 and
2002, both North America’s and the European Union’s share of cultural exports
declined, while Asia’s cultural exports grew to surpass North America.
The critics have argued against globalisation. Their arguments can be stated,
briefly, as follows:
1. Poorer nations suffer disadvantages. The advanced—industrial nations or their
combination help their farmers by providing them subsidies in agricultural
goods. This results in lower price for their agricultural products as compared to
the poorer nations which do not give or cannot give liberal subsidies on
agricultural products (see Hurst, Social Inequality: Forms, Causes and
Consequences).
2. Exploitation of the impoverished workers is another demerit of globalisation.
The deterioration of protections for weaker nations by stronger industrialised
powers has resulted in the exploitation of the people in those nations to become
cheap labour. Due to the lack of protections, companies from powerful
industrialised nations are able to offer workers enough salary to entice them to
endure extremely long hours and unsafe working conditions. (See
Chossudovsky, The Globalisation of Poverty and the New World Order).
3. Globalisation increases exploitation of child-labour. For example, a country
which is experiencing increase in labour demand because of globalisation and
an increase the demand for goods produced by children, will experience greater
demand for child labour. This can be “hazardous” or “exploitive’, e.g. quarrying,
salvage, cash cropping but also includes the trafficking of children, children in
bondage or forced labour, prostitution, pornography and other illicit activities.
(See Pavenik, Child Labour in the Global Economy)
4. Globalisation denotes the latest phase of capitalism in which
(a) internationalised economy is less open than the international economy of
1870-1914;
(b) international companies are relatively rare and that the national
companies are trading internationally;
(c) there is no shift of finance and capital from the developed to the
developing nations;
(d) the world economy is not global: three blocs, Europe, North America and
Japan concentrate among themselves all the trade, investment and
financial flow;
(e) that these three blocs regulate global markets and forces.
5. Globalisation is very uneven in its effects. At times, it sounds very much a
Western theory applicable only to a very small part of human kind. To that
extent, globalisation is only a developed world phenomena. In the rest of the
world, there is nothing like the degree of globalisation.
6. Related to the above, globalisation is the latest stage of Western imperialism,
an old modernisation theory in new guise: forces being globalised are in the
Western world. Where, one may ask, do the non-Westerns fit it in the global
world? The non-Westerns send cheap labour to the West and obtain, in return,
their outmoded technology and off-used products. globalisation is the triumph of
a Western worldview.
7. There are more losers of globalisation than its beneficiaries. This is because
globalisation represents the success of liberal capitalism in an economically
divided world. One outcome of globalisation is that it permits the more efficient
exploitation of less-off nations.
8. Globalisation is not at all an admirable phenomena. It has made drug cartels
and terrorists operate in the world; all in the name of deregulations, openness,
and free flow of information.
9. Global governance is too feeble. If, in the present situation of globalisation, a
corporation becomes too powerful, to whom it would be accountable? The idea
of cosmopolitan democracy as advocated by David Held and others is really
fascinating but where lies the corporate social responsibility?
10. A paradox exists at the heart of the globalisation thesis. Globalisation is
usually described as the triumph of the Western market-led values. If that is so,
how do we explain the success of Tigers of Asia countries such as Singapore,
Taiwan, Korea and Malaysia? These nations enjoying the highest economic
growth are not Western nations, nor have they adopted the Western values.
V. GLOBALISATION: RESPONSES FROM DEVELOPED AND

DEVELOPING SOCIETIES
Globalisation exists whatever be the attitudes of the varying nations. It exists
because it has been able to affect the life of the people. It exists because there is no
rival alternative to challenge it. The developed societies want globalisation to
continue because it benefits them. The developing nations wants it because they
can neither reject it nor can they ignore it: it exists despite, rather in spite of them.
Globalisation has been a historical process. It is not that some nations, especially
the industri-ally—advanced ones, wanted it to be there; it is because the
developments in the past few decades were moving, themselves, towards
globalisation. Economic interconnectedness was increasingly expanding among the
nations; everyday over $1.2 trillion currency flows across the world’s foreign
exchange markets so that no single government howsoever powerful it might have
been, can direct its currency is handle it. International corporations accounting
between 25 and 33 per cent of world output, 70 per cent of world trade and 80 per
cent of international investment can hardly be ignored; new modes and
infrastructures of global communication have compressed time and space; millions
of people thousands of miles away from their homes in different and varying
conditions. All such factors really make a storng care for globalisation.
The response of the developed societies to the emergence of globalisation
following the decades of 1980s was, indeed, positive. The developed societies of
North America and the Western Europe saw in globalisation a process in which
open trade and foreign investment would lead not only to foster growth for the world
economy but also that the increasing convergence of national incomes per head
across the world would help the people of the developing nations. If globalisation
was to obtain its objectives, it was evident that the developed societies would urge
(a) a full reign of market forces,
(b) reduction in the role of the state, and
(c) elimination of any form of state interference in the market activities.
The obvious response of the developed societies relating to globalisation was in
line with their age-old political ideology of neo-classical, but now neo-liberal
philosophy. The claims of globalisation demand, as the developed societies had
really demanded, a world where geographic distance becomes of little significance
for business/trade activity. The developed societies (say the USA and the other G7
nations) had a full support from the Uruguay Round of 1986-94 and later from the
World Trade Organisation through whom the globalisation efforts began bringing
fruits while the opposition came from those who had yet to enjoy the benefits of
globalisation.
The developed societies began reaping the benefits of economic growth through
their trade and outflows of their investment, largely as a result of developments
made in industrialisation and communication. Table 32.1 gives the structure of trade,
1979 and 1998 and Table 32.2 gives the outflow of foreign direct investment of
1980-97.
Table 32.1: Structure of Western European Trade 1979-98
(Per cent)
Western Eastern North Japan Other Developing Total

DVD
Europe Europe America countries
and (incl.
former n.e.s.)
Soviet
Union
Exports by
destination
1979 68.0 4.9 6.7 1.2 1.6 17.6 100
1981 63.6 4.8 7.3 1.1 2.0 21.2 100
1988 71.3 3.7 8.9 1.9 1.4 12.8 100
1995 69.1 4.4 7.3 2.1 0.8 16.3 100

1998 68.9 5.7 8.9 1.7 0.7 14.2 100
Imports by
sources
1979 64.5 5.3 8.4 2.2 1.2 18.4 100
1981 60.3 5.8 9.3 3.0 1.0 20.5 100
1988 71.3 4.4 7.8 4.5 1.1 10.9 100
1995 72.4 4.4 7.0 3.5 0.4 12.2 100
1998 70.8 4.9 7.7 3.4 0.6 12.6 100
Source: International Trade 86-87, Geneva 1988, Table A13 and GATT,
International Trade 88-89, Geneva 1989, Table A3. For 1995-1998, WTO,
Annual Report 1998 and 1999-International Trade Statistics.
Table 32.2: West European Outflows of Foreign Direct Investment, 1980-1997
Western Eastern North Japan Other Developing Total

DVD
Europe Europe America countries
and (incl.
former he)
Soviet
Union
Exports by
destination
1979 68.0 4.9 6.7 1.2 1.6 17.6 100
1981 63.6 4.8 7.3 1.1 2.0 21.2 100
1988 71.3 3.7 8.9 1.9 1.4 12.8 100
1995 69.1 4.4 7.3 2.1 0.8 16.3 100

1998 68.9 5.7 8.9 1.7 0.7 14.2 100
Imports by sources
1979 64.5 5.3 8.4 2.2 1.2 18.4 100
1981 60.3 5.8 9.3 3.0 1.0 20.5 100
1988 71.3 4.4 7.8 4.5 1.1 10.9 100
1995 72.4 4.4 7.0 3.5 0.4 12.2 100
1998 70.8 4.9 7.7 3.4 0.6 12.6 100
Source: Calculated from data in OECD, /nternational Direct Investment

Statistics Year book 1998, Paris 1998
Table 32.1 shows the evolution of the structure of West European trade from 1979
to 1998. There are of course important differences in the levels of trade and in the
openness of national economies over this period but the focus on the distribution of
the various flows abstracts from these changes. What is clear from the data is that
far from becoming more global west European trade has become more and more
concentrated on the European region itself. Well over two thirds of Europe’s exports
and imports now consist of intra-west European exchanges compared with some 55
and 46 per cent in the inter-war period. Trade with the rest of the world, and
especially with the developing countries, has tended to decline in relative
importance. During the later years, the West European nation have begun benefiting
from globalisation.
With free capital movement, it is of course possible that trade flows may be
replaced by direct investment abroad, but the data in Table 32.2 suggest that west
European FDI, in the main, is positively, not negatively, correlated with the structure
of trade by partner country. FDI data by provenance and destination are not among
the most reliable of economic statistics, but the basic conclusion from table 32.2 is
that outward flows of FDI from west European countries have been increasingly
directed to other parts of the region. In the 1990s some 60 per cent of all west
European FDI has remained within western Europe, a much higher proportion than
in the 1980s, with another 3.5 per cent on average going to the ECE transition
economies.
The data above suggest that the developed societies stand to gain through trade
of their products, which resultant earnings can be made capital investment. The role
of the state is to protect and secure capital and the economic system, leaving the
whole domain of economy free for the capitalists and the industrialists. The state,
the developed societies’ view is, has to make globalisation work so to yield as much
benefit as is possible. The globalisation, in the modern sense of the term, is a
western concept, the concept of the advanced developed societies and one that has
to be maintained and made secure. The state has to facilitate economic activities,
support enterprises, and cut social expenditure. In the developed societies, what is
demanded is the stability of the social and economic system through rules and
regulations, maintenance of law and order and the generation of acceptable
outcomes. The WTO system, to which the developing societies object, is regarded
by the developed nations as one without any fault. This is so because the WTO
working favours the cause of the developed nations.
The response of the developing societies towards globalisation is quite different,
although the globalists promise benefits equal for all. The global marketeers
maintain that the world system as it emerges from globalisation, now, delivers ‘more
for all’ and the vigorous growth in the developing nations, saying that it is the world’s
poor who will benefit most. The facts demonstrate the otherwise. Among most of the
4.4 billion people living in Africa, Asia and Latin America life has become a more
desperate struggle for survival.
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) estimates that 840 million
people are malnourished, the great mass of them living in countries of the
developing world. More than half the countries for which statistics are available do
not have enough food to provide all their population with the minimum daily
requirement of calories. In some regions hunger has become far more general:
across Africa the average household now consumes 25 percent less than in the
early 1970s. Between 1995 and 1997 only 21 out of 147 developing world countries
recorded per capita growth of over 3 per cent a year; the rate specified by the UN for
reduction of poverty. There are staggering inequalities. California alone has a gross
domestic product (GDP) of equal value to that of China and India combined; the
wealth of the world’s 15 richest people now exceeds the combined GDP of sub-
Saharan Africa; the wealth of the richest 84 individuals exceeds the GDP of China,
with its 1.2 billion inhabitants. There is no evidence to suggest that the ‘global era’
has brought prosperity, or even an alleviation of human suffering.
Nicholson (/nternational Relations) writes, “globalisation has done little to remedy
the big discrepancies in wealth in the world and may well have done things to make
it worse.”
In fact, the globalisation thesis as a whole is a suspect. Investigation of the world
economy today reveals a situation plainly at odds with the globalisers’ main
principles. Although some areas of the world economy show evidence of more fluid
capital movement, some do not. Although, in one sense, there has been integration
—no one is immune from the market economy — some regions formerly central to
world capitalism have been driven to its margins. Some states are weak—but only in
relation to very strong states which continue to dominate world affairs. The picture is
one of unevenness and of contradiction.
In the real world, globalisation realities do not give a bright picture. Billions of
people are being forced to the very margins of the world system where notions of
taste, choice and assertion of status must be measured against the imperative of
survival. Over the past 30 years there has been a very rapid increase in global
inequality. This is crudely estimated by the United Nations, based on differences
between homogenised ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ nations. Though, this is an
inappropriate means of understanding world inequality but it does give ‘headline’
figures that stand starkly against the globalisers’ account. Between 1960 and 1994
the gap in per capita income between the richest fifth of the world’s people (most in
developed countries) and the poorest fifth (most in developing countries) more than
doubled — from 30:1 to 78:1. By the mid- 1990s this trend was becoming more
marked: by 1995 the ratio was 82:1.
In 1997 the richest fifth of the world’s people obtained 86 percent of world income;
the poorest fifth received just 1.3 per cent. Some 1.3 billion people subsisted on less
than $1 per day — a lifethreatening decline in living standards since the 1960s. The
trend was also accelerating: by 1996 no less than 30 countries showed an annual
decline in the Human Development Index (HDI), which measures literacy, life
expectancy, and access to health services, safe water and adequate food. Among
147 countries defined as within the ‘developing’ world, 100 had experienced ‘serious
economic decline’ over the past 30 years.
Table 32.3: Basic Development Indicators—Selected Countries
Human Development Index (HDI) GDP per capita (US$)
1970 1995 1970 1995
US 0.881 0.943 14,001 20,716
UK 0.873 0.932 8,463 13,445
S Korea 0.523 0.864 967 5,663
Malaysia 0.471 0.834 1,001 3,108
Brazil 0.507 0.809 2,049 2,051
Egypt 0.269 0.551 338 726
India 0.254 0.451 245 425
Zambia 0.315 0.378 440 257
Senegal 0.176 0.342 723 661

Haiti 0.218 0.340 333 231
Gambia 0.107 0.219 240 274
Niger 0.134 0.207 554 275
Sierra Leone 0.155 0.185 222 171
Source: UNDP, HDI Report, 1998

The figures are really staggering. What makes it clear is the fact that the
developing nations are not benefiting from the globalisation process as compared to
the developed societies. In an unequal divided economies, one having capital,
technologies, infrastructure and the other without those, benefits accrued cannot be
equal. The developing societies as against the developed ones, are at the receiving
ends and as such they have to be at the mercy of the developed societies so to seek
economic modernisation. How can there be equality among the unequals? No
wonder, if the perspective of the developing nations relating to globalisation is full of
suspicion, it is something which can not easily denied. The suggestion is not to say
that the developing societies have not altogether got any benefit from globalisation.
There has been an increase in exports, imports, trade, and direct investment. The
following table makes the point:
Table 32.4: The Role of Developed Countries in Trade and Capital Flows
1980-82 1987-90 1996-97
Exports (%) 32.7 27.2 34.0
Imports (%) 30.4 25.4 34.3
Total*(billions of $) (Trade) 1,856 2,864 5,459
Direct Investment (%) 32.7 14.3 43.2
Portfolio Investment (%) 7.7 3.1 13.3
Total*(billions of $) 107 355 1,319
Source: IMF, Direction of Trade Statistics Yearbook and Balance of Payments

Statistics Yearbook.
Financial trends have been more dramatic than those for trade, declining more
abruptly in the 1980s and rising faster in the 1990s. For example, the developing
countries share of foreign direct investment (FDI) plummeted from 33 per cent in
1980-82, before the debt crisis hit, to only 14 per cent by the end of the decade. It
then recovered to 43 per cent by 1996-97. Portfolio trends were similar but much
smaller: 8 percent to 3 per cent to 13 per cent, respectively. Financial flows rose
much faster than trade, a nominal increase of more than 11 times in this period.
And yet the developing nations’ response to globalisation has been skeptical. It
notes that the world’s major economies are no more integrated today than before
World War |. They see the North-South gap increasing with globalisation. They
believe that the economic integration of states is not leading to any single world free
trade zone, but what is appearing are the distinct and regional blocs of America,
Europe and Asia (Japan). They disagree with the globalisation thesis that the world
civilisation is emerging with multi-culturalism. What they are convinced is that
globalisation has become a sophisticated instrument of exploitation with neo-
capitalists dominating the underdeveloped world. There is, Rajeev Bhargava says,
no novelty in globalisation and what is being said about it is grossly exaggerated:
either over-optimistically regarded as the panacea for all problems of the world or
over-pessimistically stated as the cause of world’s all maladies.
* Total for developing and industrial countries
Practice Questions
1. Define globalisation and discuss its nature. (700-800

words)
2. Give a historical account of the evolution of globalisation.
(700-800 words)
3. Describe the major theories of globalisation. (200-300
words)
4. Explain the numerous forms of globalisation. (700-800
words)
5. What is, in your view, the essence of globalisation? (200-
300 words)
6. Which three perspectives David Held refer to with regard
to globalisation? (200-300 words)
7. State and discuss the effects of globalisation. (700-800
words)
8. Make a critical assessment of the concept of globalisation.
(700-800 words)
9. How do the developed societies view globalisation? Give
arguments in support of your answer. (700-800 words)
10. What is the response of the developing societies with
regard to globalisation? (700-800 words)
11. “Global concerns belong to a global society and requires
global attention.” Comment. (2013) (200-250 words)
12. What is ‘global village’? Elaborate its main
characteristics and also the factors that contributed to its
growth. (2014) (200-250 words)
13. Critically access the changing nature of the concept of
fA
V
national security. (2014) (700-800 words)
Approaches To The Study of
International Relations
nN approach, says Professor Mahendra Kumar

(Theoretical Aspects of International Politics), is a set
of standards governing the inclusion and exclusion of
questions and data for academic purposes. He continues that
as the criteria for selecting the problems and data are
determined by a scholars own views, there would be as
many approaches as there may be scholars. One cannot
identify each and every approach; one can only classify them,
and thereafter compare and assess them.
An approach tends to generalise, explain, predict and
prescribe a phenomenon and _ in doing so, _ the
philosopher/scholar follows hypotheses, theories and
techniques so as to reach conclusions with regard to the
phenomenon in question. Thus, an approach leads to the
building of a theory.
Approaches differ. They differ because views differ. They
differ because attitudes differ. The idealists take one view of
international reality, while the realists take another, and
certainly an opposing one. The classical view about the
nature of international relations may be guided normatively
while the behaviouralist view about the international realities
may be influenced by the conduct of nation-states prompted
by their national interest. The traditionalists’ view does not go
beyond the power and, therefore, confines itself to war
relations among the states, while the pacifists view the
discipline of international relations entering into its
autonomous domain. Some take one part of international
reality as important while others take another part as
necessary and, therefore, there appear varying approaches.
The decision-making approach scholars lay stress on who
makes decisions, while those advocating bargaining and
gaming approaches lay emphasis on the negotiation
processes.
There are numerous approaches to the study of
international relations. Broadly, these approaches may be
divided into traditional and modern approaches. The
traditional approaches to the study of international relations
are idealist, realist and neo-realist, while the modern
approaches to the study of international relations are
systems, decision-making, Marxian, bargaining, equilibrium
game, and feminist approaches. Some of these approaches
can be explained as follows:
I. TRADITIONAL APPROACHES
I (a) THE IDEALIST APPROACH

The intellectual foundations of international idealism go back
to the days of those liberals who sought peace in the world.
They were liberals of idealist type (Immanuel Kant, Perpetual
Peace) and of the idealists of liberal type (Woodrow Wilson’s
Fourteen Points). Guided by the ideals of enlightenment and
the sacrifices of the Ameican and the French revolutionaries,
the idealist-liberals advocate world peace, power of the public
Opinion to tame the selfish interests of the states,
cosmopolitan democracy, republicanism, ideal and peaceful
order for any international organisation, evils of war, and
disarmament efforts. The theoretical premise of international
idealism is the result of the liberal idealist outlook which
envisions international society to be based on the idea of
improved international system, free from power politics,
violence and authoritarianism. The idealists believe that a
better world is possible through international understanding.
Among the idealists seeking to build a peaceful international
society, one may mention the name of Saint Simon, Aldous
Huxley, Mahatma Gandhi, Woodrow Wilson and the like who
thought of education and morality as the essential means
which help attain international peace and cooperation.
Idealism is a belief in evolution; it is a conviction that
progress is possible only in an ordered living. Condorcet, in
1795, wrote of idealism as the basis of everything. Human
survival is possible, the idealist-liberals of utopian thinking
argue, if:
(a) moral principles are adopted in_ international
behaviour;
(b) if all forms of traditional power politics are set aside;
and
(c) if nation-states follow the politics of non-
partisanship,
The institution of world community is the only solution for
the peace and security of humanity.
( )
Aldous Huxley
Aldous Huxley (July 26, 1894 - November 22, 1963) was an

English writer and one of the most prominent members of
the famous Huxley family. He spent the later part of his life
in the United States living in Los Angeles from 1937 until
his death in 1963. Best known for his novels and wide-
ranging output of essays, he also published short stories,
poetry, travel writing, film stories and scripts. Huxley was a
humanist and pacifist, but was also latterly interested in
spiritual subjects such as parapsychology and philosophical
mysticism. He was also well known for advocating and
taking psychedelics. By the end of his life Huxley was
considered in some academic circles, a leader of modern
thought and an intellectual of the highest rank.
\ J
Kegley Jr. and Wittkoff (World Politics—Trends and

Transformation) refer to certain basic assumptions of the
idealist theory of international relations which are:
i. human nature is basically and essentially good and

accordingly, is capable of altruism, mutual aid and
collaboration;
ii. people have a fundamental instinct that they think about
the welfare of others and this instinct makes progress
possible;
iii. evil and selfish activities of certain people belong to only
certain people and do not belong to the whole
humankind, and that is more because of the institutions
and structures which such people build for the
satisfaction of their selfish objectives;
iv. war demonstrates the negative feature, and is a feature
which is not natural, but constructed, and hence can be
avoided; and
v. war is not a national, but a global problem and hence,
needs to be eliminated through efforts of all the nations
and by the international society itself.
Liberalism’s International idealism has never been in doubt.

John Burton (World Society), with his cobweb model, points
out that the world is more driven by mutually beneficial
cooperation than by antagonistic conflict. Rosenau
(Citizenship in a Changing Global Order) clearly hints at the
emerging multi-centric world composed of _ diverse
“sovereignty free” collectivities. David Mitrany (A Working
Peace System) and Ernst Haas (The Uniting of Europe)
formulating the functional theory of integration, argue that the
nations are moving from the ‘state’ to the ‘international
organisations’ for they see in them the benefits of
collaboration. According to Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye
(Power and Interdependence), “ post-war complex
interdependence is qualitatively different from earlier and
simple kinds of interdependence. The state-centred
International Relations ... has changed. The ‘high-politics’ of
security and survival had priority over the ‘low-politics’ of
economics and social affairs.” The institutional liberals believe
that the international institutions reduce states’ fear of one
another: the European Union, for example, is an example of
regional cooperation which has made the idea of war in
Europe, especially in Western Eruope, a remote possibility.
The republican liberals (Kant, Doyle for examples) do not see
the wars among the democratic states, describing democracy
as a ‘zone of peace’.
The idealist theory of international relations is a theory of
peaceful international order. Such a society, according to this
theory, can be made possible if the nation-states begin
believing in moral principles; if they decide to create
supranational institutions seeking cooperation among the
nations rather than adopting competitive politics; if the war is
declared outlawed as a solution for solving international
disputes; if global disarmament is seriously attempted; if the
nation-states follow democratic system of politics; and if the
economies of varying nature, as these exist among the
nations, are able to build a new international economic order
based on equality and development of all.
It is important to identify the key features of international
idealism which can be briefly stated as follows:
(a) The principle of collective security is admitted:
security of one is the security of all, and an
aggression on one state is an aggression on all the
states. The collective security efforts need to be
made effective.
(b) Cosmopolitan democracy helps build regional
cooperation and makes conflictive tendencies
meaningless.
(c) All disputes among the nations be resolved through
peaceful methods, i.e., through dia-logues,
discussions, meetings, and arbitration.
(d) Harmonisation of interests need to be replaced
over conflicting interests; interests vary and at
times give rise to a situation of confrontation, but an
attitude of mutual understanding and _ of
accommodation helps bring nations together.
(e) Interdependence is always a virtue and a method of
reconciliation. History has shown that nations have
benefitted more from sense of togetherness than
through isolation.
(f) Evolution and growth of the idea of state system
have followed the path of federalisation and
pluralism. Globalisation is the immediate
consequence of our emerging international order.
Who knows, the world government may be our next
step.
International idealism is idealism and, therefore, suffers
from numerous defects. This approach is far away from
realistic politics which exists among the nations. It is,
therefore, rightly dubbed as imaginary, impracticable and,
therefore, utopian. It constitutes the assemblage of wishful
desires. Nation-states do not live in dreams, they confront
realities, living nation-states with national interests of their
own which are always antagonistic. Kegley and Wittkoff
rightly say, “Much of the idealist programme for reform was
never tried and even less of it was ever achieved.” Yet,
normativism, which is the plus point of the idealist theory, has
been the guiding principle in all social sciences, including
international relations.
| (b) THE REALIST APPROACH

Though the realist theory to the study of international politics
is associated with Hans Morgenthau (1904-80, Politics
Among Nations), its patriarch was Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-
1971, The Irony of American History). Numerous other
adovcates of the realist theory were Thompson (American
Approach to International Politics), Keenan (Diplomacy in the
Modern World) Wolfers (The Pole of Power and the Pole of
Indifference), Spykmann (The Geography of the Power).
Morgenthau, as the chief champion of the realist theory,
refers to a synthesis of six principles which are:
1. Politics is governed by objective laws which have their
roots in human nature. As human nature does not usually
change, the laws which govern human nature remain
eternal.
2. Power remains the guiding principle of a nation’s interest
and national interest is defined in terms of power.
3. National interest, as an objective of a country’s strength,
is always universal: it remains always, though its exact
meaning may change from time to time and
circumstances to circumstances.
4. Morality does exist in international arena, but it is not
morality that directs the actions of the states in relation to
one another. Abstract universal moral formulations in
international relations do not matter much.
5. Nations are political actors, and are not moral entities.
Political laws should not be confused with moral laws. A
nation’s interest is political in nature, and not moral in any
essence. Politics, national interest and power guide the
states.
6. Realistic politics is autonomous, supreme in itself, and
above everything. State exists for its own; its power is
both its means as well as its end.
Realism makes several important assumptions. It assumes
that the international system is anarchic, in the sense that
there is no authority above the states that is capable of
regulating their interactions with other states. Realism also
assumes that sovereign states, rather than international
institutions, non-governmental organisations, or multinational
corporations, are the primary actors in international affairs.
Each state is a rational actor that always pursues self-
interest, and the primary goal of each state is to ensure its
own security. In the pursuit of that security, states attempt to
amass resources, and relations between states are
determined by their relative level of power in terms of military
and economic capabilities. Military capabilities must be at
least sufficient to deter attack, and strategic planning should
be along the lines of the worst-case scenario. For example,
Kaplan’s (2000) book, The Coming Anarchy, makes one of
many points which can be paraphrased as_ follows:
sometimes external meditation (force) is justified as the only
remedy for the still-plenty places in the world where
conceptions of “justice” come across to others as the
wholesale, even violent, denial of justice.
There are two main sub-schools of realism: maximal
realism and minimal realism. Under maximal realism theory, a
situation where there is more than one superpower is in an
inherently unstable situation and one which will inevitably
collapse into a more stable system until one nation eventually
becomes the most powerful. The theory of minimal realism
holds that it is possible to have two or more superpowers
because of all the strategies possible in the alliances, which
can be made, between non-hegemonic states which
frequently enact policies at the moment (e.g., playing both
sides against the middle).
a ~
Hans Morgenthau
Hans Joachim Morgenthau (February 17, 1904 - July 19,

1980) was a pioneer in the field of international relations
theory. He was born in Coburg, Germany, and educated at
the universities of Berlin, Frankfurt and Munich. He taught
and practiced law in Frankfurt before fleeing to the United
States in 1937, after several interim years in Switzerland
and Spain, as the Nazis came to power in Germany. His
experiences with Nazism seem to have influenced his later
work in international relations theory, where he argued
passionately in favor of a more scientific approach to
politics; in contrast with the way the Nazi party came to
imbue political science with a nationalist streak.
Morgenthau became professor at the University of Chicago.
Along with E.H. Carr, he is one of the main authors of the
realist school in the 20th century. His book Politics Among
Nations defined the field of international relations theory in
1948 as it heralded the post-World War II paradigm shift in
American thinking about diplomacy.
\ SJ
Morgenthau’s realist approach is based on three basic

assumptions: one, every state desires to pursue its national
interest. two, its interest lies in the expansion of state’s
influence, and three, states use their power for the protection
and furtherance of their interests.
Morgenthau believes that the world around is the projection
of human nature. As individuals have their opposing interests,
so do the states have varying and atomistic interests. Power,
either of the individuals or of the states, comes up to satisfy
interests. Thus, lust for power is human impulse; so it is a
natural impulse of the states to have power; to have more
power. It is a power that helps realise national interest,
expand its influence, protect and promote interests.
Dominance of the state over other states is the natural
corollary of the state’s power.
Morgenthau observes that every state seeks to keep
power, to increase it, or to demonstrate it. Three different
policies correspond to these three different patterns: policy of
status quo, policy of imperialism and policy of prestige. The
policy of status quo tends towards keeping power rather than
changing the distribution of power, whereas the policy of
imperialism seeks to acquire more power by reversing the
existing power relations. The policy of prestige assigns to the
state the job of demonstrating the national interest, a
phenomenon higher than the goals of universal peace. He is
of the opinion that states while seeking and enhancing power
do talk about peace: peace through limitations (through
disarmament, collective security, judicial settlement), peace
through accommodation (through diplomacy), and peace
through transformation (through world state or international
society).
The realist theory is based on presumptions not fully
endorsed by many:
i. to say that human nature is always evil is to present a

very dark picture of human nature;
ii. to say that only lust for power is the only solution for all
the ills of human kind is to reject all values and norms of
cooperative living;
iii. to build the whole system of international relations
reflecting the severe competition of power and politics
amounts to creating a world of constant conflicts, ever-
growing confrontation and incoming wars at any point of
time; fulfillment of self and national interest would mean
a war of one against another, a war of one against all, of
all against one.
It is important to note that power has been seldom a factor

of motivation, no matter how realistic a situation may be.
Morgenthau’s theory has only one conclusion, i.e., war; how
early and how dangerous are things to follow. The national
interest, objectively as it is presented, is always questionable;
it is always subjective, and, therefore, invariably selfish.
Morgenthau’s theory is one-sided because it admits only the
political relations among the states, ignoring, thus, a whole
world of non-political aspects of human relations.
Wasserman (The Scientific Preferences of Professor
Morgenthau’s Theory of Power Politics) holds the view that no
scientific progress can be made in the study of international
politics so long as Morgenthau’s theory continues to have
influence. Tucker (“Professor Morgenthau’s Theory of Political
Realism”) criticises his theory on the ground that it is
inconsistent both with itself and with reality. Hoffmann
(Contemporary Theory in International Relations (ed.))
regards Morgenthau’s theory as full of anomalies and
ambiguities. Quincy Wright (“Realism and Idealism in
International Politics”) says that Morgenthau’s theory does not
consider the impact of values on national policy.
Realism and idealism stand opposite to each other in their
perspectives on international relations. They hold an opposite
view and hence give different approaches: realism is a
representative of short-run national policies while idealism
represents long-term; former the children of darkness, and
the latter the children of light; one, Neibuhr describes, as the
bad and the wicked children, while the other, the virtuous
ones.
I (c) THE NEO-REALIST THEORY

Neo-realism also known as ‘Structural Realism’ is one of the
Current approaches to the study of international relations.
Waltz, (Theory of International Politics), Grieco (“Anarchy and
the Limits of Cooperation”) Keohane and Joseph Nye (Power
and Interdependence) are among the prominent neo-realists.
Neo-Realists believe that might is right in a system which is
essentially Hobbesian (full of strife) in nature. The great
powers are engaged in permanent rivalries. The structure
has, more or less, remained one of anarchy though the
prominent actors keep changing. The term
‘structure’ has been referred to “how the actors in a system
stand in relation to each other.” The present structure being
anarchical (challenges to state domination are rampant), one
finds powerful states are most interested in trying to prevent
others from improving their relative capabilities, Keohane and
Nye add that with the increasing roles of non-state actors, the
structure has become even more complex and unpredictable.
In short, neo-realism believes that the nationstates still remain
the most important actors in world politics; behaviour of the
states can be explained rationally; states seek power and
calculate their interests in terms of power. (All these they
share with the scholars of realism). However, the neo-realists
add, the international system is characterised by anarchy and
e merging ‘multi-centric’ activities emanating from sources
other than the state. This complexity is further compounded
by international terrorism, religious warfares, increasing
incidence of civil wars and emerging competitive multinational
corporations.
(7
Kenneth Waltz
Kenneth Waltz (born 1924) is a member of the faculty at

Columbia University and one of the most prominent
scholars of international relations. He is one of the founders
of neorealism, or structural realism.
Waltz is Emeritus Professor of Political Science at UC
Berkeley and Adjunct Senior Research Scholar at
Columbia University. He is also a past President of the
American Political Science Association (1987-1988) and a
Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Waltz, who is also a veteran scholar, received his Ph.D.
from Columbia University in 1957.
\ A
Waltz provides three reasons for the anarchic conditions of

the international system, saying:
i. The ordering principle of the system is anarchical not

hierarchical, and the absence of a central authority
leads to a self-help system where states compete for
survival and security through military power; regardless
of whether they want or not.
ii. The functional differentiation of the anarchic system is
such that each state is a separate and autonomous unit,
forced to realise its interests on its own because “no
one else can be counted on”, hence all the important
society functions must be performed by each state on
its own.
iii. The distribution of capabilities is unequal and shifting,
defining the relative power of the state and predictive of
variation in balance of power behaviour.
Under conditions of ubiquitous anarchy (like the

assumption of continuous competition and conflict in realism),
states only have two choices: balance or bandwagon, and
states almost always choose balance in the long term (they
prefer the bandwagon in the short term) whenever the system
grows calm. This is because for nations, the power of others
is always a threat, not a lure, and times when the system
grows calm is the time they move their pieces to balance the
power of more powerful states.
Neo-realists conclude that because violence is part of the
structure of the international system it is likely to continue in
the future. Indeed, neo-realists often argue that the
international system has not fundamentally changed from the
time of Thucydides to the advent of nuclear warfare. The view
that long-lasting peace is not likely to be achieved is
described by other theorists as a largely pessimistic view of
international relations. One of the main challenges is the
democratic peace theory and supporting research such as the
book Never at War. Nevertheless such theories have been
disregarded by neo-realists because they state these theories
tend to pick and choose the definition of democracy to get the
wanted results. For example Germany of Kaiser Wilhelm Il,
the Dominican Republic of Juan Bosch, or Chile of Salvador
Aliende are not considered to be democratic or the conflicts
do not qualify as wars according to these theorists.
Furthermore, they claim several wars between democratic
states have been averted only by causes other than
democratic ones (See K. Waltz, Structural Realism after the
Cold War).
Although, both realism and _ neo-realism share a
fundamental belief that actors will act competitively, they have
different implications for national security policy-making.
Realism leads to power-oriented strategies with power as an
end in itself. Neo-realism leads to security-oriented strategies
based on the need to compete for security. There are
differences also, between the two theories in terms of the role
of uncertainty for war and peace. For realism, certainty leads
to war since relational pursuit of power simplifies calculations
for war. Also, since bipolarity gives more certainty than multi-
polarity, multipolarity leads to peace in classical realist theory.
For neorealism, certainty leads to peace since with balance of
power shifts, the world is made more anarchic and states
tend to take more drastic measures (such as peace) to avoid
miscalculation and reduce insecurity.
Neo-realism suffers from criticism, mostly on grounds of the
philosophy of science. John Vasquez holds the view that
Waltz’s theory of neo-realism explains international behaviour
through the balance-of-power concept according to which
states in almost all cases balance each other in order to
survive. Stephen Walt, on the other hand, argues that states
do not balance power, but there is a so-called balance-of-
threat, thus always balancing states which seem to be the
most threatening, not necessarily the most powerful. Randall
Schweller introduces the concept of balance-of-interests,
better known as bandwagoning. Thomas J. Christensen and
Jack Snyder try to correct gaps in Waltz’s original theory by
using the concepts of buck-passing and chain ganging.
ll. MODERN APPROACHES
ll (a) THE EQUILIBRIUM APPROACH

Equilibrium is a relationship among the forces operating upon
or within an entity or group of entities that the whole manifests
in some degree in some form of stability. (Quincy Wright, The
Study of International Relations). In International Politics, the
idea of equilibrium has been adopted by various writers. The
names of George Liska (/nstitutional Equilibrium) and Morton
Kaplan (Systems and Process in International Politics) can be
mentioned. Equilibrium is of two types: static and dynamic.
Static equilibrium may be defined as a self-maintaining
system of automatic compensatory reactions to disturbance,
restoring the original state. But if such an unfailing equilibrium
operates anywhere it is certainly not in the social realm. More
realistic and at the same time more dynamic, is the view of
equilibrium mechanism as a state of relative stability. Two
special meanings are given to the term. One is called the
constitutional equilibrium and the second one is called the
general equilibrium. The latter implies two ideas: that all
elements in political system are functionally interdependent
and that these elements are inter-related in a process of
action and reaction which ultimately leads to the attainment of
stability. The concept of constitutional equilibrium implies
those conditions that are necessary for the existence of a
constitutional order within a nation and for the maintenance of
peaceful relations among nations. These conditions mostly
refer to a relatively equal distribution of power, so that no
group or nation can dominate over others. Liska uses the
term both as a theoretical norm and as something denoting
an actual tendency towards changing states of temporary
equilibrium in political institutions. The whole theory of
equilibrium assumes that international relations tend towards
stability and equilibrium. But it neglects the fact that efforts for
equilibrium are likely to lead to changes as well. Therefore,
the concept of equilibrium like that of power is both too
narrow and too broad. It is too narrow because it neglects the
purposes of actors and also because the processes of
changes are left out. The concept is too broad as one has to
distinguish between various types of equilibrium.
ll (b) DECISION-MAKING THEORY

Numerous advocates supporting the decision-making
approach to international relations from time to time are
Richard Synder, H.W. Bruck, Burton Sapin, William Riker,
James Robinson, Herbert Simon, J.W. Burton, Graham
Allison, Holsti, James Rosenau. This approach focuses
inquiry on actors called decision-makers and on the state.
The actions of the state are seen through the actions of
decision-makers. It proceeds with the assumption that the key
to political action lies in the way in which decision-makers
define their situation or setting which can be internal and
external. The internal setting includes personalities, roles,
organisations in the decisional unit, the government at
structures within which the decision-maker functions, the
physical and technological conditions, the basic values and
goals and the various influences operating in society. The
external setting includes all the relevant factors in the total
situation of the international system existing at a particular
time. Harold and Margaret Sprout (Foundations of
International Politics) emphasise on ‘milieu’ or environmental
factor, while Alexander and Juliette George (Woodrow Wilson
Colonel House), on ‘personality’ factor.
Intergovernmentalism is a theory of decision-making in
international organisations, where power is possessed by the
member-states and decisions are made by unanimity.
Independent appointees of the governments or elected
representatives have solely advisory or implementational
functions. Intergovernmentalism is used by most international
organisations today.
Il (c) GAME THEORY

The game theory of international relations is an attempt at
applying mathematical model to international politics. Its
advocates include Martin Shubik, Oscar Morgenstern, and
Karl Deutsch. It is a theory that helps explain and address
social problems. It is a method of analysis and also of
selecting the best course of action in a given situation. The
theory envisages several types of games. The basic game is
known as the ‘two-persons zero-sum’ game. In this game,
there are only two players and victory and defeat cancel out
each other. In this game the struggle is decisive, the victor
destroys the enemy. In ‘constant-sum’ game both the players
try to acquire equal advantage by mutual cooperation. In
‘non-zero sum’ game there is both conflict and cooperation
between the players. In this game neither side loses, and
both may win.
Game theory has five important concepts. These are:
1. players, or decision makers;
2. strategies available to each player;
3. rules governing players’ behaviour;
4. outcomes, each of which is a result of particular choices
made by players at a given point in the game; and
5. payoffs accrued by each player as a result of each
possible outcome.
These games assume that each player will pursue the
strategies that help him or her to achieve the most profitable
outcome in every situation. Games used to illustrate these
relationships often place the interests of two players in direct
opposition: the greater the payoff for one player, the less it is
for the other. In order to achieve a mutual productive
outcome, the players must coordinate their strategies,
because if each player pursues his or her greatest potential
payoffs, the shared outcome is unproductive. This concept is
the Prisoner’s Dilemma Game.
This and other games illustrate the potential for cooperation
to produce mutually beneficial outcomes in every situation.
However, they also highlight the difficulties of obtaining
cooperation among distrustful participants because each
player is tempted to pursue his or her individual interests.
Cooperation requires that both players compromise and
forego their individual maximum _ payoffs. Yet, in
compromising, each player risks complete loss if the
opponent decides to seek his or her own maximum payoff.
Rather than risking total loss, players tend to prefer the less
productive outcome.
In a hypothetical situation relating to the Prisoner’s
Dilemma, two accomplices to a crime are imprisoned, and
they forge a pact to not betray one another and not confess to
the crime. The severity of the punishment that each receives
is determined not only by his or her behaviour, but also by the
behaviour of his or her accomplice. The two prisoners are
separated and cannot communicate with each other. Each is
told that there are four possible outcomes.
1. If one confesses to the crime and turns in the accomplice
(defecting from a pact with the accomplice), his sentence
will be reduced.
2. If one confesses while the accomplice does not (i.e. the
accomplice cooperates with the pact to not betray each
other), the first can strike a deal with the police, and will
be set free. But the information he provides will be used
to incriminate his accomplice, who will receive the
maximum sentence.
3. If both prisoners confess to the crime (i.e. both defect
from their pact), then each receives a reduced sentence,
but neither is set free.
4. If neither confesses to the crime (i.e. they cooperate),
then each receives the minimum sentence because of
lack of evidence.
This option may not be as attractive to either individual as
the alternative of striking a deal with the police and being set
free at the expense of one’s partner. Since the prisoners
cannot communicate with each other, the question of “trust’—
whether to “trust” the other and not to confess—is the critical
aspect of this game.
The game of Chicken, also known as the Hawk-Dove
game, is an influential model of conflict for two players in
game theory. The principle of the game is that while each
player prefers not to yield to the other, the outcome where
neither player yields is the worst possible one for both
players. The name “Chicken” has its origins in a game in
which two drivers drive towards each other on a collision
course. One must swerve, or both may crash, but if one driver
swerves while the other does not, he/she will be called a
“chicken”. This terminology is most prevalent in political
science and economics. The name “Hawk-Dove’” refers to a
situation in which there is a competition for a shared resource
and the contestants can choose either conciliation or conflict;
this terminology is most commonly used in biology and
evolutionary game theory. The game of chicken is similar to
the Prisoner’s Dilemma game in that an “agreeable” mutual
solution is unstable since both the players are individually
tempted to stray from it. However, it differs in the cost of
responding to such a deviation. This means that, even in an
iterated version of the game, retaliation is ineffective, and a
mixed strategy may be more appropriate.
Il (d) MARXIST APPROACH

Marx himself provided very little in terms of any theoretical
analysis of international relations. That is why his ideas have
been interpreted and appropriated in a number of different (if
not contradictory) ways, resulting in a number of competing
schools of thought such as the Gramscian, the Critical Theory
and the Frank’s Dependency Theory. Even so, several
common elements can be traced with regard to the Marxian
theory of international relations.
1. In understanding any phenomenon, one has to analyse it
in totality. What this means is that every event that exists
does not do so in isolation. Nothing can be understood
without the knowledge of others. The social world has to
be understood as a whole; an event has to be studied in
its entirety. World War |, for example, has to be
understood in relation to its causes which may be traced
to its historical, economic, social, cultural, and political
background. The collapse of the former USSR was not
caused by any single political factor, but by numerous
factors.
2. The materialist conception of history is a key to the
understanding of any change: local, national or
international. The changes are a reflection of the
economic development of society. The central premise,
which Marx had identified, was the tension between the
means of production and the relations of production that
together form the economic base of a given society. As
the means of production develop, for example through
technological advancement, previous relations of
production become outmoded, thereby leading to a
process of social change. This is, for Marx, true about
capitalism. Lenin explains imperialism as the extension of
capitalism. He also explains that imperialism leads to war
between the capitalist nations on the one hand, and the
division of the world into imperialistic nations and the
colonial world on the other.
3. Marx argues in the preface to his Contribution to the
Critique of Political Economy that the mode of production
of material life conditions the social, political and
intellectual processes in general. Thus, the legal,
political, and cultural integrations and practices of a given
society or a given age, reflect the pattern of power and
control in the economy. The change in the economic
base leads to change in the legal and_ political
superstructure. This represents the Marxian base-
superstructure theory. The pattern of imperialism during
the times of Lenin, the hegemonic control of the capitalist
class or the capitalist countries as expressed by
Gramsci, and the Centre-periphery syndrome of Frank’s
dependency theory of the globalisation era can be
understood in the light of the Marxian base-
superstructure theory.
4. Class plays a key role in any Marxian analysis. The
Marxists’ view of the world divides it into two opposing
classes: the possessing class and the non-possessing
class. In a capitalist society, they constitute the capitalists
and the workers; Gramsci would call them the dominating
class and the dominated class. In the globalisation era,
they constitute the neo-colonial powers and_ the
dependent nations. The Marxists hold the view that the
conflict between these opposing classes keeps growing
in every age; sometimes in open and sometimes hidden.
The result is always the same: the exploitation of the
exploited by the exploiters.
5. Revolution is another concept of Marxian analysis.
Capitalism at the national level turns into imperialism
which suffers from three contradictions:
(a) the capitalists would compete for capturing more
and more colonies resulting in world wars among
them;
(b) the conflict between the capitalists and the workers,
the latter demanding rights and liberties in their
respective nations;
(c) the conflict between the imperialists and the
colonial people, the latter fighting for their liberation.
6. Arun Bose (The Marxian Theory of International
Relations) envisages the Marxian analytical framework
by suggesting the four seminal theories relating to the
Marxian interpretation of international relations which
serves, to some extent, as a “guide to action”:
Andre Gunder Frank
Andre Gunder Frank (1929-2005) was a German-American

economic historian and sociologist who was one of the
founders of the Dependency theory and the World Systems
Theory in the 1960s. He employed some marxian concepts
on political economy, but rejected Marx’s stages of history,
and economic history generally. Throughout the 1950s and
early 1960s, Frank taught at American universities. In 1962
he moved to Latin America, inaugurating a remarkable
period of travel that served to confirm his peripatetic
tendencies. His most notable work during this time was his
stint as Professor of Sociology and Economics at the
University of Chile where he was involved in reforms under
the government of Salvador Allende. After Allende’s
government was toppled by a coup d’état in 1973, Frank
fled to Europe where he continued to take up a series of
positions. In 1994 he retired as emeritus professor at the
University of Amsterdam. His works included Capifalism
and Underdevelopment in Latin America.
i. proletarian revolution engineered by the workers at the

national and international levels;
. anti-imperialistic struggle in dependent regions of the
world;
. national self-determination through which the newly
independent nations seek to find a place in the
community of nations; and
policy of peaceful coexistence to be followed at the
United Nations forum and in relation to the non-
communist nations.
Arun Bose formulates four models of Marxian strategies:
the transitional or cosmopolitan model strategy; one in

which the working classes of different nations would
strengthen themselves, striking everywhere and
weakening the capitalists-states;
. the Soviet-centric strategy; one where the USSR would
become the focal lending nation to guide the proletarian
revolutions wherever necessary;
the non-aligned model strategy; one that is rooted in the
proletariat of a colonial nation, a Yugoslavian strategy,
and from where the proletariat would launch the
revolution, make it, preserve it and protect it without any
outside support either from the other socialist states or
from any outside proletariat. The Sino-centric model
strategy is another strategy; one where Peoples’ China
became the inspiring nation for revolutions by the
proletariat where the revolutions have to occur.
The Gramscian notion of international relations, founded as

it is on the concept of hegemony, revolves around the
hegemonic power which dominates the other states not
merely through “power”, but also through other forces totalled
up in “consent”. Robert Cox (with Sinclair, Approaches to
World Order), develops the Gramscian approach that involves
both, a critique of prevailing theories of International
Relations, and the development of an alternative framework
for the analysis of world politics.
Influenced by the Marxian ideas, the advocates of the
dependency theory, especially Gunder Frank, give a neo-
Marxist interpretation of international relations. They develop
the center-periphery thesis. They argue that:
i. the present conditions of the peripheries’ nations are

largely due to the exploitation by the developed nations,
now called ‘core’ or the ‘centre’;
ii. relations among nations, therefore, are essentially
asymmetrical; and
iii, Such an asymmetry is not merely confined to State-to-
State relationships, but extends to a host of ties among
groups and classes between, within and across the
nations.
The Marxist theory with regard to international relations is

criticised on numerous grounds. This theory is no more
internationalist now, for the workers have their own
fatherlands. There is no evidence that the capitalist countries
tend to become imperialistic as Lenin had _ predicted.
Switzerland is a capitalist country, but has not become
imperialistic. This is true of Canada and Australia as well. The
Marxists have never had any theory of international relations;
what they have had at best were their stray and hazy views
about world events. The failure of the Marxist model has
shown, beyond any doubt, that there is hardly any
international theory. The philosophers, after Marx and Engels,
have changed the world and only thereafter interpreted it.
ll (e) SYSTEMS THEORY
The systematic approach, associated with Easton in
comparative politics, in International Politics emphasises the
importance of the interaction of behaviour of states. Its
assumptions are that it is possible to find certain regular
modes of behaviour within the structure of a_ political
organisation; that each sub-system affects the working of a
larger system; and that mutual relationship between two
systems is to affect and be affected by the other. The
advocates of this theory are James Rosenau (/nternational
Politics and Foreign Policy), Kenneth Waltz (Man, the State
and War), Kenneth Boulding (Conflict and Defence), Charles
McClleland (his article ‘Applications of General Systems
Theory’), and Morton Kaplan (Systems and Process in
International Politics) who is one of the best exponents of the
system theory. He refers to six models of international
systems.
The first is the balance of power system whose operation
has six rules. These are enumerated as follows:
1. Each state to increase its power without war.
2. The primary obligation of each national actor must be to
itself by protecting its interests even at the risk of war.
3. One should not eliminate an essential national actor.
4. The national actor should oppose any coalition acquiring
a preponderant position.
5. The national actor should prevent others from
subscribing to supranational principle.
6. Defeated actor should be permitted re-entry into the
system.
The system worked well for two centuries as an absolute
system and appeared as a rule of universal applicability. But
since the beginning of the twentieth century these rules did
not operate well. Consequently, the balance of power system
has become inoperative.
4 a
Morton Kaplan
Morton Kaplan (born 1921) was Distinguished Service

Professor of Political Science, Emeritus, at the University of
Chicago. He was also President of the Professors’ World
Peace Academy International; and Editor of the World & |
magazine, published by the Washington Times Corporation
from its founding in 1986 until 2004. He attended Temple
University and Stanford University, and received his Ph.D.
from Columbia University in 1951. He has held fellowships
from Center of International Studies, Princeton University,
and the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral
Sciences. He was also a Carnegie Traveling Fellow. Dr.
Kaplan has published extensively in the areas of
international relations and international politics. His many
books include Science, Language and the Human
Condition, Law in a Democratic Society, and System and
Process in International Politics (1957); a seminal work in
the scientific study of international relations. He edited The
Many Faces of Communism.
The second model (the cold war model) is described by him
as a bipolar system. The balance of power system may
transform itself into bipolar system. Kaplan conceives of two
types of bipolar systems: the loose bipolar system and the
tight bipolar system. In the former each bloc has a leading
actor. There has been a loose bipolar system. Both
supranational actors as well as the national actors participate
in the loose bipolar system. Supranational actors are divided
into sub-class of bloc-actors like NATO and the Warsaw bloc
and into universal actor like the United Nations. Loose bipolar
system is characterised by two major block actors, non-
member bloc actors, and universal actor. It has a
considerable degree of inherent instability.
The loose bipolar system can easily be transformed into a
tight bipolar system—the third model. In this system non-
aligned states or non-member national actors would either
disappear or shall have little importance. Even universal
actors shall not be in a position to mediate between the two
bloc actors and may possibly cease to exist.
The fourth model comes into existence when there is a
universal international system. It would be possible when the
United Nations becomes sufficiently strong to check war and
the bipolar system has ceased to exist. It would be like a
world federation with governmental powers, yet leaving
sufficient autonomy to nation-states.
The fifth model is called hierarchical international system. It
may come into existence when a universal actor absorbs the
whole world and only one nation is left as the universal actor.
In this system, national actors will be territorial subdivisions of
the international system rather than independent political
units. This system can be both directive and non-directive. It
will be directive if it is formed as a result of world conquest by
a national actor. However, it would be non-directive if power
were distributed among nations according to hierarchy under
the overall domination of a single national actor.
The last system is the unit veto system. The essence of this
system would be that all states will be equally able to destroy
each other. The system is possible in a condition in which all
actors shall possess weapons of such a nature that any actor
is able to destroy another actor, even at the risk of his own
destruction.
Kaplan’s model was later supplemented by none other, but
Kaplan himself. Others have added more models.
Couloumbis and Wolfe endorse Kaplan’s model and add the
following three:
The multi-bloc model portrays a world divided into five to
seven mutually exclusive spheres of influence. Each of these
spheres would be controlled by one major power, thus giving
rise to a multipolar world.
The National Fragmentation Model will be the outcome of
political and territorial disintegration. Ethnic, tribal or racial
separatist movements may cause many of the large states to
disintegrate into small fragmented units. Examples include
the former Soviet Union, former Yugoslavia and former
Czechoslovakia which have split into several sovereign
states.
The Post-Nuclear War Model: It is the world after a
catastrophic nuclear war. If such a war takes place, its
aftermath would be ghastly. In such a situation, only the most
tyrannical regimes would be able to maintain orderly
distribution of food, shelter and medicine. A new order will
have to be found to overcome such chaotic conditions.
The models formulated by Kaplan included:
1. The Very Loose Bipolar System: This system is
characterised by everyone going in search for arms
control and aligning in different blocs. At the same time
the existing blocs suffer from inherent weaknesses. The
superpowers compete to regain the leadership in the
universal organisation.
2. The Détente System: The on-going tension is lessened
between the two superpowers and they become less
aggressive. Their conflicts do not give rise to dimensions
of serious aggression. The universal actor plays a
decisive role in maintaining this system.
3. The Unstable Bloc System: This system is in fact the
opposite of détente system. Here, the superpowers are
highly suspicious of each other. The conflicts take a
serious dimension. There is also a possibility of nuclear
catastrophe. The universal actor plays a mediatory role
according to the wishes of the superpowers.
4. The Incomplete Unclear Diffusion System: I|n_ this
system, mostly all the national actors would possess
nuclear power. They would possess’ minimum
deterrence. There is a possibility of nuclear alignment
between minor and major powers.
Kaplan’s systems approach has received its own criticism.
His approach stating different models of states have not
appeared or are not likely to appear in totality. Accordingly,
the approach is inoperative. The transformation of one model
into another in the sequence suggested by Kaplan is not
found in history. At times, there seems to be a remote
possibility of transformation. Hoffman regards the whole
approach as “a huge misstep in the right direction—the
direction of systematic empirical analysis.” The systems
approach does not predict as to what will actually happen, it
only forecasts what would happen if certain conditions
develop, which rarely happen as envisaged by Kaplan. We
should not forget that all of Kaplan’s models are hypothetical,
only tools to make investigations. Accordingly, they are too
general and, therefore, cannot be of much use in ordering the
facts or reaching the conclusions.
ll (f) THE FUNCTIONALIST APPROACH

Functionalism is a theory of international relations which
focuses on common interests and needs shared by the states
in a process of global integration. Rosamond (Theories of
European Integration) finds the roots of the functionalist
theory in the liberal/idealist tradition, one that was associated
with Immanuel Kant and Woodrow Wilson. The theory arose
during the inter-war period principally as a result of the rise of
totalitarian and authoritarian powers with the state as in
fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. To that extent, the
functionalist theory disapproved the thesis of the realist theory
(Morgenthau) which saw the self-interest of the states as the
motivating force in world politics. Realism and functionalism
differ. Jonn McCormick compares the two as shown below.
David Mitrany (A Working Peace System), explaining the
functionalist theory argues that cooperation among the states
stems from the common interests relating to functional and
technical areas such as communication, finance, transport,
technology and as such integration among the states is made
possible through technical experts rather than through
politicians.
(
David Mitrany
David Mitrany (1888-1975), Romania-born, naturalised

British scholar, was a historian and political theorist. He
worked on international relations and on issues of the
Danube region. Mitrany is considered as the creator of the
theory of functionalism in international relations, also
classified as a part of liberal institutionalism. His works
included: A Working Peace System, World Unity and the
Nations, and The Functional Theory of Politics.
Table 33.1
Contents Realism Functionalism
Dominant goals Military security Peace and

of actors prosperity
Instruments of Military force and Economic

state policy instruments and
economic political acts of will
instruments
Forces behind Potential shifts in Initial emphasis on

agenda the balance of low politics, such
formation power and as economic and
security threats social issues
Role of Minor; limited by Substantial; new,

international state power and functional
organisations the importance of international
military force organisations will
increasingly formulate policy
responsible for and become
such a shift implementation
According to functionalism, international integration—the

collective governance and ‘material interdependence’
between states —develops its own internal dynamics as
states integrate in limited functional, technical, and/or
economic areas. International agencies would meet human
needs, aided by knowledge and expertise. The benefits
rendered by the functional agencies would attract the loyalty
of the populace, stimulate their participation and expand the
area of integration. There are strong assumptions
underpinning functionalism:
i. that the process of integration takes place within a

framework of human freedom;
ii. that knowledge and expertise are currently available to
meet the needs for which the functional agencies are
built; and
iii. that states will not sabotage the process.
Functionalism, it may be stated, is an argument that is
based on authority structures, especially on the principle of
territorialism. State-theories were built upon assumptions that
identified the scope of authority with territory, aided by
methodological territorialism. Functionalism proposed to build
a form of authority based on functions and needs which linked
authority with needs, scientific knowledge, expertise and
technology, i.e. it provided a supraterritorial concept of
authority.
4 '
Ernst Haas
Ernst Haas (1924-2003) was an American political scientist

who made numerous’ contributions to _ theoretical
discussions in the field of international relations. He is the
founder of neofunctionalism. He was also a fellow of the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences and served as
Robson Professor of Government at the University of
California. His famous work was The Uniting of Europe.
—
NS J
Neofunctionalism reintroduced territorialism in the

functional theory and downplayed its global dimension. It is
simultaneously a theory and a strategy of regional integration,
building on the work of David Mitrany. Neofunctionalists
focused their attention on the process of integration among
states, i.e. regional integration. Initially, states integrate in
limited functional or economic areas. Thereafter, partially
integrated states experience increasing momentum for further
rounds of integration in related areas. This “invisible hand” of
integration phenomenon was termed “spill-over’ by the
neofunctionalist school. Although integration can be resisted,
it becomes harder to stop integration’s reach as it progresses.
According to neofunctionalists, there are two kinds of
spillover: functional and political. Functional spillover is the
interconnection of various economic sectors or issue-areas,
and the integration in one policy-area spilling over into others.
Political spillover is the creation of supranational governance
models, as far-reaching as the European Union, or as
voluntary as the United Nations. Ernst Haas (The Uniting of
Europe, Political, Social and Economic Forces), while
rejecting the notion of separating technical from political
matters, believes that integration is a process whereby
political actors are persuded to shift their loyalties towards a
new centre whose institutions demand jurisdiction over the
pre-existing national states. He is of the view that the regional
integration is to be studied in the larger context, i.e., the
general theory of integration among states, i.e. regional
integration. Initially, states integrate in limited functional or
economic areas. Thereafter, partially integrated states
experience increasing momentum for further rounds of
integration in related areas. This “invisible hand” of integration
phenomenon was termed “spill-over”’ by the neofunctionalist
school. Although integration can be resisted, it becomes
harder to stop integration’s reach as it progresses.
According to neofunctionalists, there are two kinds of
spillover: functional and political. Functional spillover is the
interconnection of various economic sectors or issue-areas,
and the integration in one policy-area spilling over into others.
Political spillover is the creation of supranational governance
models, as far-reaching as the European Union, or as
voluntary as the United Nations. Ernst Haas (The Uniting of
Europe, Political, Social and Economic Forces), while
rejecting the notion of separating technical from political
matters, believes that integration is a process whereby
political actors are persuded to shift their loyalties towards a
new centre whose institutions demand jurisdiction over the
pre-existing national states. He is of the view that the regional
integration is to be studied in the larger context, i.e., the
general theory of interdependence which came to be
advocated in 1980s and 1990s by Kechane and Nye (Power
and Interdependence). Unlike previous theories of integration,
neofunctionalism is declared to be non-normative and which
describes and explains the process of regional integration
based on empirical data. Integration was regarded as an
inevitable process rather than a desirable state of affairs that
could be introduced by the political or technocratic elites of
the involved states’ societies.
The functionalist theory of integration advocated by Kegley
and Wittkoff in 1990s argues on the strength that international
system is not anarchic, but is based on_ transnational
interactions which create areas of interdependence. Societies
and governments are being knit together by growing cultural
homogeneity and economic and social interdependence.
Various international agencies and regimes like the World
Trade Organisations promote integration. The liberals
emphasise the growing role of non-state actors like NGOs,
regional organisations etc. in promoting regional and global
interdependence.
The functionalist theory lays emphasis on cooperation
among the states that would eventually help integration of
nations. It is doubtful if cooperation would eradicate state
sovereignty. It is also doubtful if cooperation would help
create understanding among the sovereign nations. It is,
again, doubtful if cooperation would help achieve particular
outcomes, especially international peace or eliminate world
poverty.
ll (9) THE FEMINIST APPROACH

Feminism is a broad term given to the theories and works of
those scholars who have sought to bring gender concerns
into the study of international relations (IR).
Cynthia Enloe’s Bananas, Branches and Bakes sought to
chart the many different roles that women play in international
politics — as plantation workers, diplomatic wives, sex
workers on military bases.
A feminist IR involves looking at how international politics
affects and is affected by both men and women and also at
how the core concepts that are employed within the discipline
of IR (e.g. war, security, etc.) are themselves gendered.
Feminist IR has not concerned itself with the traditional focus
of IR on states, wars, diplomacy and security, but feminist IR
scholars have also emphasised the importance of looking at
how gender shapes the current global political economy. In
this sense, there is no clear cut division between feminists
working in IR and those working in the area of International
Political Economy (IPE).
In regards to feminism in IR, some of the founding feminist
IR scholars refer to using a “feminist consciousness” when
looking at gender issues in politics. In Cynthia Enloe’s article
“Gender is not enough: the need for a_ feminist
consciousness”, Enloe explains how IR needs to include
masculinity in the discussion on war, while also giving
attention to the issues surrounding women and girls. In order
to do so, Enloe urges IR scholars to look at issues with a
‘feminist conscousness’, which will ultimately include a
perspective sensitive to masculinities and femininities. In this
way, the feminist consciousness, together with a gendered
lens, allows for IR academics to discuss International Politics
with a deeper appreciation and understanding of issues
pertaining to gender around the world.
Enloe argues how the IR discipline continues to lack
serious analysis of the experiences, actions and ideas of girls
and women in the international arena, and how this ultimately
excludes them from the discussion in IR. For instance, Enloe
explains Carol Cohn’s’ experience using a_ feminist
consciousness while participating in the drafting of a
document that outlines the actions taken in negotiating
ceasefires, peace agreements and new constitutions. During
this event, those involved came up with the word “combatant”
to describe those in need during these usually high-strung
negotiations. The use of ‘combatant’ in this context is
particularly problematic as Carol points out, because it implies
one type of militarised people, generally men carrying guns,
and excludes the women and girls deployed as porters, cooks
and forced ‘wives’ of male combatants. This term effectively
renders the needs of these womens invisible, and excludes
them from the particularly critical IR conversation regarding
who needs what in war and peace. This discussion is crucial
for the analysis of how various masculinities are at play in
International Politics, and how those masculinities affect
women and girls during wartime and peace and _ initially
eliminates them from the discussion.
Conversely, feminist IR scholar Charlotte Hooper effectively
applies a feminist consciousness when considering how “IR
disciplines men as much as men shape IR”. So, instead of
focusing on what and whom IR_ excludes from the
conversation, Hooper focuses on how masculine identities
are perpetuated and ultimately are the products of the
practice of IR. In this way, it is ineffective to use a genedered
lens and feminist consciousness to analyse the exclusion of a
discussion in gender in IR. Hooper suggests that a deeper
examination of the ontological and epistemological ways in
which IR has been inherently a masculine discipline is
needed. The innate masculinity of IR is because men
compose the vast majority of modern IR scholars, and their
masculine identities have been socially constructed over time
through various political progressions. For instance, Hooper
gives examples of the historical and political developments of
masculinities that are still prevalent in IR and society at large;
the Greek citizen/warrior model, the Judeo Christian model
and the Protestant bourgeois rationalist model. These track
the masculine identities througout history, where manliness is
measured in militarism and citizenship, ownership and
authority of the fathers, and finally, competitive individualism
and reason. These masculinities in turn asks one to not only
use the feminist consciousness to analyse the exclusions of
femininities from IR, but additionally, Hooper illuminates how
one can locate the inherent inclusions of masculinities in the
field of IR with a feminist consciousness.
Practice
Questions
1. Critically examine the Idealist theory to

the study of international relations. (700-
800 words)
2. Explain and comment on Morgenthau’s
realist theory of International Relations.
(700-800 words)
3. Write a detailed note on ‘Neo-realist’
theory. (700-800 words)
4. Discuss the Marxist approach to the
study of International Relations. (700-
800 words)
5. How do you explain the Equilibrium
theory? (200-300 words)
6. Write a brief note on the Decision-
making theory. (200-300 words)
7. How do you explain the Game theory to
the study of International Relations?
(700-800 words)
8. Discuss and examine Kaplan’s Systems
Theory. (700-800 words)
or
“Morton K. Kaplan’s system approach

theory is contrary to the fundamental
precepts of system approach’.
Comment. (2014)(200-300 words)
9. Explain and criticise the functionalist
theory to the study of International
Relations. (700-800 words)
10. Write a note on the Integration theory.
(200-300 words)
11. “Do you agree that liberal international
theories are essentially eurocentric and
not necessarily imperialist?” (2012)
(200-250 words)
12. What are the greatest debates
between ‘classical’ are modern realists?
Is there any thin line of continuity
between these two traditions? (2012)
(200-250 words)
13. How does Marxist approach explain
contemporary International Relations?
(2013) (200-300 words)
14. Write a note in intellectual precursors
of Realism. (2013) (200-300 words)
15. “Building peace by pieces” is the basis
of functionalism. (2013) (200-300 words)
16. The Feminist approach to international
politics is biased”. Comment. (2014) fA
(200-300 words) V
Key Concepts In
International Relations
[-- very discipline or sub-discipline has its respective

concepts with connotations peculiar to it. It is
important that we understand these concepts in their
own conceptual meanings. These concepts are _ not
necessarily related to one another and there is no intention to
relate them either. To know them simply means to understand
their use in the discussion that follows. A number of concepts
have been addressed in this chapter. These include National
Interest, Security and Power, Balance of Power and
Deterrence, Transnational Actors and Collective Security,
World Capitalist Economy and Globalisation.
I. NATIONAL INTEREST
National interest is one of the most important concepts in
international relations. It is the key concept of foreign policy
as it provides the material on the basis of which foreign policy
is formulated. While formulating foreign policy all statesmen
are guided by their national interests. It is the major task of
foreign policy to conduct foreign relations in a way so as to
achieve national interest to the maximum extent. National
interest may explain the ‘aspirations’ of the state; it can be
utilised also ‘operationally’, in execution of the actual policies
and programmes followed. It can also be used ‘polemically’ in
political argument to explain, rationalise, or criticise. The use
of the term ‘national interest’ varies greatly amongst scholars.
I (a) National Interest: Meaning, Definitions, Nature

Notwithstanding numerous definitions with regard to national
interest, it has to be given a meaning. Lerche and Said
(Concepts of International Politics) define national interest as
“the general long-term and continuing purpose which the
state, the nation and the government all see themselves as
serving.” Dyke (/nternational Politics) defines it as that which
states seek to protect or achieve in relation to each other.
National interest constitutes desires and aspirations of the
sovereign states which differ from state to state and from time
to time.
National interest is the sum total of a nation’s goals and
ambitions—economic, political, military or cultural. It is a
multi-faceted one which includes, among others, a nation’s
security, pursuit of economic growth and desire for more and
more power as well as the preservation of a nation’s culture.
National interest is the desirable best and the possible best
of a nation; desirable in that which it desires and possible in
that which it achieves. In other words, national interest is
perpetual because it is to stay always and it is ultimate
because it is its own end as well. This is not to say that
national interest is the same all the time. What it means is
that it may change from time to time, but it has to remain
always: what it is today may be different next year, but it has
to be there; the content may differ, the existence remains.
The US intervention in Vietnam may constitute American
national interest in the 1960s, but such may not be the
American national interest in 2000s; it may be a war against
terrorism in this decade for the United States. What is
important in any meaning and definition of national interest is
what Robert Osgood says is “state of affairs valued solely for
the benefit to the nations”. National interest is what is solely
beneficial for the nation.
Security or nation’s own survival is what may be termed as
national interest. What remains if the security of the state is in
danger? State’s security is the state’s existence. The core of
a state’s foreign policy is its demand for security. Security,
therefore, is the chief objective of a nation’s foreign policy.
For idealists like Woodrow Wilson, morality may be a better
choice than nation’s security, but for all realist statesmen,
security constitutes a nation’s most desirable objective.
George Washington had once said, “No nation, no matter
how lofty its ideals and how genuine its desire to abide by
them, can base its foreign policy on consideration other than
its own national interest.” All countries desire and search for
national security, political independence and maintenance of
territorial integrity. In other words, defence of the state is
naturally the primary concern of foreign policy. Secondly,
promotion of economic interest, including securing favourable
conditions of trade, is a vital objective of foreign policy-
makers. Thirdly, most modern states are also concerned with
maintenance of international peace, respect for international
law, pacific settlement of international disputes and
strengthening of the system of international organisations. All
definitions of national interest do not ignore such vital aspects
of a nation’s objectives. Padelford, Lincoln, Olvey (Dynamics
of International Politics) say, “concepts of national interest are
concerned on core values of the society which include the
welfare of the nation, the security of its political beliefs,
national way of life, territorial integrity and its self-
preservation.” We may conclude with Joseph Frankel
(National Interest) who refers to four levels of national interest
— aspirational, operational, explanatory and polemical. On
the aspirational level, national interest refers to the vision of
good life; on the operational level, it refers to the sum-total of
its interests and policies actually pursued; and on the
explanatory and polemical levels, the concept is used to
explain, evaluate, rationalise or criticise foreign policy.
l(b) National Interest: Determinants and Types

The application of national interest is determined on
numerous criteria. Ideology is one such criterion. Whatever
be the national interest, a nation has to keep the ideological
considerations, though ideology itself helps in the formulation
of national interest. A liberal-democratic state would be
ideologically more akin to the like-minded states than to those
whose ideology is very much different. Any nation, while
pursuing its national interest, is usually guided by moral and
legal considerations. A state seldom goes beyond the
normative values known to all or would seldom violate the
legal limits. While following the objectives of the national
interest, the operational style may be synoptic, i.e. fast
track, or may be incremental, i.e. gradual. The pursuit of
national interest may tend to seek a pragmatic path, and in
fact, it should do so as well. The success of the laurels of
national interest usually requires professional and matter-of-
fact efforts by ‘just playing the game’. The pursuit of national
interest is associated with the demands on other states so as
to exercise diplomatic activities as efficiently as possible.
Robinson (“National Interest”) refers to the following types
of national interest:
1. Primary: These are the core or vital interests relating to
the preservation of political, cultural and physical
identities. Such interests constitute security against
foreign aggression.
2. Secondary: These are relatively less important than the
primary interests, but are at the same time important for
the very existence of the state. Among these interests,
one may include the protection of citizens and diplomats
living in other countries.
3. Permanent: These are interests which are long-term
interests that are usually continuing. These include for
example, the freedom of navigation so as to protect
overseas trade and investment made in other countries.
4. Variable: These are interests that change. They change
according to the circumstances and keep changing
through factors such as personalities of the leaders,
shifting public opinions, sectional interests, partisan
politics and attitudes.
5. General: These are interests through which particular
interests are protected. The policy of non-alignment
followed by India in the years after independence
constitutes general interest through which particular
interests such as defence of the country, friendly
relations with the neighbouring nations, maintenance of
peace and security of the nation are protected.
6. Specific: These are interests which are determined in
terms of time and space. To develop good neighbourly
relations with Pakistan, China, Sri Lanka and the like,
India specifically pursued the Gujarat doctrine.
In addition to the above, Robinson mentioned three other
interests describing them as international interests. These
are: (a) Identical interests: those which are held in common
by numerous states (the demand for the New International
Economic Order by the developing nations, for example); (b)
Complementary interests: those which two or more states find
in their mutual benefits (the establishment of the regional
organisations, i.e. ASEAN, SAARC, and European Union are
examples of complementary interests); (c) Conflicting
interests: those in which a couple of nations find themselves
pursuing opposing interests.
I (c) National Interests: Promoting Factors

National interest is the interest which each nation seeks to
promote and enhance. Each nation seeks to advance its
national interest through numerous factors, namely the
following:
1. Diplomacy. It constitutes the techniques and procedures
for conducting relations among states. Diplomacy
functions through a_ network of foreign offices,
embassies, legations, consulates and special missions
all over the world. It can be bilateral as well as
multilateral in nature. Diplomats, as the eyes and ears of
their respective nations, practise diplomacy so as to
seek, protect and promote national interest. Diplomatic
negotiations are employed to reconcile the different
interests of the states through the process of mutual give
and take. Through diplomatic negotiations the interests of
concerned states are achieved. On the other hand, in
case of conflicting or opposing interests negotiations do
not prove of much success.
2. Alliances. These are usually conducted by two or more
states for the promotion and protection of their common
interests. After the conclusion of the alliance the
protection of these common interests becomes a legal
obligation of the member-states. These alliances may be
concluded for achieving different kinds of national
interests and their nature depends on the type of the
interest sought to be fulfilled. Robinson observes, “the
advantage of pursuing the national interest through
alliances, of course, lies in the translation of inchoate,
common or complementary interests into common policy
and in bringing the nation’s power directly to bear on
questions of national interests.”
3. Propaganda. In our century, propaganda has become a
major instrument for the promotion of national interest.
States have set up permanent agencies for the
systematic expression of propaganda of an instrument of
national policy. No state can easily overlook these
means. In the most general terms, “Any attempt to
persuade persons to accept a certain point of view or to
take a certain action” is propaganda. From the point of
view of international relations propaganda is condensed
to mean merely organised efforts by governments “to
induce either domestic groups or foreign states to accept
policies favourable— or at least not unfavourable—to
their own.”
4. Psychological and Political Warfare. Eisenhower
associated psychological warfare with “the struggle for
minds of men.” Linebarger defined psychological warfare
in the broad sense as “the application of parts of the
science of psychology to further the efforts of political,
economic, or military action,” and in the narrow sense as
“the use of propaganda against an enemy, together with
such other operational measures of a military, economic
or political nature as may be required to supplement
propaganda”
Political warfare includes the means which a state takes to
weaken a particular enemy or enemies. “The persuasion of
friendly diplomacy is not political warfare; neither is
propaganda which does not seek to impair or limit another
state’s freedom of action. On the other hand, diplomacy or
propaganda, which has the intent to coerce, must be
regarded as political warfare. Economic measures must be so
characterised when they are aimed at a particular state. Thus,
a given act may or may not be political warfare. The
distinction lies in its purpose. An embargo conceived solely to
conserve domestic resources of a commodity is quite different
from an embargo imposed to deprive an unfriendly state of
essential imports, regardless of the fact that both may apply
to exports to all states.” (See Palmer and Parkins,
International Relations)
5. Coercive Methods and War. The state can take certain
coercive measures on its own territory which ultimately
work to advance its national interest against an enemy
state. These include actions like seizure and confiscation
of the property of the rival state or its subjects by way of
compensation in value for the wrong done, suspension of
operation of treaties, embargo of ships belonging to the
offending states lying within its parts, and seizure of
ships at sea etc. All these methods are acts of war
pressurising the opponents to yield.
6. Imperialism and Colonialism. These have long been
used as instruments for the promotion of national policy.
From sixteenth century till the middle of twentieth century
European nations used imperialism and colonialism as a
tool to further their national interest.
The factors promoting national interests keep changing. In
our times, with the advent of globalisation, most of the
developed nations created situations for the developing
nations to act in such a way that they do what the developed
nations want them to do.
ll. SECURITY AND POWER

The concepts of security and power, either in association or
in isolation, are significant terms of International Relations.
National interest is the objective of any nation’s foreign policy
in which nation’s security is the core objective which a state
seeks to achieve through its power. Power is the instrument
that makes a nation’s existence possible, one that fulfils the
claims of a nation’s interest.
Il (a) Concept of Security

The concept of security is directly and immediately related to
the concept of national interest. Every nation’s first and
primary task has been, at all times and in all ages, to seek
security. Security is the very existence of the state itself, its
whole system, all its institutions and involves the protection of
the individuals living in the state and the property that the
state and the people possess.
Security has been the essential demand for the individuals
as well as the states. For the individuals, the state comes up
to provide army for peoples’ protection against all aggression
from outside, and police for maintaining internal peace and
stability. One of the first tasks for any state relating to national
interest is its desire for security. The fact that the state
possesses legal coercive power is the fact of managing
security. The fact that the state uses physical power against
the individuals (by awarding punishment) is to provide
security for other individuals. The fact that the state defends
itself from the attacks of other states or attacks other states
by using weapons and armaments (i.e. coercive power) is to
ensure its own existence. Power assures security and
security is the first job of every state, its very national interest.
The evolution of the whole system of international relations
revolves around the concept of security of the state. The
states amass weapons so that the security of the state is
ensured; they attack other states so that the offence provides
the best guarantee for security. They enter into military
alliances (as during the post-cold war era - NATO, CENTO,
SEATO, Warsaw) so as to be prepared for any possible
threat to their security. The Concert of Europe, after the
Congress of Vienna, was an attempt to establish security in
Europe. Almost a century afterwards, the opposing military
groupings (The Triple Alliance comprising Germany, Austria-
Hungary, Italy etc. and the Triple Entente, comprising Britain,
France and Russia) were made to ward off the threats of war.
World War | (1914-1918) and World War Il (1939-45) were
fought to end all wars and provide international peace and
security. The French demand for security during the inter-war
period was an attempt at security from a possible German
attack. The international organisations such as the League of
Nations and the United Nations were created so as to ensure
world security. All the efforts of disarmament, either through
or outside the United Nations, aim at generating an
atmosphere of peace and security. It is important to note that
all the UN specialised agencies and the regional
arrangements (EU, SAARC, ASEAN) seek security through
regional cooperation. Nuclear weapons have added to our
security concerns. The desire for peace and security is
preparing us for war; nuclear war now. Weapons, we must
remember, have brought us wars — at least history tells us
so. The more weapons we have, more assured is our
insecurity: weapons create wars; dangerous weapons create
dangerous wars. Security of the world is at its gravest risk
because of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
There is a real danger to world security from nuclear
weapons as they are possessed by numerous powerful
states; the United States and Russia in particular. These two
nations alone possess 95% of the total nuclear weapons of
the world. Security is in danger with nuclear weapons and
especially from those who possess them. The danger to world
security is not from those who do not have nuclear weapons,
but from those who have them; not from those who have not
used them because they do not have them, but from those
who have used them because they had them (the USA used
atom bombs on Japan’s two cities during World War Il). In the
American laboratories, old weapons are being refined and
new ones are being designed. In such situations, how can
world security be ensured?
Security’s threats are really real threats; its concerns are no
less insignificant. A nation is secure when it is free of threats
from others, i.e. that it would not be attacked and that there
would be an absence of threats to its values. Bary Buzan
(People, States and Fear) says that security is about the
ability of the states and societies to maintain their
independent identity and their functional integrity. He argues
for a broader view of security which includes numerous
aspects - political, economic, societal, and environmental as
well as_ militarily. Security is political in so far as its
sovereignty is not threatened; it is economic in so far as it is
not made to serve the interests of an economically dominant
nation; it is societal in so far as its values and identity are not
dehumanised; it is environmental in so far as it does not help
pollute humanity; it is militarily in so far as it is protected from
the use of weapons of mass destruction.
Security is a nation’s national interest in so far as it is
secure from aggression of others on the one hand, and on the
other is able to avoid war on itself. It is the interest of the
international system in so far as it is able to maintain the
system itself on the one hand, and on the other, is able to
establish the values of universal brotherhood. To that extent
the concept of security is both national and international in its
ramifications.
Il (b) Concept of Power

The concept of power is one of the most significant concepts
as is understood in International Relations. It is used as a
goal of the nation-states when a particular state tends to
exercise its influence over other states. Such an influence can
be coercive, extractive, cooperative or competitive and whose
mechanisms may be threat or use of force, economic
interaction or pressure, diplomacy and the like. Influence can
be organised by the states when they may attempt to create a
bloc. The military blocs created in the wake of Cold War
(blocs such as the NATO, the CENTO, the SEATO and the
Warsaw Pact) are examples of creating such type of
influence. Power is used in the sense when a state is said to
be powerful. Such a use of power, in International Relations,
is described with regard to a state that achieves victory or
security for itself. Power is used in the sense when a state is
said to be powerful. Such a use of power, in International
Relations, is described with regard to a state that achieves
victory or security for itself. Power is used as the capacity to
direct decisions and actions. It derives from strength and will.
Strength comes from the transformation of resources into
capabilities. Will infuses objectives with resolve. Strategy
marshals capabilities and brings them to bear with precision.
Statecraft seeks through strategy to magnify the mass,
relevance, impact, and irresistibility of power. It guides the
ways the state deploys and applies its power abroad. These
ways embrace the arts of war, espionage, and diplomacy.
“Power” is also used to describe the resources and
capabilities of a state. This definition is quantitative and is
most often used by geo-politicians and the military.
Capabilities are thought of in tangible terms—they are
measurable, weighable, and quantifiable assets. Thomas
Hobbes spoke of power as the “present means to obtain
some future apparent good.”
I! (b)(i) Power: Meaning and Definitions

Power in the context of International Relations is an important
concept. In fact, the concept of power is a central one, and a
key to understand the complexities of International Relations.
All of international politics, as a theory, revolves around the
concept of power. Karl Deutsch (The Analysis of International
Relations) says, “It (the concept of power) is the ability to
prevail in conflict and to overcome obstacle.” In other words, it
is the ability of a state to control the behaviour of the other
states in accordance with one’s own will. Morgenthau (Politics
among Nations) defines power as a relationship between the
political actors (i.e., sovereign states) in which actor A has the
ability to control the mind and actions of actor B.
Schwarzenberger (Power Politics) defines power as “the
capacity to impose one’s will on others by reliance on
effective sanctions in case of noncompliance. According to
Schleicher (/nternational Relations), “Power relationship is
marked clearly by the occurrence of threats”. Couloumbis and
Wolfe (Introduction to International Relations) define power
“as an umbrella concept that denotes anything that
establishes and maintains the control of actor ‘A’ over actor
‘B’.” According to these scholars, ingredients of power are
force, influence and authority. Much before them, Palmer and
Perkins (International Relations) included, in the concept of
power, characteristics such as influence, force and capacity.
The definitions with regard to the concept of power as used
in International Relations make numerous things clear about
the concept:
1. Power is the instrument through which national interest is
attained. To that extent it is a means.
2. Power is an end in so far as it translates the state’s
capacities into attainments. To that extent it is a goal.
3. Power is the ability to control the behaviour and actions
of other states. To that extent, it symbolises influence.
4. Power is the capacity to control others, make them do
what they would not otherwise do. To that extent it is a
force.
5. Power is not merely possession of certain elements. A
nation may be a rich country, but may not be a power.
Wealth does not make a state ‘a power’. What makes the
state a power is the use of its resources. To that extent,
power is the use of resources for its own end.
6. Power is force that helps persuade, coerce, control,
punish and at times reward. To that extent, power is
exertive.
7. Power is power to compete, to struggle, to manipulate.
To that extent, power is a process of competitiveness.
| (b)(ii) Power and Its Exercise

Power is meaningless unless it is exercised. Its meaning lies
in its use. To possess wealth is no power, it is only power
when it is circulated and gets enhanced. To possess strength
is no power; it is power when it is used.
Power is exercised in numerous ways. Persuasion is the
most common method of exercising power. Through
persuasion, a state seeks to influence the behaviour of other
states and thus exercise its power. Diplomacy is a kind of
persuasion. International conferences are largely exercises in
persuasion; endorsements in the international summits
constitute persuasion. Delegates attending the meetings of
the international organisations persuade and get persuaded
by one another. Small states make use of the method of
persuasion because they lack power.
Rewards constitute another method of exercising power. A
nation tries to influence the behaviour of other nations by
promising or assuring them rewards. These rewards may be
in the form of material benefit, economic aid, military
assistance or political support. During the cold war era, both
the United States and the former Soviet Union made use of
this method extensively. At times, trading contracts and tariff
concessions may be used by the states so as to exercise
their influence over others. Political support is used by a state
while endorsing a resolution which may favour another nation.
The USA’s support to Pakistan over Kashmir, during the cold-
war period, was an example of such a support.
Punishment is another method of exercising power by a
state over another state. Punishment is, in a way, a sort of
threat to prevent the other state in doing something. It may
include among others, hostile propaganda, diplomatic
offensive and aid to the enemy state of the state concerned.
It, being a threat, is usually not carried out. The mere threat
does the trick. It may consist of any action of a state which is
unpleasant to the other state. The use of threats and counter-
threats by the USA and the former Soviet Union on the Cuban
issue in 1961 was an example of punishment.
Force is yet another method of exercising power so as to
influence the behaviour or action of the other states.
Punishment when carried out becomes force. If punishment is
the passive method, the use of force is the active method of
carrying out punishment. The use of force in wars and battles
is a method used as a last resort, though the compulsive
measures may be used to exercise power over other states.
Power exercised is the use of power by a state over
another state. The use of power involves the domain over
which it is used; the range it covers, and the scope it extends
to. The domain aspect of the use of power in international
relations would comprise the exercise of power in the
territories of other states. The use of external domain, for
example, would mean the use of the territories of the NATO
members by the United States or the use of the territories of
the Warsaw Pact countries by the former Soviet Union—all
during the cold war era. Deutsch, while defining the range
aspect, says punishment is that which a power-holder could
bestow or inflict upon some person in his domain. The range
in the external sense may include, on the one extreme,
measures such as colonialism and neo-colonialism, and on
the other, mutual military aid. The scope of power exercised
by a state varies from state to state and from situation to
situation. The USA’s exercise of the scope of power over the
numerous Latin American nations relates to its economic and
military assistance.
Power exercised is the use of power to attain certain goals.
These goals relate to:
(a) protecting one’s national sovereignty;
(b) changing or maintaining the status quo so as to
favour a nation’s national interest;
(c) enhancing one’s prestige in the international
sphere, which is what Morgenthau called the power
to keep power, power to increase it and power to
demonstrate by following the corresponding
policies: policy of status quo, policy of imperialism,
and policy of prestige.
Il (c) Power: Its Elements

That the elements of national power are numerous have been
stated by scholars of International Relations. Morgenthau
classifies these elements into: (a) permanent; and (b)
changeable. Organski (World Politics) classifies them into
natural and social. According to Carr (Twenty Years Crisis:
1919-1939), the three broad categories of the elements of
national power are: (a) military power, economic power and
power over opinion. Professor Mahendra Kumar says that
these elements can be classified into: (a) natural; (b) social,
and (c) ideational.
Palmer and Perkins divide them into tangible and
intangible. We classify them as: (i) natural (geography,
resources, and population), (ii) material and military (industrial
capacity, agricultural base, military strength); (iii) political
(form of government, bureaucratic efficiency, and leadership);
(iv) social and_ ideational (national morale, social
cohesiveness and ideology); (v) external (diplomacy strategic
position). These elements are indicative of a state’s national
power, and may not be regarded as exclusive factors.
(1) Natural: The natural elements of a nation’s power
include geography, natural resources, population or
manpower. The geographical factors which help
make a state powerful are climate, topography,
location and size. Climate creates work culture which,
in turn, enhances productivity. Great powers, for
example, have always been blessed with good
climate. Topography helps defence to some extent.
The topographical features such as mountains, rivers,
lakes and the like determine natural boundaries and
set limits to a state’s natural expansion. Mountains
such as the Himalayas, the Alps, the Pyrenees, and
rivers like the Rhine, the Rio Grande and the Yale
have served as the natural guards (Sir Mohammad
Iqbal had said about the Himalayas, ‘Ye Santari
Hamara, Ye Pasbaan Hamara’), although the 1962
Chinese attack on India belied what Iqbal had said.
Location is always important for the growth of
economy of a state. Landlocked nations are at a
disadvantage because they lack outlets for the sale of
their products; sea-location is largely useful for the
promotion of trade. The size, in terms of territory,
helps a state to rise as a power. The large-sized
nations (the USA, for example) possess almost all the
natural resources’ (minerals, metals, _ etc.).
Geopolitics, as a new discipline, has contributed a lot
in making geography as a factor in the foreign policy
of a nation. Natural resources such as coal, iron,
uranium, oil, rubber, natural gas, ferrous and non-
ferrous metals, metallic and non-metallic minerals
have always been a factor in the lives of nation-
states. More of these assure a nation its powerful
position among other nations, and less of these make
a nation relatively weak. The proper and greater
utilisation of natural resources has made nations
great powers. Population, too, is an important natural
element which makes a nation powerful. People’s
China is a power because of its population.
Population indicates manpower, which is always
helpful in productivity so as to enhance a state’s
economic growth, and help it be a great power.
(2) Material and Military: The industrial capacity of a
state supported by modern technology converts a
nation into a powerful one. In fact, a nation cannot
become a great power unless it has the capacity to
produce goods and_ services. Ample natural
resources, technological development, and use of
manpower make a nation powerful in the international
sphere. Industrialisation, for example, has made
nations colonial and imperialistic | powers.
Agricultural base is another significant component of
a nation’s power. Couloumbis and Wolfe are of the
Opinion, “Agricultural capacity is also a_ tangible
element of power. Countries that can _ feed
themselves, especially over the course of long wars,
will be relatively more powerful than countries that are
not self-sufficient.” A nation that is in want of
agricultural products would always be at the receiving
end. Agricultural products and their enormous trade
create a powerful export base of a nation. The
development in scientific and technological methods
is, indeed, helpful in increasing agricultural capacity of
a nation. Military strength is yet another element of
a nation’s power. Self-reliance in militarily power is an
assured guarantee of a nation’s strength. Military
strength is relevant both, in war and peace. No state
can win a war if it is not equipped with military forces
and weapons. Accordingly, the size and number of
armed forces are of great importance. A state with a
small number of modern and sophisticated weapons
can defeat another state with a large number of
armed forces with out-moded weapons.
(3) Political: Political elements of a nation’s power
include the form of government, bureaucratic
efficiency and leadership. Democratic politics has
an advantage over the authoritarian regimes. The
power of a democratic government has the support of
the entire population and accordingly, such a
government would be relatively stable with flexible
over-tones as against the authoritarian systems which
can make swift decisions, but which do not give a
credible sound policy. Bureaucratic efficiency
(impartial, honest and efficient as it may be) will help
generate more power for a nation. On the contrary, a
corrupt and inefficient bureaucracy lands a state into
a weak system, especially during wars. Over-
bureaucratisation is always unproductive and that is
why a politically detached bureaucracy is always
regarded as beneficial. Political leadership makes or
unmakes the worth of a nation. To quote Couloumbis
and Wolfe, “undoubtedly, greatness or incompetence,
wisdom or irrationality, effectiveness or impotence in
leadership considerably affects the power that a
country has. Leaders such as Napoleon, Hitler,
Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, Mao, Gandhi, Kennedy,
de Gaul, Khrushchev and Nixon have made a deep
impact on world history.”
(4) Social and lIdeational: The social and ideational

elements of a nation’s power include national morale,
social cohesiveness and ideology. National morale
may be said to be a psychological factor of a nation’s
power. Though it is difficult to measure national
morale, yet it is used, as Lerche and Said (Concepts
of International Politics) say, “to describe the mass
state of mind in action, with particular reference to the
extent to which the society feels itself committed to
the government's policy.” Morgenthau holds the view
that “National morale is the degree of determination
with which a nation supports the foreign policies of its
government in peace or war. It permeates all activities
of a nation, its agricultural and industrial production as
well as its military establishment and diplomatic
service”. Palmer and Perkins describe national
morale as “a thing of the spirit made up of loyalty,
courage, faith, the impulse to the preservation of
personality and dignity... It can make men and women
work harder, sacrifice more and fight swifter.” Social
cohesiveness indicates a_ unified society,
accommodating at the same time diversities of ethnic,
linguistic, racial and religious variations. It gives a
society a political unity as well as integrity of a nation.
The more socially cohesive a nation is, the more
stable is its foundation and more assertive it is in the
international field. Ideology is usually, as Snyder and
Wilson (Roots of Behaviour) say, “a cluster of ideas
about life, society or government which originate in
most cases as consciously advocated or dogmatically
asserted ... which became the characteristic beliefs or
dogmas of a particular group, party or nationality”. As
an element of national power, ideology can boost the
morale of the people and so can indirectly, become a
powerful factor for the unity and power of the state.
(5) External: The external elements of a national power
include diplomacy and strategic position. The quality
of diplomacy is one of the most important elements
of the power of a nation. Diplomacy, in fact, is the
brain of national power while all the other elements
constitute brain’s raw materials. The quality of
diplomacy gives relative strength to a _ nation’s
position. Great Britain of yesteryears and the United
States of today enjoy relatively a better position
because of the highest standard of diplomacy they
demonstrate.
A state’s strategic position is, in a large measure,
determined by itself. A state is, to a great extent, the architect
of its capability. It is so because of its geographical and
international strategic position. For example, Bhutan does not
matter nearly as much as Britain.
To conclude on the study of the elements of national
power, it may be observed that:
(a) it is difficult to measure or weigh a nation’s power; a
nation’s power is always relative to that of the other
state;
(b) national power is not something that is fixed; its
nature is dynamic, keeps changing from time to
time, and from circumstances to circumstances;
(c) it is improbable that any single or the uniform
elements of a nation’s power be determined; and
(d) national power is never absolute.
There are limitations on a nation’s power. To say that the
power of the state is absolute is to say that there are no
limitations on the national power. The fact is that a nation
cannot do, and in reality, never does what it wants.
International morality, world’s public opinion, globalising
features, international organisations, international law,
collective security, balance of power, deterrence and the like
constitute some of the limitations on national power.
lll, BALANCE OF POWER AND DETERRENCE

The concepts of balance of power and deterrence
constitute an important component of international relations.
While the concept of balance of power indicates equilibrium of
power sufficient to discourage a nation from imposing its will
on the other, the concept of deterrence is an attempt to
control the behaviour of other nations by the use of threats.
Both the concepts tend to control the conduct of a nation
seeking to interfere in the affairs of other nations. The
concept of the balance of power is largely a positive
endeavour, while that of deterrence almost a negative one.
Ill (a) Balance of Power
It constitutes a system of international relations in which
nations seek to maintain an approximate equilibrium of power
among many rivals, thus preventing the dominance of any
one state. Crucial to this concept is a willingness on the part
of individual national government to change alliances as the
situation demands in order to maintain the balance.
Thucydides’ description of Greece in the 5th century B.C. and
Guicciardini’s description of 15th-century Italy are early
illustrations. Its modern development began in the mid-17th
century, when it was directed against the France of Louis XIV.
Balance of power was the stated British objective for much of
the 18th and 19th centuries, and it characterised the
European international system, for example, from 1815-1914.
After World War | the balance of power system was attacked
by proponents of cooperation and a community of power.
International relations were changed radically after World War
Il by the predominance of two superpowers, the United States
and the Soviet Union, with major ideological differences
between them. After the 1960s, with the emergence of China
and the Third World, a revived Europe and Japan, it
reemerged as a component of international relations. With the
collapse of the USSR in 1991, the United States, as the sole
superpower, has been dominant militarily and, to a lesser
degree, economically.
Il! (a) (i) Balance of Power: Meaning, Definitions,

Characteristics
The concept of balance of power is based on the idea that a
nation would not grow formidable, nor would resort to war. Its
meaning implies that no power (i.e., state) would, in a multi-
state system, overawe the other states. Castlereagh, as
quoted by Professor Mahendra Kumar, says that “the balance
of power means the maintenance of such a just equilibrium
between the members of the family of nations as_ shall
prevent any one of them becoming sufficiently strong to
impose its will upon the rest:” Quincy Wright (A Study of
War) says that it is “a system designed to maintain a
continuous conviction in any state that if it attempts
aggression it would encounter an invincible combinations of
the others.” To Morgenthau, the concept of balance of power
refers to an actual state of affair in which power is distributed
among several nations with approximate equality. To a great
extent, the concept of balance of power is described as a
state of equilibrium; it is a process of matching powers of
some nations against those of the others so that there is no
imbalance in power-relations. Balance of power is a balance
in favour of a state, so demanding equality; it is power in
favour of that state, so demanding inequality. Dickinson (The
International Anarchy) says that the states profess the former
(i.e., balance), but pursue the latter (i.e. seek power).
The fact is that the concept of balance of power as Dyke
(International Politics) seeks balancing of the power so as “to
establish or maintain such a distribution of power among
states as will prevent any one of them from imposing its will
upon another by the threat or the use of violence.” The
concept implies:
(a) an equality or an equilibrium of power among states
so as to bring about balance;
(b) a distribution of power in which no state is stronger
than the other; and
(c) distribution of power should not disturb the balance.
The balance of power, the scholars hold the view, provides
ambiguity. Its meaning is used in so many _ senses.
Morgenthau also uses the term in four senses:
i. apolicy aimed at bringing about a certain power

distribution;
ii. adescription of any actual state of affairs in
International Politics;
iii, an approximately equal distribution of power
internationally; and
iv. aterm describing any distribution of political power in
international relations.
According to Earnst B. Haas (World Politics), the term has

eight distinct meanings and four uses. The meanings are:
i. balance meaning—distribution of power;

ii. balance meaning—edquilibrium;
iii. balance meaning—hegemony;
iv. balance meaning—stability and peace;
v. balance meaning—instability and war;
vi. balance meaning—power politics;
vii. balance as implying—a universal law of history; and
viii. balance as a system and guide to policy making.
Its uses are:
i. balance of power as description;

ii. balance of power as propaganda and ideology;
iii. balance of power as analytical concept; and
iv. balance of power as prescription. Thus, the term has
been a catchall to accommodate whatever policies
writers wanted to recommend. Because of multiple
meanings attributed to the balance of power, Pollard
(The Balance of Power) has remarked that “nobody
knows what the term means.” It may mean almost
anything. He further observes “it is used not only in
different senses by the same person at the same time.”
It was on account of this ambiguity that Richard Cobden
(Political Writings) condemned it so strongly. He said,
“the theory of balance of power is a mere chimera— a
conception of politician’s brain, a phantom without
definite form or tangible existence—a mere conjunction
of syllables forming words which convey sound without
meaning.” It has so many meanings that it is virtually
meaningless.
The balance of power is described as simple as well as

multiple. The former exists only between the nations or two
groups of nations balancing one another. Quincy Wright
distinguishes between a static balance of power and a
dynamic one. A static balance is the condition which accounts
for the continued coexistence of independent governments in
contact with one another, whereas a dynamic balance
characterises the policies adopted by governments to
maintain that balance. This formulation is based on the
assumption that states will inevitably struggle among
themselves for predominance and aggrandisement.
From the above discussion, the major characteristics of
balance of power can be stated as under:
First, the term suggests equilibrium, an equal distribution of
power, but balance is not a permanent feature of international
politics. Second, it is not a gift of God, but a diplomatic
contrivance. Third, though it favours the status quo, yet to be
effective it must be changing and dynamic. Fourth, real
balance of power seldom exists. Its real test is war. If war
takes place it means a real balance was not available. Fifth, it
offers both an objective and a subjective approach. Historians
take the objective view while the statesmen take the
subjective view. Being more realistic the latter not only aim at
equilibrium, but also a generous margin. In practice, nations
prefer preponderance (over balance). Sixth, it is sometimes
identified as a policy. When Churchill said that the “balance of
power was the wonderful subconscious tradition of the British
Empire,” he had then viewed it as a policy. Seventh, this
game is obviously meant for big powers only. Small states are
only weights used by Great Powers to maintain a balance.
Eighth, it requires a balancer—“a laughing third’—for its
successful operation.
II! (a)(ii) Balance of Power: Its Devices and Methods

The devices and methods of the balance of power,
notwithstanding its uncertain own instruments, as developed
are:
1. The balance of power has often been maintained by the
device of alliances and counter-alliances. Alliances can
be offensive as well as defensive. Offensive alliances,
however, are to be condemned or may lead to the
formation of counter-alliances, so the result is war. The
triple alliance of 1882 was countered by the triple entente
in 1907. Similarly, the Axis formed in 1936 was
countered against the alliance between France and East
European nations.
2. Compensations usually entail the annexation or division
of territory. For instance, the Spanish possessions were
divided among Bourbons and Hapsburgs by the Treaty of
Utrecht (1713), keeping in view the balance of power.
Poland was partitioned several times for the same
purpose. Anglo-Russian Treaty (1907) did the same with
respect to Iran. After 1945 the US occupied Pacific
mandate, and hence Soviet Union was compensated by
the occupation of Kuriles and south Sakhalin belonging
to Japan.
3. Nations tend to amass armament to gain preponderance,
thereby tilting the balance of power in their favour.
Disarmament or proportional reduction of armaments
may have created the condition of the balance of power
but little success has been achieved in this respect. The
only successful attempt was the Washington Naval
Treaty of 1922. In effect, the problem of disarmament is
the problem of the maintenance of the balance of power.
SALT agreement too had the same purpose.
4. Intervention and non-intervention have been the privilege
of those powers which are in a position to hold the
balance such as Great Britain. Intervention is employed
to regain a lost ally or pick up a new one so that balance
of power may not be unfavourable. ‘Non-intervention’ is a
political term meaning virtually the same thing as
intervention. Take the case of the Non-intervention
committee during the Spanish civil war. Non-intervention
also suggests neutrality or guarantee of neutrality for
certain states, or efforts to localise war, or to protect the
rights of neutrals in time of war. At times neutrality also
plays the role of keeping the balance of power. Some of
the recent examples of intervention are: the Soviet
Union’s intervention in Poland and Hungary (1956), in
Czechoslovakia (1968) and in Afghanistan (1979). USA
has been a great interventionist in the States of Latin
America in the name of Monroe Doctrine.
5. The creation of buffer states is another device. The
buffer states have a cushioning effect between great
powers facing each other. Its purpose is to set up a state
which is weak between two large and unfriendly states.
Inner Crescent of Mackinder and ‘Rimland’ of Spykman
express the idea of buffer states. Some of the countries
made buffer states were: Poland between Russia and
Germany, Belgium between France and Germany,
Switzerland between four states, such as France,
Germany, Spain and Italy. Tibet between India and
China, Afghanistan between Britain and Russia are other
examples.
Sometimes, such zones are divided on equal terms so
that they may serve the purpose of maintaining the
balance of power, hence the one time division of
Germany, Korea and IndoChina. Today balance of power
has become precarious in the absence of buffer zones or
neutral belts.
6. Divide and rule’ is a time-tested policy. It was employed
by the Romans to maintain their control over scattered
peoples. Britain often used it to keep her large empire
intact. She has been a serious practitioner of this policy.
It has been her cardinal policy towards Europe. Now, this
policy has become a device of the balance of power.
Both the super powers during the cold war period were
engaged in the efforts of creating division in the opposite
camps.
II! (a)(iii) Balance of Power: Evaluation

There are merits of the concept of balance of power. First, it
helps preserve independence of small states. Second, it
produces peace. It prevented seven wars in the years 1871
through 1914. Third, it maintains the multi-state system.
However, scholars are not sure if the concept has ever
succeeded. To John Herz and Earnest Haas, it succeeded in
the 18th century. To Ferro and Henry Kissinger, it was more
successful in the nineteenth century. The period between
1815 and 1914 is supposed to be the ideal period—a classic
era of peace. It was a century of British supremacy in the
major cause of peace. Writers like Organski and John Herz
(International Politics in the Atomic Age) challenge the
argument that the periods of balance are periods of peace.
They contend that the periods of balance are periods of
warfare and those of preponderance are periods of peace.
Thus, “imbalance of power is the preserver of peace.
However, this imbalance must be decisive and not marginal
only.”
After the Second World War, it appeared to some thinkers
that the concept of balance of power would soon become
obsolete because of new developments on the international
scene. While other writers on the system still maintain that not
only had it succeeded in the past, but it can succeed even
today and also in the future. Louis Halle, Arnold Wolfers and
De Witt Poole, Morgenthau and H. Kissinger may be counted
among such scholars. There are scholars who have rejected
the concept of balance of power as outdated. They point out
to certain new forces which are working against the operation
of the system. These forces are: nationalism, industrialism,
democracy, mass education, new methods of warfare,
importance of public opinion, development of international law
and_ international organisations, the fact of economic
interdependence of nations and disappearance of colonial
frontiers—all these make the balance of power too difficult a
policy. With the failure of the socialist model and the
disintegration of the Soviet Union, the USA has emerged as
the only superpower. USA may perhaps take up the task of
maintaining the balance of power itself.
lll (b) Concept of Deterrence

“Deterrence”, as Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics
explains, “is a policy of attempting to control the behaviour of
other actors by the use of threats.” It is different from the
balance of power, for the latter seeks to maintain equilibrium
among the nations which if threatened are met with a
matching threat. Balance of power is a state of equilibrium, a
condition where power among the states is so balanced that
no one is stronger than the other. Deterrence is not a state of
peace, neither of a stability, nor of a situation where powers
are so distributed that no one state is more powerful than the
other state. It is not a state of a situation, but a policy that
controls the behaviour of the states. It implies a deterrer, one
who deters and the deterree, one who is being deterred; the
former wants to control the actions of the latter. “The
deterrer’, the above dictionary explains, “tries to convince the
deterree that the cost of undertaking the actions that the
deterrer wishes to prevent will be substantially higher than the
gain that the deterree might anticipate making from the
actions.” To that extent, deterrence is a threat of the use of
force aimed at persuading another actor or state not to do
what it intends to do. It is, thus, a psychological effect on an
opponent warning it to desist from the consequences of
attacking.
Deterrence involves threat of punishment and is confined to
threats without translating them into punishment. The states
are deterred because they expect an effective military
response to their actions and know that they cannot achieve
their objectives through the use of force, so they do not try to
do what they declare to do. To be effective, deterrence
threats need to be credible, i. e. they should seem to be real
and thus likely to be carried out, though they may not be so
resorted to.
Deterrence and defence are not the same. Deterrence is
the strategy of denial, i.e. seeking to prevent an attack directly
by confronting the forces making it. Defence constitutes the
strategy of retaliation, i.e., inflicting punishment, usually
elsewhere than on the attacking forces. Between the NATO
alliance and the Warsaw Pact, during the Cold War, the
strategy of denial was a part of deterrence policy. The
strategy of NATO, on the other, while confronting the Soviet
forces, was that of retaliation while defending its allies.
Deterrence is not simply a conception. It is extremely
complicated when put in practice, especially when it is related
to nuclear weapons. If two nuclear states, for example,
confront each other, each would fear that a first strike would
disable its retaliatory forces. Obviously, each side would
pursue second strike. How would that be practicable? Would
the sufferer of the first strike be able to inflict punishment?
Conjectures can hardly help us.
Deterrence theories are divided into two groups. On the
one side there are scholars who hold the view that the
nuclear weapons can or would make deterrence “easy”.
These scholars tend to support policies of minimum or finite
deterrence, i.e. the deterrence is made effective by appalling
consequences of even using the smaller nuclear strikes. On
the other, there are those who think deterrence is “difficult”.
They focus on the complexities of the escalation ladder, and
the need to deter highly aggressive, risk-taking opponents.
They, therefore, would ask for a large nuclear force structure
capable of dealing with any situation. Extended deterrence
favours the ‘difficult’ logic. With the end of the cold war era,
there has been, however, a move towards minimum
deterrence among the nuclear powers.
IV. TRANSNATIONAL ACTORS AND COLLECTIVE

SECURITY
States are no longer the actors to influence the course of
international relations. There are numerous others such as
the transnational corporations (TNCs) and multinational
corporations (MNCs), the international organisations, the
international non-government organisations which have
changed the very face of international scenario. The impact of
non-state actors on geopolitics has been so immense that the
whole issue of collective security needs to be re-evaluated,
for there are no mere states to threaten world peace, but
activities such as terrorism, spread of diseases, international
mafias, natural calamities and the like which affect the
international sphere in unimaginable proportions. The fast
changing international circumstances have thrown newer
problems of world security which require alternatives to cope
with global order.
IV (a) Transnational Actors

States, during the earlier years, were the major actors in
International Relations, then called the international persons.
Until the nineteenth century, one would talk about
international law as a law among the sovereign states: what
were not states were not recognised. This is not to say that
the states are not sovereign; or that the international law does
not deal with the states as its subject. The changes occurring
in the fields of transport and communication, science and
technology, trade and commerce have given the international
scene a_ global face where interconnectedness and
interdependence among the states have become a reality.
The concept of sovereignty is losing its rigidity and the states
have learnt to compromise sovereignty in the larger interests
of their citizens. The economic activities of the states relating
to trade and commerce, monetary and fiscal phenomena, and
issues of the import-export of commodities, exchange of
currencies, the developmental projects of the lesser
developed nations — all these have led to the formation of
international financial and economic organisations which
have, in a way, relegated the sovereignty of the state to the
background, if not oblivion. The net result has been the
growing decline in the activities and importance of the states
as the major actors of international relations.
If we look at the world, there are about two hundred states
which still claim to be sovereign, and in whose names the
whole business of international field is conducted. There are
others which may be described as non-state actors in the
international arena which are not sovereign, but are those
with meaningful positions which the sovereign states can
hardly ignore. Among these, there are about 64,000
transnational and multinational corporations (TNCs and
MNCs) such as Shell, Microsoft, Nestle and the like with over
eight lakhs foreign affiliates. Then, there are over 100
international organisations such as the United Nations (UN),
the International Labour Organisation (ILO), UNESCO,
UNICEF, World Health Organisation (WHO), the World Bank,
the International Monetary Fund and the like to which even
the sovereign states look for assistance and _ inspiration.
Single country non-governmental organisations operating at
the international level number no less than nine thousand in
the world, which, though work through the sovereign states,
yet influence their activities immensely. Among these, one
may refer to Population Concern (United Kingdom), and the
Sierra Club (The United States). The strength of
intergovernmental organisations, though less in number, are
no less important. These include NATO, OAS, ANZUS and
the like which influence the policies of the concerned
sovereign states. Furthermore, there are over 6000 non-
governmental organisations that include Amnesty
International, the Baptist World Alliance which are
independent of the sovereign states, but are those which are
not ignored by them.
These non-state actors have influenced the world and there
is no indication of their reducing role in the future. They are
now as important factors as are the states themselves in
shaping or reshaping the world. Globalisation, we must
recognise, has become so important a phenomenon that it
has brought the nations of the world together.
Caught up in the whirlwind of attaining all-round
development inside its boundaries and the willy-nilly
acceptance of globalisation, the states especially in the
developing societies, march towards the path of liberalisation
and deregulation so as to accommodate the world’s financial
institutions that are dominated by the advanced industrial
nations. The state in the developing societies have to tame
sovereignty in order to be in tune with the globalising
institutions as they operate in the world, and take the benefits
accruing from the transnational actors. The victim, in the
whole process of the changing world today, has been the
concept of state sovereignty. The states have not taken the
job of achieving development themselves, but have helped
facilitate the economic enterprises to do so. They are no more
the partners in development, as they are its guarantors; no
more totalitarian in nature, but confined to the most minimal
tasks of protecting lives and liberties and the estates. Inside
their borders, the states have started the process of de-
regulations, leaving all domains open to all avenues of civil
society. They have become or are becoming people-friendly.
In an era of globalisation, the states face newer and diverse
situations to which they seek to regulate their activities. The
journey for the states has been from domestic deregulation to
global re-regulation.
The non-state actors which influence the state actors in the
international arena are both legitimate as well as non-
legitimate criminals. Mafias, pirates,terrorists and the like
constitute the non-legitimate non-state actors, while the
liberation movements engineered by organised groups, some
using the guerrilla activities, may be said to be the legitimate
non-state ones. The criminals, the mafias and the pirates,
with travel becoming easy following the development in
transport and communication, indulge in stolen goods,
forbidden drugs, smuggling and the like, doing trade against
the established national and_ international rules. Such
activities done at the international level and among people
spread over all parts of the world cannot be effectively
controlled by a single state. There is, thus, a need to pursue a
global policy to control such activities. Terrorist groups,
guerrillas and national liberation movements are other
organised groups which function across the borders of the
states. They are called terrorists because they wage war
against the legally and constitutionally elected governments,
indulging in violence on the grounds that their ethnic and
religious minorities are opposed to the governments where
they operate; they are called guerrillas because they resort to
activities disapproved by the laws of the government; they are
called the nationalists because they fight against an alien
government. Such groups are not non-legitimate, but they do
have an impact on the international scene. Among them, one
may include, for example, groups such as the Republican and
Loyalists para-militaries in Northern Ireland, the Basque
separatists, the African National Congress (ANC) the South
West African People’s Organisations (SWAPO). Among such
groups, terrorists fall in a category in which they need to be
brought before justice, while the guerrillas can be dealt in
accordance with the law of the land, and it is always difficult
to deny the right to self-determination to the people seeking
liberation. Indeed, activities of terrorists (September 11, 2001
or November 26, 2008) are such which have to be faced and
fought at the global level: illegitimisation of fundamentalism
and violence has to be done with global efforts. Global politics
has to take into account the activities of such legitimate and
non-legitimate non-state actors.
Transnational Corporations — TNCs (including the
multinational corporations (MNCs), work-ing from their home
countries and in states thousands of miles away, are
commercial organisations doing business and earning profits.
Their activities affect the economy of the nations where they
operate, though in the process, as blessed by the
globalisation phenomena, they provide jobs to the natives.
What is needed is a national as well as a global policy that
restricts exploitation of the local people. International norms
should be so framed that such TNCs and MNCs remain
disciplined. What is important to note is the fact of their
impact both, on the concerned States and on the international
forum.
Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), either social,
cultural or technical, too operate as transnational actors and
affect global politics directly or indirectly. Beneficial as they
are, their role in building the global civil society is something
that can hardly be ignored. The global economy has led to
globalisation of the Unions, creation of commercial bodies,
the professional organisations, and flow of information which
it is not possible for a single government to lay rules affecting
them.
International organisations (either United Nations, its
specialised agencies, regional rganisations—EU, SAARC,
ASEAN and the like or larger bodies such as the British
Commonwealth or Commonwealth of Independent States) as
transnational actors provide structures for _ political
communication. They are what constrain the behaviour of
their members. They affect the sovereign states, and make
them compromise their sovereign powers. The international
organisations and the inter-governmental organisations have
distinct impact not only on the states, but also on other
transnational actors in giving global politics a new agenda to
work on.
IV (b) Collective Security

Collective security is a device of maintaining peace and
preventing aggression. It is based on the assumption that one
is for all and all are for one. In other words, it means that a
war anywhere and against anyone is a war against everyone
else. It may be defined “as a machinery for the joint action in
order to prevent or counter any attack against an established
order” (See Schwarzenberger, Power Politics). Its underlying
assumptions are: (i) War is likely to occur; and (ii) it can be
prevented only by an overwhelming power. It is, therefore, not
the elimination of power, but the management of power (See
Inis Claude, Power and International Relations).
It is supposed that collective security system is a better
alternative and can control world politics better than the
balance of power system, but actually “both are at the same
time complementary and antagonistic.” The collective security
system should be regarded as simply a revised version of the
balance of power system and not the substitution of one for
the other. The collective security is directed against
aggressive policy; balance of power is directed against
excessive power. As a matter of fact, collective security
occupies a middle position between the balance of power and
world government. Since the world government is still a
distant goal, we pin our hopes on collective security. The two
assumptions about the nature of collective security are: (i) it is
effective in a perfect international organisation; and (ii) it does
not permit an isolationist policy of security.
Collective Security and Collective Defence

Collective security should not be confused with collective
defence. In spite of certain common characteristics, both are
not the same. No doubt, both involve collective action and
both are committed to deter aggression. However, whereas
collective defence may mean the limited collaboration of a
few states on an ad hoc basis, collective security implies far-
reaching commitment and obligation on the part of the
majority of nations. The substance of the former is
approximately equal and opposite fronts. The substance of
the latter is a world front against a possible aggressor.
Collective security is a permanent arrangement. It aims
against any aggression anywhere, but in collective defence
the nature of aggressor is determinated. Moreover, in
collective defence allies can make military preparation and
work out their strategy in advance. Collective security, unlike
collective defence does not require for its operation any
preplanned military pact. The two do not function through the
same institutional complex. Collective defence in the form of
military pact goes against the spirit of collective security,
which is opposed, to grouping. Collective defence
arrangement permitted in the Charter should be viewed as a
concession to uncontrollable realities of international security.
In a sense, the general system of collective security is
buttressed by provision for regional arrangement in the
charter. It is like a safety valve. It is a valuable first-aid
defence.
Evolution of the Collective Security System

(a) Before World War I: The alliance system was the
first one and was called the Concert of Europe. It
lasted from 1814 to 1914. It was successful in
dealing with the Balkan wars. In late nineteenth
century, however, it collapsed. Certain individual
writers also suggested Collective Security
arrangement. For instance, William Penn the
Quaker put forth schemes for European order.
Similarly, William Pitt suggested in 1805 that all
major European powers should jointly support a
new status quo against “any future attempt to
trouble the general tranquility.” The idea of
collective security is generally taken to have started
in the beginning of the 20th century. Theodore
Roosevelt declared in 1902 “it was incumbent on all
civilised and orderly powers to insist on the proper
policing of the world.” A League of Peace was
consequesnily formed. President Woodrow Wilson
of the United States was the key figure behind the
movement for a project for collective enforcement
of peace. But it was only in the League of Nations
that the idea was accepted in the practical sense of
the term.
(b) Collective Security Measures under the League:
Articles 10 to 16 of the League Covenant deal with
the Collective Security arrangement under the
League. It was, however, severely handicapped as
the United States, the Soviet Union and Great
Britain were not interested in the system. It also
suffered a setback due to open defiance of Japan
and Italy. Even France was not interested in
Universal Security System. When Italy occupied the
Greek Island of Corfu (1923) she pleaded that she
did not intend to commit an act of war. Hence
Article 16 could not be applied. Again, on
September 18, 1931 when Japan occupied Central
Manchuria (China) the Chinese Government
invoked Articles 10, 11, 15 and 16 of the Covenant.
However, no action was favoured by Britain
because of the fear of Russian domination in the far
East if Japan became weak. All resolutions of the
League were spurned by Japan. In 1932 Japan
occupied Shanghai which it later evacuated, but did
not withdraw from Manchuria. The only action taken
against Japan was that Manchukao regime was not
recognised. Yet, there is no doubt about the fact
that Japan violated the Covenant besides the Paris
Pact and the Nine-Power Treaty. It encouraged
Italy and Germany also. German move _ of
rearmament and aggression did not provoke any
action from the League.
The real test came in 1935 when Italy committed an
aggression against Abyssinia. Fifty-one members confirmed
the Council’s verdict that Italy resorted to war and violated
Article 12. A committee of 18 members voted for ban on loan
and credit. No military action was taken; only economic
sanctions were applied. Germany’ had _ attacked
Czechoslovakia and the League did nothing.
(c) Collective Security Measures under the United
Nations: The collective security measures under
the United Nations had been relatively more
effective. Article 1 of the Charter calls for effective
steps for the prevention of aggression. Chapter VII
gives details of the measure. Articles from 39 to 51
deal with the subject. The chapter provides both
economic as well as military sanctions. Moreover,
under the United Nations, the system is buttressed
by regional arrangements for defence. It is further
strengthened by the Uniting for Peace Resolution
passed in 1950 which makes collective action
possible even when a Security Council resolution is
vetoed. Under the United Nations the first
experiment of the security system took place in
1950 when North Korea attacked South Korea. The
United Nations resolved to take military action and
an attack was launched on June 25, 1950. Only 16
out of 60 members sent armed forces of any kind in
this operation.
Other notable examples when collective security measures
were employed by the United Nations are: Suez crisis
(1956),Lebanon crisis (1958) and Congo crisis (1960). In the
Suez crisis the withdrawal of French and British forces was
facilitated by the establishment of United Nations Emergency
Forces (UNEF) at Gaza strip. In Lebanon and Jordan crises
of 1958, too, ultimately, it was the Secretary General’s
intervention which paved the way for the withdrawal of
American and British forces. In the Congo crisis (1960) also
the Secretary General played the same role. The
enforcement measures (1966) against South Rhodesia were
in the nature of economic sanctions. The UN forces were
deployed in Cyprus, Sinai, Golan Heights and South
Lebanon.
The collective security measures, during the greater part of
the cold war era, could not be effective owing to the power
politics between the two opposing super powers. The veto
power vested in the permanent members of the Security
Council was itself a major obstacle. However, with the end of
cold war, the failure of the socialist model and the
disintegration of most of the socialist states, the collective
security measures are likely to be effective in future. As the
nature of global politics witnessed a new world that was more
globalised, the collective security measure went into the
background.
The history of the collective security measures gives a
gloomy, though practical picture with enormous problems
associated with it. The states demonstrate inability to
undertake the collective security obligations when a friendly
nation is an aggressor. They show reluctance in joining the
issue in which they are remotely involved or not at all
involved. At times, it becomes difficult to make a distinction
between an aggressor and its victim. Yet, scholars make out
a formidable case in favour of collective security. The idea of
collective security, in itself, is a positive idea for: (i) it makes
the states renounce the use of military force and agree
instead to settle all differences and disputes peacefully; (ii) it
broadens the concept of national interest so as to incorporate
the interest of the international community; and (iii) it helps
the states learn to trust each other. As a positive idea, the
collective security institutions as regulated institutionalised
balancing are always, as Charles Kupchan and Chifford
Kupchan (The Promise of Collective Security), preferable to
unregulated balancing under anarchy. It is well argued that
the collective security institutions contribute to the task of
creating a more benign international system and a more
conducive international environment. The _ social
constructivists (Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of
International
Politics, especially) believe, probably very aptly, that the
fundamental structures of international politics are social
rather than strictly material.
V. WORLD CAPITALIST ECONOMY AND
GLOBALISATION
That the world economy is largely capitalist following the
failure of the socialist model since 1980s and 1990s is hard to
deny. In fact, the world is moving towards open market
system. People’s Republic of China, which still retains a
closed communist system, has a thriving and increasingly
open capitalist system. What is sure is the fact that the world
is, for the first time, unified under a common capitalist
economic system, whether one agrees or not. The socialist
economic system is rarely there and wherever it is, it is under
pressure to follow in the world’s footsteps. The world, thus,
operates on the capitalist economy: the industrially advanced
societies have created and strengthened it and are promoting
it, while the industrially developing societies are being made
to accept the capitalist economy through their pressure of
globalising efforts and the numerous the world’s economic
and financial institutions over which they preside.
Globalisation is the latest weapon to capitalise the world’s
economy.
The development of world’s economic system from a
simple and elementary economy to the capitalist one has
been discussed by many scholars. Immanuel Wallerstein’s
work The Modern World System is indeed, a commendable
one. His account of the development of world’s economic
system is instructive which may be stated briefly here. During
the ancient Greek and Roman period of Western history, the
economy was elementary, largely barter type, with sparse
trade centers here and here. Between 5th and 15th century,
roughly speaking, the western world witnessed feudalism
which was mostly agriculture dominated and based on what
Marx called the use-value, i.e., production was made for the
“use” of the products, rather for profits. Feudalism’s first
phase between 1150-1300 saw the expansion of population
and commerce, while another stage in 1300-1450 saw a
decrease in production as well as in trade. With discoveries
and the introduction of machines, the slow semi-capitalist
feudal society moved towards the new capitalist economy.
Wallerstein explains that the new capitalist economy was
different from the empire (i.e. feudal) economy because in the
latter, goods from the periphery moved towards the core,
while in the former, goods moved from core to the periphery.
Marx makes a distinction in a different way: feudal economy
was guided by C-M-C, i.e., commodity-money-commodity
while the new capitalist economy reigned through M-C-M i.e.
money-commodity-money. The new capitalist economy
thrived on profit; maximum profit.
The capitalist economy itself passed through numerous
stages. Wallerstein divides the history of the capitalist world
system into four stages, which for our purposes can be
simplified and divided into two basic phases:
Stages 1 and 2
This period follows the rise of the modern world system
between 1450 and1670. When the Hapsburg Empire failed to
convert the emerging world economy to a world empire, all
the existing western European states attempted to strengthen
their respective positions within the new world system. In
order to accomplish this move, most of the states
consolidated their internal political, economic and social
resources by:
(a) Bureaucratisation. This process aided the limited,
but growing power of the king. By increasing the
state power to collect taxes, the kings eventually
increased state power to borrow money, and
thereby, further expand the state bureaucracy. At
the end of this stage, the monarch had become the
supreme power and instituted what has been called
“absolute monarchy.”
(b) Homogenisation of the local population. To
underline state involvement in the new capitalist
system and encourage the rise of indigenous
capitalist groups, many core states expelled
minorities. These independent capitalist groups,
without deep-rooted local ties, were perceived as
threats to the development of strong core states.
The Jews in England, Spain, and France were all
expelled with the rise of absolute monarchy.
(c) Expansion of the militia to support the centralised
monarchy and to protect the new state from
invasions.
(d) The concept of absolutism introduced at this time
related to the relative independence of the monarch
from previously established laws. This distinction
freed the king from prior feudal laws.
(e) Diversification of economic activities to maximise
profits and strengthen the position of the local
capitalists.
By 1640, northwestern European states secured their
position as core states in the emerging economy. Spain and
northern Italy declined to semi-peripheral status, while
northeastern Europe and Iberian America became peripheral
zones. England gained ground steadily toward core status.
During this period, workers in Europe experienced a
dramatic fall in wages. This wage fall characterised most
European centers of capitalism with the exception of cities in
north and central Italy and Flanders. The reason for this
exception was that these cities were relatively older centres of
trade and the workers formed strong politico-economic
groups. The resistance of workers broke down the ability of
employers to accumulate the large surplus necessary for the
advancement of capitalism. Meanwhile, employers in other
parts of Europe profited from the wage lag by accumulating
large surpluses for investment.
Long-distance trade with the Americas and the East
provided enormous profits, in excess of 200%-300% for a
small merchant elite. Smaller merchants could not hope to
enter this profiteering without substantial capital and some
state help. Eventually, the profits of the trans-Atlantic trade
filtered down and strengthened the merchants’ hold over
European agriculture and industries. Merchants with sufficient
power accumulated profits through the purchase of goods
prior to their production. By controlling the costs of finished
products, merchants could extend their profit margin and
control the internal markets. This powerful merchant class
provided the capital necessary for the industrialisation of
European core states.
Stages 3 and 4 (18th century and beyond)
Industrial rather than agricultural capitalism represented this
era. With the shifting emphasis on industrial production, the
following reactions characterised this period.
(a) European states participated in active exploration
for the exploitation of new markets.
(b) Competitive world systems such as the Indian
Ocean system were absorbed into the expanding
European world system. With the independence of
the Latin American countries, these areas as well
as previously isolated zones in the interior of the
American continent entered as peripheral zones in
the world economy. Asia and Africa entered the
system in the nineteenth century as_ peripheral
zones.
(c) The inclusion of Africa and the Asian continents as
peripheral zones increased the available surplus
allowing other areas such as the U.S. and Germany
to enhance their core status.
(d) During this phase, the core regions shifted from a
combination of agricultural and industrial interests
to purely industrial concerns. In the1700s, England
was Europe’s leading industrial producer as well as
the leader in agricultural production. By 1900, only
10% of England’s population was engaged in
agriculture.
(e) By the 1900s, with the shift toward manufacturing,
core areas encouraged the rise of industries in
peripheral and semi-peripheral zones so that they
could sell machines to these regions.
Through this theory, Wallerstein attempts to explain why
modernisation had such wide-ranging and different effects on
the world. He shows how political and economic conditions
after the breakdown of feudalism transformed northwestern
Europe into a predominant commercial and political power.
The geographic expansion of the capitalist world economy
altered political systems and labour conditions wherever it
was able to penetrate. Although the functioning of the world
economy appears to create increasingly larger disparities
between the various types of economies, the relationship
between the core and its periphery and semi-periphery
remains relative, not constant. Technological advantages, for
example, could result in an expansion of the world economy
overall, and precipitate changes in some peripheral or semi-
peripheral areas. However, Wallerstein asserts that an
analysis of the history of the capitalist world system shows
that it has brought about a skewed development in which
economic and social disparities between sections of the world
economy have increased rather than provided prosperity for
all. The capitalist economy, through the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries, moved towards colonialisation of the vast
areas of Asia and Africa. Imperialism, thereafter reigned in
the world and the result was rivalries among the capitalist
nations causing the two great wars. The post-World War Il
was a period of cold war, of suspicion, of arms-race, small
wars and intense competition. The socialist economy though
appeared to challenge the capitalist economy _ initially,
ultimately failed in the closing decades of the 20" century.
The economic aspect of international politics outweighed its
political aspect. The most telling demands of the developing
world and global poverty on the one hand, and the
development of science, technology and communication on
the other saw the victory of the capitalist economy with the
ever-growing tendencies of globalisation encompassing
nearly the whole world. The world came in the grip of
capitalist economy as it is today. The entire world is
dominated by a single integral system of global capitalist
production.
The capitalist economy admits certain characteristics,
notably private property system, free and open trade, lesser
state intervention, reign of the market, dominance of profit-
motive, export initiatives, liberalised economy with state’s
encouraging measures to boost business. Globalisation
measures have strengthened the capitalist economy by
making borders’ soft, export-import regulations more
accommodative, free flow of goods, personnel, technology,
information and the like.
The capitalist economy, which dominates almost the whole
of the world under the auspices of globalisation did attain
laurels, for the triumph of capitalist economy was seen as the
victory of neo-liberalism. Since 1970s, the removal of capital
control, thanks to globalisation measures, the creation of new
financial institutions and technological advances in
communications have contributed to a much more highly
integrated international financial system, benefiting in the
process, the capitalist economy. Accordingly, the volume of
foreign exchange trading in the late 1990s has been
approximately $1.5 trillion per day; an eightfold increase since
1986. By contrast, the global volume of exports (goods and
services) for all of 1997 was $6.6 trillion, or $25 billion per
day! In addition, the amount of investment capital seeking
higher returns has grown enormously. By the mid-1990s,
mutual funds, pension funds and the like totalled $20 trillion,
ten times the 1980 figure. FDI expanded significantly in late
1980s, increasing much more rapidly than world trade and
economic output. Throughout much of the 1990s, FDI
outflows from the industrialised to industrialising countries
rose at approximately 15 per cent annually.
The transnational corporations, including the multi-national
corporations with loyalties towards their highly industrially
advanced home nations protect and promote the interests of
the capitalist countries rather than those of the developing
ones. These giant firms and their global strategies have
become major determinants of trade flows and of the location
of industries and other economic activities around the world.
Who do the globalisation measures benefit? Whom do the
World Trade Organisation rules benefit? Obviously, the
answer is the advanced capitalist economies. For whose
protection and promotion do the _ international financial
institutions operate? Obviously, the answer is the capitalist
nations. Markets always favour the prosperous and not the
pauper. Critics of globalisation foresee a capitalist economy
characterised by highly industrially developed nations
exploiting the developing nations and their economies.
Believing that an open world economy would _ inevitably
produce more losers than winners, the critics argue that
unleashing market and other economic forces would result in
immense struggle among the individual nations, economic
classes and powerful groups.
Pracfice
Questions
1. Explain the factors which promote

national interest. (700-800 words)
2. Write a brief note on the concept of
‘security’. (2013) (200-250 words)
3. Define ‘Power’ as is understood in
International Relations. State its
numerous elements. (2012) (700-800
words)
4. Is territorism an essentially contested
concept? What are the _ different
manifestations of terrorism as a concept
and as a practice?
5. Do you agree that the liberal theories
are essentially eurocentric and _ not
imperialistic? (2012) (200-250 words)
6. Critically assess the nature of national
security. (2014) (700-800 words)
7. The feminist approach to international
relations is biased. (2014) (200-300
words)
8. State the evolution of the world
capitalist economy. (200-250 words)
9. How would you relate the development
of the world capitalist economy with the
concept of globalisation? (700-800
words)
Changing International
Political Order
F ollowing World War Il first, and the disintegration of the socialist-Marxist

countries thereafter, the face of the international political order has undergone a
substantial change. Newer powers are on the rise, the hegemony of the one-
time superpower that was the United States of America is being challenged, if not
threatened. Because of it, a newer bipolarity, both strategic and ideological in nature, is
emerging. Though the arms race, following the post-Cold War era, has subdued, the
threat of nuclear warfare looms large: the world has never been so near to the
stockpile of nuclear weapons as it is today.
I. RISE OF THE SUPERPOWER
I.(a) Superpowers: Meaning

In its generic use, as the Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics explains, the term
superpower refers to those few states with power (defined by combining a series of
variables together ... e.g., economic, wealth, population, size, and, above all, military
strength, especially w.r.t the possession of sophisticated nuclear armaments) for
transcending that of the rest of the states in the international arena. “In politics and
diplomacy, a superpower is a state that has a leading position in the international
system, capable of projecting significant military power anywhere in the world. A
leading professor of National Security Affairs, Alice Miller, defines a superpower as “a
country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in
the world, and sometimes, in more than one region of the globe at a time, and so may
plausibly attain the status of gobal hegemony.” The term ‘superpower’ was coined in its
current political meaning by Dutch-American geostrategist Nicholas Spykman in a
series of lectures in 1943 about the potential shape of a new post-war world order.
This formed the foundation for the book, The Geography of the Peace, which referred
primarily to the unmatched maritime global supremacy of the United Kingdom and
United States as essential for peace and prosperity in the world. A year later, William
T.R. Fox, an American foreign policy professor, elaborated on the concept in the book
The Superpowers: The United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union — Their
Responsibility for Peace (1944), which spoke of the global reach of a super-
empowered nation. Fox used the word superpower to identify a new category of power
able to occupy the highest status in a world in which, as the war then raging
demonstrated, states could challenge and fight each other on a global scale. According
to him, there were (at that moment) three states that were superpowers: Britain, the
United States, and the Soviet Union. The British Empire was the most extensive
empire in world history, which was considered the foremost great power and by 1921,
held sway over 25 per cent of the world’s population and controlled about 25 per cent
of the Earth’s total land area, while the United States and the Soviet Union grew in
power after World War II. The characteristics which make a state a superpower are not
clearly defined. And yet scholars have made attempts to point out some of these
features. According to Lyman Miller, “The basic components of superpower stature
may be measured along four axes of power: military, economic, political, and cultural
(or what political scientist Joseph Nye has termed “soft”). In the opinion of Kim
Richard Nossal of Queen’s University, “generally this term was used to signify a
political community that occupied a continental-sized landmass, had a sizable
population (relative, at least, to other major powers), a superordinate economic
capacity, including ample indigenous supplies of food and natural resources, enjoyed a
high degree of non-dependence on international, and, most importantly, had a well-
developed nuclear capacity (defined as second-strike capability). Former Indian
National Security Advisor Jyotindra Nath Dixit has also described the characteristics
of superpowers. In his view, “first, the state or the nation concerned should have
sizable territorial presence in terms of the size of the population. Second, such a state
should have high levels of domestic cohesion, clear sense of national identity and
stable administration based on strong legal and institutional arrangements. Third. The
state concerned should be economically well of and should be endowed with food
security and natural resources, particularly energy and infrastructural resources in
terms of minerals and metals. Such a state should have a strong industrial base
backed by productive capacities and technological knowledge. Then the state
concerned should have military capacities, particularly nuclear and missile weapons
capabilities at least comparable to, if not of higher levels than, other countries which
may have similar capacities.” Professor Paul Dukes says, “a superpower must be,
able to conduct a global strategy including the possibility of destroying the world, to
command vast economic potential and influence, and to present a universal ideology.”
According to Professor June Teufel Dreyer, “A superpower must be able to project
its power, soft and hard, globally.”
What makes a state a superpower? Why were the United States of America or the
former USSR described as superpowers? Or how can the emerging powerful states
such as Japan, China, India, Russia, or European Union as a collective body of states
become a superpower? Numerous factors contribute to one’s becoming a superpower.
The United States of America has been a superpower because of reasons, for
example, such as a strong federal liberal democracy, ties with countries in most part of
the world, territorially a large nation with 9.37 million sq. km. militarily, an advanced
naval-based state with equally strong air and military force together with military
alliances (NATO, SEATO, CENTO etc.) during the Cold War era; an economy which is
the largest in the world being almost self-reliant in agriculture, industry, and other
fields, a vastly populated country, and the like. The former USSR, at one point of time,
especially during 1940-90, was a superpower and the factors that made her so, among
others, included: a strong socialist state, the largest country in size, with 22.27 millions
sq. km., wield an influence on other socialist countries during those years, essentially a
land-based largest armed force with equally strong navy and air force, a nuclear power
like the United States of America, second — largest economy in the then world, and
the third — most populated state on earth.
As the USSR has disintegrated since early 1990s, the term “hyper power” is being
used for the United States of America, as was described by Hubert Vederine in 1990,
though scholars such as Samuel Huntington (1927-2008), disagreeing with the
above, considers the present situation as a multipolar balance of power.
I.(b) Emerging Superpowers

It is, indeed, difficult to determine as to what makes a nation a superpower. Numerous
factors go on to make a superpower. However, a strong economy, empowering
militarily strength, a vastly-populated and a largel-sized territorial entity, an immensely
dominant international position, a powerful commanding ideological base, and the like
help establish a superpower. Commentators, often, tend to, identify potential
superpowers likely to be recognized as such in the twenty first century. Owing to their
large populations, vast territories, strong military power, stable economic potential and
ever-growing influence in international affairs, People’s Republic of China, the
European Union, India, Japan, and Russia are among the powers, which may be said
to reach the status of superpowers in our century.
(B)(i) People’s Republic of China

China’s mammoth statistics (2008) are as following: Area 9,561,000 sq. km.;
population 1,330,044,605; literacy 90.9 per cent; life expectancy 73.18 years; per
capita income $ 5300; and HDI rank 81.
Shujie Yao of Nottingham University has said that, “China will overtake the United
States to become the world’s largest economy by 2038 if current growth rates
continue,” and that China’s GDP will overtake that of Japan by 2018, and has already
overtaken Germany’s in 2008. International relations analyst Parag Khanna states
that by cutting massive trade and investment deals with Latin America and Africa,
China has established its presence as a superpower along with the European Union
and the United States. China’s rise is demonstrated by its ballooning share of trade in
its gross domestic product. He believes that China’s consultative style has allowed it to
develop political and economic ties with many countries including those viewed as
rogue states by the United States. He states that the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization founded with Russia and the Central Asian countries may eventually be
the “NATO of the East.” Another factor favoring China’s rise is its government. As
Fareed Zakaria and other academics observed, China’s government can do tasks
such as development or dealing with a crisis faster than democracies in Europe or
India.
Numerous statistics go in favour of China’s position as a superpower. As recent as
the early months of 2009, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicts that the
world’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will shrink by an alarming 1.3 per cent this
year. Yet, defying this global trend, China expects an annual economic growth rate of
6.5 to 8.5 per cent. During the first quarter of 2009, the world’s leading stock markets
fell by 4.5 per cent. In contrast, the Shanghai Stock Exchange Index leapt by a
whopping 38 per cent. In March, car sales in China hit a record 1.1 million, surpassing
the U.S. for the third month in a row.
The economic reforms that were introduced by Deng Xiaoping in the late seventies
have transformed the Chinese economy and produced a period of spectacular growth.
China’s GDP grew at an average rate of 9.3 per cent between 1979-93. The world
experienced a growth rate of 2.6 per cent for the same period. China’s GDP has also
quadrupled over a period of only fifteen years. It has also improved its status as a
trading nation, rising to eleventh position from number thirty-seven in ten years.
Another important fact is that China has accumulated a large foreign currency reserve
and is second in the world to Japan. China has also taken advantage of foreign
investment and is also rated second in the world, after the US. It is important to realise
that the above figures do not include any contribution from Hong Kong, which China
regained possession of in July 1997.
While China’s performance has been impressive, it also has the potential to maintain
this growth. It has a massive population, which represents not only a large domestic
market but also a cheap labour source of a few hundred million people. It is also a
country that is blessed with vast natural resources. The current economic problems in
Asia have not had a major impact on China, though there are predictions of slower
growth. However, it is expected that China may become the world’s largest economy,
in terms of GDP, by 2010.
As a result of deteriorating peace conditions, China has set itself on a path of military
modernisation program. China’s economic growth has been an important factor in the
implementation of this program. However, due to the secrecy surrounding military
matters, the actual size of military spending has been hard to determine. Officially,
China’s 1996 defence budget was US $8.7 billion. Independent estimates vary from
US $8 billion to US $100 billion. Regardless of the independent estimates, the official
Chinese defence budgets reveal a 200 percent increase from 1988. Even in its present
form China has the world’s largest military. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA)
consists of over two million men and is complemented by the world’s third largest air
force, consisting of 5,300 aircraft, and the world’s largest small ship navy. Although
these figures look impressive, there are major problems with obsolete equipment, poor
training, and the transition to new doctrine. However, the future promises to be
different. In an effort to modernise the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF),
China is developing or acquiring the rights to produce six new tactical aircraft models.
China has already purchased Russian Su-27 aircraft and has also acquired the license
to produce these aircrafts. This purchase will include advanced capabilities such as
ECM pods, AA-10 Alamo, and AA-11 Archer missiles with helmet-mounted sights. It is
also possible that the latest air-to-air missile, the AA-12, has been included. The first
Chinese Su-27 aircraft will be built soon, with the total fleet expected to number over
250 aircraft. China is also developing a new F-10 single seat aircraft that is based on
the cancelled Israeli Lavi fighter aircraft. Both Israel and Russia are providing
assistance in this project and the F-10 is expected to be operational soon. A new light
strike aircraft, the FB-7, is expected to be operational soon and a light fighter, the FC-
1, which is intended for export, is expected to be ready soon. China is in the process of
developing a multi-role fighter, known as the XXJ, which will have a stealth design.
This aircraft is expected to enter service by 2015.
The PLA Navy (PLAN) has received attention in the military modernisation
programmer and the primary focus has been on force projection. China has introduced
a new class of destroyers and frigates, which incorporates Western propulsion and
weapons systems technology.
While most of the efforts to modernise the military have been directed towards the
PLAAF and PLAN, the PLA has also received some attention. There have been
improvements concerning small arms and artillery; however, the army does not have
modern tanks capable of challenging the latest Western technology. The primary
development in the PLA has been the expansion of its elite troops. Known as Rapid
Reaction Units (RRU), these troops are better trained and equipped than the regular
army. Capable of being deployed at short notice, this force of marines and airborne
soldiers may number as many as five hundred thousand. The PLA plans to purchase
Russian IL-76 transport aircraft, which will greatly enhance their troop mobility.
China has also focused on its nuclear capability. The only missile currently capable
of reaching North America is the DF-1, and China is estimated to have approximately
fifteen such systems. However, other systems are being developed. There have been
attempts to acquire Multiple Independently-targeted Re-entry Vehicle (MIRV)
technology through the acquisition of Russian SS- 18 missile components. China has
developed the twelve thousand-kilometers range, solid-fuel, mobile DF-41 missile,
which will allow rapid reaction and MIRV capability.
China’s history in the twentieth century has been marked by occupation and civil
war. This experience has fueled its strong desire for super power status and at the
same time put it decades ahead of the West in technological development. Under the
leadership of Deng Xiaoping, China has undergone a transformation, which has
produced a tremendous economic turnaround. China is now a major trading nation
which has built up an impressive foreign currency holding and is predicted to be the
world’s largest economy by 2010. The Chinese leadership has recognised that
economic reform is the only way to achieve the status it desires on its own terms.
Though China is not facing any security problem, she is working on power projection
and ability to fight a war with modern and advanced technology.
Geoffrey Murphay’s
China: The Next Superpower argues that while the potential for China is high, China is
too fragile to survive superpower status as Susan Shirk in China: Fragile Superpower
also thinks so. Other factors that could constrain China’s ability to become a
superpower in the future include: limited supplies of energy and raw materials,
questions over its innovation capability, inequality and corruption, and risks to social
stability and the environment. China, George Friendman says, is geographically an
isolated nation. Her navy has never been strong and her people, at least in the interior,
have always been impoverished.
I. (b)(ii) The European Union

The European Union’s vital statistics (2008) are: Area 4,324,782 sq. km.; population
499,673,300; GDP $18394 trillion: and per capita income US $ 36,812.
T.R. Reid, Andrew Reding, Mark Leonard, Jeremy Rifkin, John McCormick, and
some poli-ticians like Romano Prodi and Tony Blair either believe that the EU is, or
will become a superpower in the twenty-first century. Leonard cites several factors: the
EU’s large population, large economy (EU has the largest economy in the world. The
EU’s nominal GDP is 24 per cent larger than that of the US as of 2008), low inflation
rates, the unpopularity and perceived failure of US foreign policy in recent years, and
certain EU member states’ high quality of life.
John McCormick believes that the EU has already achieved superpower status,
based on the size and global reach of its economy and on its global political influence.
He argues that the nature of power has changed since the Cold War-driven definition
of superpower was developed, and that military power is no longer essential to great
power; he argues that control of the means of production is more important than
control of the means of destruction, and contrasts the threatening hard power of the
United States with the opportunities offered by the soft power wielded by the European
Union. Parag Khanna agrees, and like McCormick and Leonard, believes that the
EU will rival the power of the United States in the 21st century. He also mentions of the
large economy of the EU that European technologies more and more set the global
standards and that European countries give the most development assistance. On the
fact that the EU lacks a common army, he agrees with McCormick that the EU does
not need one. The EU uses intelligence and the police to apprehend radical Islamists,
social policy to try to integrate restive Muslim populations and economic strength to
incorporate the former Soviet Union and gradually subdue Russia. Khanna also writes
that South America, East Asia, and other regions prefer to emulate the “European
Dream” than the American variant.
Andrew Reding also takes the future EU enlargement into account. An eventual
future acces-sion of the rest of Europe would not only boost the economy of the EU,
but it would also increase the EU’s population to a level almost equal to that of India
and China. The EU is qualitatively different from India and China, however. It is
enormously more prosperous and technologically advanced. An important acceding
nation is Turkey, which has been a candidate country of the European Union since
1999. The Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan told the Journal of Turkish
Weekly in 2005 that: “In 10 or 15 years, the EU will be a place where civilisations meet.
It will be a superpower with the inclusion of Turkey.”
Author Robert J. Guttman writes in his book Europe in the New Century: Visions of
an Emerging Superpower that the very definition of the term superpower has changed
and that in the 21st century, it doesn’t only refer to states with “military power”, but also
to groups such as the European Union, which have strong market economy, young,
highly educated workers who are savvy in high technology, and a global vision.
Alexander Stubb, the Finnish Minister for Foreign Affairs said on July 17, 2008 that
he thinks the EU is and is not a superpower. While the EU is a superpower in the
sense that it is the largest political union, single market, and aid donor in the world, it is
not a superpower in the defense or foreign policy spheres. Factors constraining the
EU’s rise to superpower status include its lack of statehood in the international system,
a lack of internal drive to project power worldwide, and nostalgia for the nation-state
amongst some Europeans. To become an actual superpower in the coming years,
Stubb urged the EU to approve and ratify the Lisbon Treaty, create an EU foreign
ministry, develop a common EU defense, hold one collective seat at the UN Security
Council and G8, and address what he described as the “sour mood” toward the EU
prevalent in some European countries today.
A large-scale study made by Mark Leonard and Ivan Krastev, chairman of the
Centre for Liberal Strategies, indicates that the EU is the most “popular” superpower.
People across the world like to see the European Union become more influential. The
study, which quizzed 57,000 people across 52 countries, found that the EU was
“unique among the four big powers (China, the EU, Russia, and the United States) in
that no one wants to balance its rise”. According to the European Council on foreign
relations, which sponsored the research, 35 per cent of world citizens want the 27-
member bloc to grow in power. Britons were revealed to be the most ambivalent
towards the EU’s growing influence with a positive balance of just eight per cent. The
voice of the global opinion is very powerful. The author Anthony Barnett has even
called the world opinion “the second superpower.”
The European Union is another large economy together with the United States of
America. It is also the biggest capitalist market as well. It is also the greatest trading
power account for global imports and exports, three times larger than that of the United
States of America. The Euro, as EU’s currency, though adopted by nearly half of its
members, is used by 304 million Europeans. The EU has the world’s largest number of
MNCs. In economic terms, the EU has a commanding trading business and one of the
most stable economies. It is the largest exporter in the world. Its service sector makes
up 69.4 per cent of GDP, manufacturing industry 28.4 per cent of GDP and agriculture
2.3 per cent of GDP. In the political field, it has its own functioning parliament, a court,
a capital, a flag, and is represented as one entity in WTO. Together with the USA, the
EU is the world’s premier source of new technology and is also involved in varions
space programmes.
Despite all these factors, which make a state a superpower, the EU is not a state in
terms of sovereignty. It is at times a federation and at times a confederation, and a
union most of the time. In terms of the military, it is not a power; it is a power without
power, mostly associated with NATO. The likely emerging European force would better
be an organisation meant for security purposes, rather than keeping other states in
awe. Laurent Cohen-Tanugi (The End of Europe) states that the EU has suffered
from a growth deficit compared to the US, high unemployment, and public deficits even
while most member states of the EU lagged substantially behind the US in R&D
investment, technological innovation, and, since 1995, productivity gains. In addition,
the American National Intelligence Council predicts that the EU could become a
“hobbled giant’, unable to translate its economic clout into global influence due to
demographic deficits, competing national agendas, and integration difficulties.
1. (B)(iii) India
India’s vital statistics (2008) are: Area 3,287,263 sq. km.; population 1,147,985,898;
literacy 61 per cent; life expectancy 69.25 years; per capital income US $ 2700; HDI
rank 128. Numerous academics and /nternational Herald, Tribune and Newsweek join
in describing India as a future superpower. Clyde Prostowitz, founder and president
of the Economic Strategy Institute, says: “It is going to be India’s century. India is going
to be the biggest economy in the world. It is going to be the biggest superpower of the
twenty-first century. Daniel Lak describes India as the underdog facing more
challenges than advantages, yet it is approaching superpower status. Fareed Zakaria
(The Post-American World) also believes that India has a fine chance of becoming a
superpower. He pointed out that India’s young population coupled with the second
largest English-speaking population in the world could give India an advantage over
China. He believes that while other industrial countries will face a youth gap, India will
have lots of young people, or in other words, workers. Zakaria says another strength
that India has is that, despite being one of the poorest countries in the world, its
democratic government has lasted for 60 years, stating that a democracy can provide
for long-term stability.
India also has been gaining influence in Asia with trade agreements, direct
investment, military exercises, and aids funds. It has good allies with countries such as
Iran and Japan, and has emerging ties with countries such as Vietnam, Thailand,
Myanmar, and even has an air force base in Tajikistan.
In the last two decades, India has emerged as the second fastest growing country in
the world after China—averaging about six per cent growth per year. Goldman Sachs
projected that over the next 50 years, India will be the fastest growing of the world’s
major economies largely because its work force will not age as fast as others. The
report indicated that in 10 years, India’s economy will be larger than Italy’s and in 15
years India will overtake the United Kingdom. By 2050, it will be five times the size of
Japan and its per capita income will rise to 35 times its current level. It’s worth
mentioning that India’s current growth rate is actually higher than the numerous studies
assumed.
India’s potential is undeniable. Our economy is divided into agriculture (about 25 per
cent of the GNP), industry (another 25 per cent), and the high-tech service sector
(about 50 per cent of the GNP). Science and information technology are India’s other
assets. Software development attracts world’s business to the Indian cities such as
Bangalore. Our other developing markets include pharmaceutical and biotechnology
research.
India has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), nor has she signed
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), both on the grounds of being
discriminatory and against the very principles of total disarmament. She is, now, a
nuclear power and with a distinct nuclear policy. Her nuclear programme is to make
her powerful militarily, deter others not to attack her, and an assurance with a “no first
use policy”.
India’s economy is fairly strong and stable; her trade with other nations is admirably
increasing; her relations with the others powers, especially with the neighbouring
countries, have been cordial though the differences with some are being worked out in
accordance with international norms; and she is offering a helpful hand to other nations
in their task of economic development.
India’s role in the United Nations as also in other international organisations has
always been admired. She has made every effort to strengthen and promote peace
and security in the world, to avoid what causes conflicts and wars, to assure all
concerned of human rights and ecological balance.
India has the fourth largest army in the world and is among the seven or eight
countries, which have confirmed capacities in nuclear technology, space technology
etc. Of late, India has also begun to commercially develop indigenously developed
satellites, defence equipments, and peaceful nuclear products and technologies. But,
what has been India’s most significant achievement? It may well be the triumph of
multi-culturalism. India with its unbelievable 4,635 communities and 325 languages
has not only happily survived but continues to derive immense pride from the fact of
this wonderful diversity is canstantly enriching its culture. This civilisational ethos has
been an immense asset for our country.
India’s potential as a superpower has been acknowledged. There are, indeed,
problems which the country faces: poverty, backwardness, administrative limitations,
inequalities, and the like are obstacles that restrict our progress.
India’s limitations as a superpower are real. We are a large country with a highly
successful professional class, and yet there are millions of our citizens living in
poverty. We do match China in many respects, and yet we are much behind her. Amy
Choa (Days of Empire) agrees that while India’s potential for superpower is great, it
still faces many problems such as “pervasive rural poverty, disease-filled urban slums,
entrenched corruption, and egregious maternal mortality rates, just to name a few’.
(B)(iv) Russia
Russia’s vital statistics (2008) are: Area, 17,075,000 sq. km.; population 140,702,094;
literacy 99.4 per cent; life expectancy 65.94 years; per capita income US $14,600; and
HDI rank 67.
The Russian federation is described as a potential superpower of the twenty-first
century largely because of its fast-growing economy and the size of its military.
According to Eteven Rosefielde, “Russia has an intact military-industrial complex and
the mineral wealth to reactivate its dormant structurally militarized potential’, and that
“supply-side constraints do not preclude a return to prodigal superpowerdom’. The
ABC News, in a report, says that “Russia is once again indisputably the number two
military power in the world, second only to the United States”. Mike Ritchie of Energy
Intelligence says “Russia was always a superpower that used its energy to win friends
and influence among its former Soviet satellites. Nothing has really changed much.
They are back in the same game, winning friends, influencing people and using their
power to do so.” Russia is often considered to be an energy superpower and a nuclear
superpower due to its vast amounts of natural resources and large nuclear arsenal,
mostly leftover from the former Soviet Union.
Russia is a superpower for many reasons as follows:
(1) Russia has the world’s largest nuclear weapon arsenal, ten times greater than
that of the USA;
(2) Her economy is also stronger than that of the USA;
(3) She is an energy super giant of the twenty-first century;
(4) She has a every domain of power in ideological, diplomatic and technological
fronts; and
(5) She has vast store of natural resources, which she exports to numerous
European and other countries.
In 2004, Russia’s real gross domestic product (GDP) grew by approximately 7.1 per
cent surpassing average growth rates in all other G8 countries, and making the
country’s sixth consecutive year of economic growth. Russia’s economic growth over
the last five years has been fuelled primarily by energy exports, particularly given the
boom in Russian oil production and relatively high world oil prices during the period.
This economic growth is fuelled mainly by oil and natural gas prices. As it stands,
Russia is one of the largest exporters of orude oil in the world, second only to Saudi
Arabia. Over 70 per cent of Russia crude oil production is sent directly abroad for
export, while the remaining 30 per cent is refined locally. It also holds the world’s
largest natural gas reserves, with 1,680 trillion cubic feet, nearly twice the reserves of
the next largest country, Iran.
There are significant obstacles to Russia gaining superpower status. In recent years
Russia’s sphere of influence significantly shrunk owing in part to gains by the EU and
NATO. Russia’s currently shrinking and aging population is a major problem for the
country. In addition, Russia is currently only the eighth largest economy in the world by
nominal GDP, and by this parameter is approximately ten times smaller than the EU
economy and about eight times smaller than the US (2008). However by GDP, Russia
is the 6th largest economy in the world. Russia is heavily reliant on resource
extraction, especially fossil fuels, for its economy.
(B)(v) Japan
Japan’s vital statistics (2008) are: area 377,765 sq. km.; population 127,288,419;
literacy 99 per cent, life expectancy 82.07 years; per capita income $33,800; HDI rank
8
Though Japan’s economy is half that of China, yet she gets her GDP from a
population that is about 10 times less then China. Japan holds a significant lead in
technology and her shipbuilding programme is enormous. She has, for this reason, the
second-best navy in the Pacific, centered around four helicopter-carrying destroyers,
nine guided-missile destroyers, 34 destroyers, and 18 diesel-electric submarines. A
large number of these ships (two guided-missile destroyers, 13 of the destroyers, and
nine of the submarines) have entered service were since 1995, making this a very
modern force.
Japan’s air force is fairly modern, and is built around the F-15J (a variant of the F-
15C) and the F-2 (a stealthier version of the F-16 with four additional hardpoints). The
total number of the F- 15J force is about 200 aircrafts (counting the combat-capable F-
15DJ two-seater as well). Currently, 130 F-2s are authorised (49 are presently in
service), but the figure could likely go higher as the 92 F-4EJ Kai Phantoms are retired
as well. This is smaller than the 380 Su-27/Su-30MKKs in the Chinese air force, but
Japan has a huge advantage in airborne early warning aircraft over China.
Japan has a prosperous trade. She is the world’s second largest industrial economy
and the United States’ largest trading partner. The US-Japanese bilateral economic
relationship is strong and interdependent. Her trade with other countries too has
placed the Japanese economy in an enviable position, especially trade with the South
East Asian countries and the European Nations. Her stable financial position has been
her greatest asset.
Every since her surrender before the United States in 1945, Japan has taken a low
profile approach in military matters, choosing strictly a defensive posture. In fact,
Japan’s efforts in the 1980s to build a carrier were scrapped after political protests.
Japan also has a very strict “no nuclear weapons” policy. That said, Japan
reprocesses plutonium for its many nuclear power plants, which gives it the ability to
make nuclear weapons if it needs to, and it does have a strong space-launch capability
(many ICBMs have become the means to launch satellites and other vehicles into
space). Japan could have a working nuclear weapons capability in a year should she
decide so.
In conclusion, one would like to assert that Japan has all the resources and porential
of be coming a superpower: she has a well-developed economy and she can raise
herself to be a great military power. But the only reason that Japan is not a superpower
is that she has not chosen to pursue this course for herself.
ll. BIPOLARITY
Il. (a) Strategic and Ideological Bipolarity

Polarity, as a concept of international relations, describes the pattern of distribution of
power in which one state finds herself as against the other in matters relating to
political, economic and military position. It is a varying situation of two states, opposing
and confronting each other and finding themselves at different poles. It amounts to
holding on to one’s own pole. Polarity does not imply two varying actors, it may also
imply two groups of actors.
Polarity is unipolar, bipolar or multipolar. There may be a position of nonpolarity. A
unipolarity characterises a full domination of one state over the all known world. As a
true unipolarity is nearly impossible, we may have example of regional unipolarity, i.e.,
a dominant influence of one state over the other states in a region. The Byzantine
empire between the sixth and the fifteenth centuries, the Ottoman empire between
fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries, the French empire during the reign of Louis XIV
and Napoleon, the British empire from the end of the Napoleon wars to the beginning
of the twentieth century are all examples of regional unipolarity where a particular state
or empire exerts influence over the areas under its control.
Bipolarity in international politics describes a distribution of power in which two
states have the majority of economic, military, and cultural influence internationally or
regionally. Often, spheres of influence would develop. For example, in the Cold War,
most Western and democratic states would fall under the influence of the USA, while
most Communist states would fall under the influence of the former USSR. The
examples of bipolarity is a situation that existed between Great Britain and France
during the colonial era, and between the USA and the former USSR during the Cold
War era.
The bipolar system can be said to extend to much larger systems, also called the
multi-state bipolarity, such as alliances or organisations, which would not be
considered nation-states, but would still have power concentrated in two primary
groups.
In both World Wars, much of the world, and especially Europe, the United States,
and Japan had been divided into two respective spheres—one case being the Axis
and Allies of World War II (1939-45)—and the division of power between the Central
Powers and the Allied Powers during World War | (1914-18). Neutral nations, however,
may have caused what may be assessed as an example of tripolarity as well, within
both of the conflicts.
Multipolarity in international politics describes a distribution of power in which more
than two nation-states have nearly equal amounts of military, cultural, and economic
influence.
Opinions on the stability of multipolarity differ. Classical realist theorists, such as
Hans Morgenthau and E. H. Carr hold the view that multipolar systems are more
stable than bipolar systems, as great powers can gain power through alliances and
petty wars that do not directly challenge other powers; in bipolar systems, classical
realists argue, this is not possible. On the other hand, the neo-realist focus on security
states in a multipolar system can focus their fears on any number of other powers and,
misjudging the intentions of other states, unnecessarily ompromise their security. while
states in a bipolar system always focus their fears on another power, meaning that at
worst the powers will miscalculate the force required to counter threats and spend too
much on the operation. However, due to the complexity of mutually assured
destruction scenarios, with nuclear weapons, multipolar systems may be more stable
than bipolar systems even in the neo-realist analysis. This system tends to have many
shifting alliances until one of two things happens. Either a balance of power is struck,
and neither side wants to attack the other, or one side will attack the other because it
either fears the potential of the new alliance, or it feels that it can defeat the other side.
One of the major implications of an international system with any number of poles,
including a multipolar system, is that international decisions will often be made for
strategic reasons to maintain a balance of power rather than out of ideological or
historical reasons. Whatever be the polarity system, the problem of the balance of
power always remains a lively one and the different regions of the world find
themselves in one pole or the other. The reasons may be strategic or ideological or
even both. The state, for purposes of fulfilling their interests, strategically align
themselves with those which can help them attain their national objectives. They may
also align with those, which profess like ideologies. Often, strategic interests outweigh
ideological interests. The differences between the two communist states, the former
USSR and the People’s Republic of China, during the 1960s was not as much
ideological as were strategic.
Nonpolarity refers to an international system with numerous centers of power; no
one center of power dominates. Centers of power can be nation-states, corporations,
non-governmental organizations, terrorist groups, and the like. Power is found in many
hands and at many places.
lil. POST COLD WAR WORLD: THEORIES

Usually, the post-Cold War world is described either unipolar or multipolar, though
some even hint at the emerging bipolar order as well. Those who regard the world as
unipolar hold the view that, following the disintegration of the USSR, only the United
States of America is the real and meaningful superpower, influencing the entire world.
Those who consider the present world situation as one that is preparing a ground for
bipolar world argue that the cluster of states are moving into one or the other group.
Those claiming that the world is multipolar fall into two schools of thought. One asserts
that the concept of ‘superpower’ is something of the past, and that the USA and the
USSR were the superpowers during the Cold War era. With Cold War having ended,
this view argues that due to the complex economic interdependencies on the
international scale and the creation of a global village, the concept of one or more
states gaining enough power to claim superpower status is antiquated. The rival view
is that even throughout the Cold War, neither the USA nor the USSR were
superpowers, but were actually dependent on the smaller states in their “spheres of
influences’.
It would not be out of place here to refer to some of the theories, which help describe
the post-Cold War world. One such theory is advocated by Francis Fukuyama (“The
End of History’) in which he lauds the triumph of liberalism, asserting that with the
disintegration of the USSR and the failure of the socialist-communist ideology, the
remnants of absolutism have disappeared and that there has been liberal peace
everywhere in the international field: The Cold War has ended, the military alliances
have become obsolete, the liberal-democracies are emerging with a faster pace, the
market economy, based on international interdependence, characterise the post-
1990s world. The world after 1990-91 is a world of peace, security, democracy,
deideologisation, and globalisation. The three assumptions on which the post-Cold
War peace rests, as advocated by the liberals of those times are:
i. democracies do not go to war with one another, though there may exist
differences amongst them;
ii. the global political, social, economic and cultural institutions are capable of
overcoming the logic of anarchy, and
iii. globalised capitalism can bind the states together.
The other theory in search of the post-Cold War world opposes the liberal view and
depends mainly upon the realist view. The realist view is represented by John
Mearsheimer (Back to the Future, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics), Robert
Kaplan (The Coming Anarchy) and Samuel Huntington (The Clash of Civilizations
and the Remaking of the World). Mearsheimer’s argument about giving “back to the
future” is built upon the fact that the Cold War period has provided stability and that the
post-Cold War period has created chaos. The Balkans are, for example, descending
into barbarity after 1990. Kaplan’s “coming anarchy” laments the world, following the
end of the Cold War, is dividing into those areas and regions whose inhabitants are, on
the one hand, “healthy, well-fed, and pampered by technology” and on the other, those
who are condemned to a Hobbesian life (“solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short’); less
but few prosperous on one side, and more, but numerous pauperised on the other.
Huntington’s thesis about the ‘clash of civilisations’ takes as its starting point the
inevitability of conflict as a historically proven fact, and then goes on to argue that the
next key conflicts in the world will be not economic or ideological but “cultural” and
“civilisational’: those who are on the side of human rights, individual, democracy,
identity, and secularism, and those who are opposed to such values; between the
Western democracies and those in the Middle East, China, and Asia, between the
militant Islam on the one hand and the liberal democracies on the other.
The realists’ view about the international order is historically rooted to the premise
that the international system operates and has operated competitively and in an
anarchic way.
The third theory with regard to the description of the post-Cold War world may be
said to be the radical one, though radicalism is different to different people. Among the
notable advocates are Noam Chomsky (World Orders, Old and New), Robert Cox
(with Sinclair, Approaches to World Order), and Naomi Klein (No Logo). Chomsky
points to a powerful realistic picture of an international order where the powerful exploit
the powerless, the rich manipulate the masses and the Great Powers dominate the
weak. Describing the United State as an aggressive and ruthless hegemony, he
believes that her aim has always been to make the world safe for the multinationals.
Cox, on the other hand, does not believe the transformation of the world occurred in
1991, but rather from the mid-1970s, when increased productivity led to increased
wealth which created the wealthy states on the one hand, and the poor on the other.
Cox is of the opinion that the Cold War structure still controls the world even after
1991. Klein, as an anti-globalisation activist, opposes consumerism and the faceless
multinational corporations.
Ill. (a) Post-Cold War World: Likely Bipolar
If we look at the post-Cold War world, we find, as Hans Binnendijk and Alan Henrikson
(Back to Bipolarity?) tell us, five categories of states and four dominant trends, with
each trend affecting them in different ways, their assessment as: the dominant states
or actors are
i. The market democracies. Their ideology has become the global model and by
the end of the decade, 117 of the world’s 192 nations are characterized as
democracies. The United States remained the leader of the adapting alliances of
market democracies and for a moment the international system appeared
unipolar as the U.S. engagement policy made American influence felt globally.
ii. States in transition constitute a second group that hopefully is moving toward
market democracies. The most important of these transition states are China,
Russia, and India. Their ultimate orientation may be the most important
determinant of how the more mature system will look.
iii. The third category of states consists of the so-called rogues or rejectionist states:
notably Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Sudan, Cuba, and now Serbia. Containing
their activities became the prime focus of the U.S. defence policy.
iv. A fourth category includes the failing states: Bosnia, Rwanda, Cambodia, Algeria,
Somalia, and Haiti, to name just a few.
v. Finally, non-state actors have begun to take on many state characteristics. Some
support the market democracies, such as global companies; some prey on them,
like international crime syndicates; and some seek to bring the market democrac
down, for example terrorist organisations. We may call them transnational
outlaws.
Four worldwide trends have had both positive and negative effects on these five
categories of actors/states, pulling some together and pushing others apart. The
general result has been an increasing degree of polarisation in international politics.
The rapid globalisation of events is based on new information technology and has
increased the pace of events in economics, politics, and military affairs. Economic
globalisation has brought unprecedented wealth to most market democracies, and it
continues to attract transition states and empower transnational outlaws. But rogue
states tend to reject the cultural and economic aspects of globalisation, while failing
states are not reaping its benefits at all, and fall further behind. Democratisation has
had a similar effect. It can provide for peaceful transfer of power and attracts transition
states like India, Russia, and South Africa. But it has deepened fissures within many
failing states as ethnic, tribal, or religious groups simply vote for their group.
Fragmentation has ironically been stimulated by globalization as groups seek to
differentiate themselves in a globalised world and to maximise power at the local level.
This devolution of power is a phenomenon found nearly everywhere in the world today,
but it has a very different impact on different actors. In market democracies, it has led
to generally positive outcomes such as greater powersharing with state governments
in the United States and the concept of “subsidiarity” (decisions made at lowest
possible level) in the European Union. In some market democracies with particularly
difficult ethnic balances (e.g., Canada, Belgium, and Spain), the democratic process
has provided safeguards for minorities and the means to resolve disputes. However, in
the most important transition states (e.g., Russia, China), fragmentation has led to
armed conflict (Chechnya, Xinjiang, or continued tension in Tibet). This in turn has led
to additional political problems between these transition states and the market
democracies. Fragmentation along ethnic lines is now the leading cause of state
failure. It provides new opportunities for transnational criminal and_ terrorist
organisations. Preventing and countering the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction has been a national priority for the United States throughout the early
years. Many of the other market democracies are only now awakening to its dangers.
Proliferation gives rogue states and even some non-governmental groups the ability to
threaten and possibly deter U.S. policies. It is no surprise that the issue has dominated
U.S. relations with North Korea and Iraq. The impact of proliferation on the large
transition states has been mixed, because China and Russia both supply technology
and are also threatened by it. India is one of the principal proliferators. Proliferation
remains a problem between the United States and the key transition states.
Table 35.1 Impact of Trends on Actors/States
Globalisation Democratisation Fragmentation Proliferation
Market
Democracies + + +/— -
Transition + + - +/—
States
Rogue States - - - +
Failing States - - - ?
Transnational
Outlaws + ? + +
+ Positive Impact, — Negative Impact, ? Unknown impact

Given the evident polarising impact of these four worldwide trends, one must ask
whether post-Cold War world is also moving in the direction of eventual bipolarity. A
look at recent relations among major powers tends to confirm this possibility.
The table above illustrates current relationships among the five major global powers.
The United States is adapting and reinforcing its security alliances with Europe and
Japan. At the same time, the U.S. security relations with both Russia and China have
been badly frayed during the past year. There are major differences with Russia over
NATO expansion, missile defence, proliferation, and oil in the Caspian Sea. The war
between NATO and Serbia has dramaticalcy increased these tensions. There are also
major differences with China over Taiwan, Tibet, missile defense, human rights,
espionage, and economic policy. As a result, China and Russia are strengthening their
security relationship with each other, overcoming countervailing factors, which might
otherwise prevent a closer collaboration. The attraction of globalisation that draws both
states to the West risks being overwhelmed by policy differences with the West.
Strengthened Sino-Russian ties are based on growing suspicions of the West,
mutually conflicting interests, and resolution of most of their Cold War ideological and
border differences. At the same time rogue states like Iraq, Serbia, and North Korea
are cooperating through technology transfers and tactics that try to thwart the market
democracies.
If a new polarisation takes place in the post-Cold War world, the pattern of alignment
that emerges might look similar to that of the Cold War, but this time it would be based
more on interests than on ideology. It could be a schism between the technologically
advanced haves (the market democracies) and have-nots (the rest). The United States
and its allies could face an informal coalition of Russia, China, and rogue states, made
even more dangerous by the rogues’ ties to these two major powers. Such a new
bipolar is not inevitable, but it is not that history may not repeat itself; ideologically it
may not, strategically it may.
IV. COLD WAR, ARMS AND NUCLEAR THREAT

The Cold War phenomenon, during the period following the Second World War, was
one of the most crucial periods of the twentieth century. It was a period where there
was no war in the real sense of the term but there was, then, no peace either. In fact, it
was a period of uncertainty, of suspicion, of incoming troubles, a period more near war
than peace. It was during this period that all efforts at disarmament went into oblivion
and there began an arms race.
IV(a) Cold War

Cold War is a situation of political hostility between countries using means short of
warfare. Such a state had existed from 1945 until 1990, between two rival groups, one
led by the United States of America and another by the former USSR. It is a situation
characterised by intense economic, political, and military rivalries between the nations,
short of conflict with hostile political policies and an atmosphere of strained relations
between nations or groups of nations.
The causes of Cold War are not to be found in the situation following World War Il,
but one can trace them to the days of the Bolsheviks’ victory in Russia in 1917. The
birth of the Soviet Union was not the birth of a new nation; it was, in fact, the birth of a
new society, a new economy, a new polity, to be more specific, the birth of
communism as an ideology. Marxism-communism provided, as against the capitalist-
liberal philosophy, a socialist-public ownership of economy with planned pattern of
production. The two ideologies stood opposed to each other and found themselves as
rivals. Each thought of the other as its enemy, existing merely to eliminate the other.
World War II brought the USA and the then Soviet Union temporarily together to fight a
common enemy— the Hitler-Mussolini combine. The American-Soviet honeymoon was
soon to be over on the issue of the division of defeated Germany after World War Il.
The American use of nuclear power on two cities of Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in
1945 created fear among the Soviets who soon acquired the nuclear power. The two
nations of USA and the USSR were ideologically apart, politically distant, economically
far away from each other. Their mutual fear gave birth to the Cold War and both
proceeded on the path of militarising themselves, amassing weapons (both
conventional and national), creating alliances so as to keep the other in awe, and
finding oneself supporting one state or the other in regional conflicts in the period
following 1950s.
The first use of the term “Cold War’ to describe post-World War II geopolitical
tensions between the Soviet Union and its western allies has been attributed to an
American, Bernard Baruch. In South Carolina, on April 16, 1947, he had said, “Let us
not be deceived: we are today in the midst of a cold war.” Walter Lippmann also gave
the term wide puflirily, with the publication of his 1947 book titled Cold War. The term
had previously been used by George Orwell in an essay entitled You and the Atomic
Bomb which appeared in the British newspaper Tribune on October 19, 1945.
However, while contemplating a world living in the shadow of nuclear war and warning
of a “peace that is no peace”, which he called a permanent “cold war’, Orwell did
directly refer to that war as the ideological confrontation between the Soviet Union and
the western powers. In a 1946 newspaper column, Orwell also wrote “after the
Moscow conference last December, Russia began to make a “cold war” on Britain and
the British Empire.”
Several events fuelled suspicion and distrust between the United States and the
Soviet Union: the Bolsheviks’ challenge to capitalism (through violent overthrow of
“capitalist” regimes replaced by communism), Russia’s withdrawal from World War | in
the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany, US intervention in Russia supporting the
White Army in the Russian Civil War, and the US refusal to recognise the Soviet Union
until 1933. Other events in the inter-war period deepened this climate of mutual
distrust, for instance the Treaty of Rapallo, the activities during the war, wartime
differences between the Allies, especially the USSR, the Berlin blockade, the Korean
War and the like. The military alliances created by both the USA and the USSR had
made the cold war a reality. Any event that occurred, thereafter, was a testimony of
what the Cold War can really mean: distrust, suspicion, hatred, charges and counter
charges.
Beginning with the end of World War II, the Cold War was unusual in the sense that
thought the enmity between the rivals resembled that of outright war, the conflict
remained with in the rules of international law and in conditions of peace. The Cold
War was cold because it did not take recourse to outright war at its core. Whatever
ending date (1963, 1972 or 1989-91) one chooses, the fact remains that the United
States and the Soviet Union, along with their military alliances NATO and the Warsaw
pact, never entered into military conflict. Actual war was displaced to the periphery and
carried out by proxies or by independent actors.
The Cold War passed through different phases. The first phase (1945-46 to 1953)
was one where there were global realignments of major political powers. The period
lasted till the death of Stalin. The major events during this period included the Truman
doctrine, Marshall plan, the Berlin Blockade and Berlin airlift, the Soviet Union’s
detonation of its first atomic bomb, the formation of NATO, the formation of West and
East Germany, the Stalin note for German reunification, the superpower
disengagement from Central Europe, the Chinese Civil War, and the Korean War. The
second phase stretched from 1953 to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. It was a period
of escalation of the Cold War crisis. First and second phases were marked by bipolar
confrontation, but the differences lay in the leadership of the Soviet Union. Stalin was
steadily firm in his approach, while Khrushchev made overtures of peace one day and
would threaten war the next day. The major events during this period were: change of
leadership both in USA and USSR; Warsaw Pact, revolution in Hungary; raising the
Berlin Wall, decolonisation and the rise of third world, defence pacts with the third
world countries; revolutions in Latin America and Indo-China; the Suez crisis; Iran and
Mossadegh; Sino-Soviet split; threat to Soviet influence in Eastern Europe; and the
Cuban Missile crisis. The third phase of the Cold War was from 1962 to 1973. It was
marked by an erosion of power on both sides. Vietnam did this for the US and conflict
with China and other satellites did this for the USSR. It was the period of de-escalation
and détente. The hallmark of this period was a short period détente from 1969 to late
1970s with the revival of hostilities once again. In the 1960s and 1970s, the third world
was increasingly divided between governments backed by the Soviets such as Libya
and Syria, and governments backed by the West such as Saudi Arabia, and a growing
camp of non-aligned nations. The rise of Western Europe, Japan and China
challenged the bipolarity of the two superpowers. So, in order to maintain their
dominant position, the two superpowers sought the help of each other, which led to a
relaxation of the cold war called Détente. The fourth phase of the Cold War was from
1979 to 1985. it was marked with the revival of Cold War as a result of Soviet invasion
of Afghanistan. This period is also known as the Second Cold War’. It was marked with
a change in the Western policy towards Détente and a more confrontationist attitude
towards the Soviet Union. The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan turned into a long
guerrilla war. America supplied the ‘Mujahadeens’ of Afghanistan with weapons.
America also supplied arms to the Nicaraguan Contras. In 1981, American F-14s shot
down Soviet made Libyan plane in the Gulf of Sidra. In 1983, the US invaded Granola.
In Eastern Europe, martial law was declared in Poland between 1981 and 1983. The
Soviets shot down Korean Air Flight 007, a commercial airliner in 1983. The fifth phase
was from 1985 to 1991. It started with confrontation but concluded with the final end in
December 1996. Main events of this period include: changes in borders in Europe and
Central
Asia; creation of twenty-four new states; Chernobyl blasts in 1986 in USSR; the
Autumn of Nations; and the final collapse of the Soviet Union. Ultimately, the Cold War
ended officially.
IV. (b) Arms Race

The term arms race, in its original usage, describes a competition between two or
more states for real or apparent military supremacy. Each state competes to produce
larger number of weapons, greater armies, or superior military technology in a
technological escalation to gain supremacy. Nowadays the term is commonly used to
describe any competition where there is no absolute goal, only the relative goal of
staying ahead of the other competitors.
The arms race is closely linked with the situation of war, more so with the situation of
Cold War. The period of Cold War, as between the USA and the USSR during 1945-90
was a period of arms race, producing weapons of destruction so to have an advantage
over the rival state. As arms race requires armaments of all types, states that indulge
in Cold War have to spend a substantial amount lot of money. The more a state is
financially sound the more are its possibilities to attain weapons. The USA and the
USSR began spending a good percentage of their budgets on amassing armaments.
With the introduction of nuclear power, arms race was directed towards attaining such
power. Arms race became the nuclear arms race. The German Jews were the first to
work on the atomic weapons: Otto Haun and Fritz Steersman were the first to split
the atom. But Americans Robert Oppenheimer, Enrice Fermi, Herbert York, Edward
Teller under the guidance of Major General Leslie Groves under the Manhatten project
costing two billion dollars, produced the first three nuclear bombs on July 16, 1945 at
Alamagordo, New Mexico. The fateful event was called the Trinity Test. Americans
were the first to explode it on Hiroshima and Nagasaki so to put an end to the World
War Il. It forced the Soviets to accelerate their atomic programme and they did it on
August 29, 1949 at the Semi-palatinsk Test site in Kazakhstan. The nuclear arms race
had, now, begun. The other nations soon followed them — Britain did it in 1952,
France in 1960 and China in 1964, India in 1974 and 1998, Pakistan in 1998, North
Korea, in 2006. The undeclared nuclear weapons states include Israel while states
alleged to have nuclear weapons programmers are Iran and Syria. The weapons of
mass destruction include biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological and the
countries, which possess such weapons, are said to be Albania, Algeria, Argentina,
Australia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel,
Japan, Netherlands, North Korea, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia,
South Africa, Sweden, Syria, Taiwan, United Kingdom and United States.
A brief description of the different phases of the nuclear arms race in the post-war
period can be summed up as:
(i) Period of US Monopoly (1945-57)

During this period, the United States first enjoyed a total monopoly until 1953 and
thereafter, nuclear superiority. In this phase, the US territory was regarded as a
sanctuary because the Soviets did not have any reciprocal delivery capability to reach
the American targets. The United States, on the other hand, could attack the Soviet
targets from American bases in Western Europe.
(ii) Period of ‘Missile Crisis’ and the ICBM Race (1957-68)

The monopoly enjoyed by the US during the first phase was broken when the Soviets
successfully tested the ICBM in 1957 creating what has been called the ‘Missile Crisis’
in America. The advent of ICBMs shifted the focus of the nuclear arms race to strategic
weapons; i.e. /nter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), Sea Launched Ballistic
Missiles (SLBMs) and strategic or inter-continental bombers which provided the
strategic tripod. In 1967, USSR tested what is called a Fractional Orbital Bombardment
System. This accelerated the qualitative dimension of the nuclear arms race further
into space.
(iii) Period of MIRV and ICBM Race (1968-70)

The third phase in the nuclear arms race began when the American delivery
technology took a gigantic leap by introducing what is called the Multiple Independently
Targetable Re-entry Vehicle (MIRV) capability in their ICBMs in 1968. This meant that
now one single ICBM could carry many small nuclear warheads fitted missiles, which
on reentering Soviet airspace would go in different directions hitting many targets.
MIRV marked a tremendous exponential upgradation of the arms race. This Soviets
mastered the technology by 1974. During this phase, the Soviets deployed two other
weapon systems. First, the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) system in 1968 and second, the
first Anti-Satellite (ASAT) missile and warhead, thus Arms Race and Nuclear Threat
ensured that the arms race went on.
(iv) Reagan’s Strategic Modernisation Plan (1981-82)

On October 2, 1981 President Reagan announced a strategic modernisation plan at an
estimated cost of $ 160 billion. The weapons systems planned included:
i. Missile Experimental or MX missile: 100 of these were to be built;

ii. B-IB Bombers: 100 of them to be built;
iii, STEALTH Bombers that are radar resistant by 1990s; (iv) TRIDENT-II D-5
missiles-one per year between 1983 and 1987;
iv. Command Control and Intelligence system (C, I) to be modernised;
v. NAVSTAR Satellite global positioning system;
vi. Encapsulated dormant missiles;
vii. TERCOM for precision guided cruise missile; an advanced communication
system;
viii. Global Positioning System (GPS) for guidance of the ICBMs during the boost
phase;
ix. Route encrypted communications to missiles or launchers;
x. slackwire buoys radio reception by submarines;
xi. Fuel-Cell propulsion.
(v) Militarisation of Space—Reagan’s Star Wars Programme (1983-84)

On March 23, 1983 President Reagan announced the Strategic Defence Initiative
(SDI) popularly called ‘Star Wars’ Programme costing one trillion dollars to raise the
militarisation of space to a qualitatively new high. The aim being to build both a ground
based and space based Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) to protect US territory against
Soviet strategic missile attacks.
Theoretically, the SDI programme, was supposed to be an alternative to the Mutual
Assured Destruction or MAD dogma, as it would provide Mutual Assured Survival. It
was thought to render nuclear weapons obsolete by relying on three new types of non-
nuclear weapon systems. These were:
i. Kinetic Energy Weapons

ii. Directed Energy Weapons and
iii, Microwave Energy Weapons
All these weapons were based on various types of chemicals, and x-rays and lasers.
The SDI programme did not take off for many reasons such as
(a) being too expensive,
(b) too complicated,
(c) Reagan having signed the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
(vi) Post-85 Developments

In 1985-86, the picture as regards arms race was the same. There was no restraint.
The only hope that some kind of arms control was possible was generated by the
November 1985 summit meeting at Geneva between President Reagan and General
Secretary Gorbachev where both in a joint statement stated that, “The sides .... have
agreed that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” They also agreed
to hold summit level meetings in 1987 and 1988. These words were an indirect
admission by USA that the SDI was not workable. In other words, it recognised as
unfeasible that the MAD doctrine could be replaced and a limited nuclear war waged
by militarising space was recognised as unfeasible. Apart from this, there was little
progress in the talks on arms reduction in Europe.
As regards the nuclear arms race in 1986-87, the situation was still more or less the
same except that there was a little movement towards arms control. The US put its first
MX ICBM and B-1B bomber on operational position and on a 24-hour alert.
Deployment of missiles and SS-20s continued in Europe. As regards 1987-88, on
December 8, 1987 the /ntermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) was signed for
the elimination of all intermediate and short-range missiles. The agreement required
the USA and USSR to remove 2695 intermediate range GLBMs with a range of 1000
to 5500 kms. It also envisaged the removal of GLBMs short-range i.e., 500 to 1000
kms. USSR agreed to remove 1836 missiles while USA removed 867 missiles. The
INF Treaty saved the ABM Treaty from being neutralised by SDI, because with this
treaty the rationale for SDI became even weaker and Reagan found it very difficult to
push the matter in the Congress as well as with US public. In this sense, it saved the
world from another dangerous dimension of arms race i.e., the space opening up.
The year 1988-89 can be characterised as the year of settlement of disputes in
Afghanistan, Namibia, Iran-Iraq War, Israel-PLO and South Africa. It was also the year
Gorbachev announced at the UN, unilateral reduction of Soviet troops and armaments
in Europe amounting to 40 per cent reduction of Soviet tank divisions and 50 per cent
of Soviet tanks deployed in GDR, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. By the end of 1989,
almost all Soviet Allies in Eastern Europe and Central Europe except Rumania and
Albania were free. In August 1989, the first non-communist government was elected in
Poland. By November 9, 1989, the Berlin Wall had crashed. Elections also took place
in Hungary, GDR and Czechoslovakia. On 29 December 1989 Vaclav Havel took over
as the President of Czechoslovakia. At the Malta summit in December 1989, President
Gorbachev showed readiness to regulate weframe further and move ahead on the
START process. George Bush, the US President, after initial hesitation committed the
US towards a Chemical Weapon Ban and the required agreement in the future.
1990 was a year full of events. While Europe and the two superpowers were moving
towards peace, the Gulf was in flames with the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq on August 2,
1990. Apart from this, in 1990, the WARSAW Pact was dissolved on 3rd March. On
June 1, 1990, US and USSR signed a treaty on the destruction of and non-production
of chemical weapons and on multilateral measures to ban chemical weapons. It was
decided that by 31 December 1992, all chemical weapons in the world would be
destroyed and only 5000 tons of agents would be kept. Then, the membership of the
Missiles Technology Control Regime (MTCR) expanded. On November 20, 1990 a
Joint Declaration of Conventional Armed Forces (CFF) was made forever reducing the
nuclear threat in Europe. The disintegration of the USSR brought an end to the Cold
War, controlling, in the process, the course of nuclear arms race.
From a high of 65,000 active weapons in 1985, there were about 20,000 active
nuclear weapons in the world in 2002. Many of the “decommissioned” weapons were
simply stored or partially dismantled, not destroyed. As of 2007, the total number of
nuclear weapons was expected to continue to decline by 30-50 per cent over the next
decade.
Table 35.2 Warheads
Country Warheads (active) Year of first test

total
Five nuclear weapons states

from the NPT
United States 4,075/5400 1945 (“Trinity’)
Russia (former Soviet Union) 5162 / 14000 1949 (“RDS-1’)
United Kingdom 160 / 185 1952 (“Hurricane”)
France 300 / 300 1960 (“Gerboise

Bleue’)
China 180 / 240 1964 (“596”)

total
Non-NPT nuclear powers
India 60/60 1974 (“Smiling

Buddha’)
Pakistan 60/60 1998 (“Chagai-I’)
North Korea <10/<10 2006 (2006 test)

total
Undeclared nuclear weapons

states
Israel 80/80 unknown or 1979 (See

Vela Incident)
IV. (c) Nuclear Threat

The threat of nuclear weapons is real. The size of nuclear arsenals, worldwide is more
than 30,000 warheads which include strategic and tactical weapons. The doctrine of
deterrence and the threat of “mutually assured destruction’, as a strategy for security,
give assurance that the world is safe as of now. The Cold War has officially ended, but
the peace has not ushered in. The relationships among the countries, regional conflicts
and differences among the states continue to reflect the Cold War struggle. The states
still possess nuclear and other types of weapons. The tendency to resort to violence to
address dispides has not reduced in the present century. The war against Iraq, the
ongoing conflicts in parts of Africa and Asia exemplify this fact. Also the capacity for
violence, though has decreased in terms of the size of weapons, it has not reduced
they capacity to inflict damage, both in terms of human and material seale. Nuclear
weapons, warfare materials, continuous military preparations still guide the policies of
the states. The nuclear threat still remains imminent. Despite the end of the Cold War,
some 5000 nuclear weapons are on hair-trigger alert, ready to be launched on a few
minutes notice. Thousands more could be deployed in a short time. A typical modern
150-kiloton hydrogen bomb could cause somewhere between 736,000 and 8,660,000
deaths, depending on the population density of the target city. Nuclear weapons do not
stand alone as weapons of mass destruction. The nuclear capability of some states is
the excuse used by others to develop or maintain biological and chemical weapons.
Thus, nuclear weapons exacerbate the overall threat to our global survival. The
number of countries with nuclear weapons capability, knowledge, or ambition
continues to grow unless governments and civil society commit themselves to policies
and actions that will overcome the current nuclear weapons impasse. Fissile materials
(plutonium and highly enriched uranium) needed to produce and maintain nuclear
weapons are not being controlled or accounted for effectively, and efforts to cut off the
production of fissile materials are still embryonic. The health and environmental
consequences of nuclear weapons production and testing include death, cancers,
illnesses and ever-accumulating toxic and generations, or the planet are not fully
understood. Arms control and disarmament progress have come to a virtual standstill
despite a universal obligation to pursue and conclude complete nuclear disarmament.
If the present stock of nuclear weapons is used, our world can be destroyed and
doomed twenty times over.
Practice Questions
1. Define superpower and describe the characteristics of a

superpower. (700-800 words)
2. Discuss China’s position as a superpower. (700-800 words)
3. Do you think that the European Union is a superpower?
Give reasons. (700-800 words)
4. Explain India’s or Russia’s claim of a superpower. (700-800
words)
5. Write a short note on Japan as a superpower. (200-250
words)
6. Describe the theories, which describe the post-Cold War
world, especially those of Fukuyama and Huntington. (700-
800 words)
7. Give the causes of the Cold War and its development.
(2013) (700-800 words)
0
8. How can you explain the progress of arms race in the light
of Cold War? (700-800 words)
9. Write a detailed note on the nuclear arms race. (700-800
words)
10. Write an essay on nuclear threat. (200-250 words)
“Non-Alignment Movement,
Soviet Disintegration,
Unipolarity
7 he World War II and the world thereafter created an

altogether different international order. Immediately
after the war in 1945, there emerged a period neither
of world peace nor of world war: it was a period of cold war
where the world appeared to be divided into two rival camps,
ideologically opposed to each other, one led by the United
States and the other, by the Soviet Union. It was a period of
intense hostility, competitive rivalries, mutual suspicion, and
arms race, that led to amassing of weapons (biological,
chemical, nuclear types) of mass destruction. Amidst this,
emerged what is known as the Non-Alignment Movement
supported by the recently independence-won nations of Asia
and Africa, and simultaneously backed by a host of Latin
American countries, a movement whose role to diffuse the
cold war situation was, indeed, commendable. The cold war
came to an end with the failure of the socialist model and with
the disintegration of the USSR as a single country in the early
years of the 1990s. The rise of the USSR and the other
socialist countries was a reality of great importance; its
collapse was equally a matter of no less _ significance.
Following the years in 1990s, the world entered into a
unipolar system in which the American hegemony seemed
supreme.
I. NON-ALIGNMENT MOVEMENT
Non-alignment is not merely a foreign policy for countries like
India, it is a movement as well. India played a pioneering role
in making non-alignment a movement. Jawaharlal Nehru, the
architect of India’s policy of non-alignment, has played the
role of a precursor (1947-55), the forerunner of the idea,
progenitor (1955-61), a founder father-figure who gave shape
to nonalignment and a pioneer (1961-64) who first showed
the way to give the Non-Alignment Movement (NAM) a
direction and a goal.
I.(a) Non-Alignment Movement: General

Over the years, the NAM has developed itself as a concept of
global politics, a foreign policy premise, a perspective of
maximising national interest of the newly liberated countries.
It emerged initially as an assertion of independence. in
foreign affairs, a process of weakening the power blocs, a
symbol of defence against power domination. Throughout its
life, it has, successfully, made a shift from status quo to
change, from arms race to development, from fragmentation
in blocs to an emerging unified world of independence, from
confrontation to co-existence, from conditions of peace to
values of peace, equality, justice and humanism, from a
polarised and block-oriented politics to a collective and
universal movement of one-world-one-state politics. It is, in a
way, a global trade union of the have-not states. It has
responded well to five main challenges: decolonisation,
détente, development, disarmament and democratisation of
international institutions like the United Nations.
Certain stages of Non-Alignment can be identified:
(i) first stage between 1945-53, the period when bloc-
formations, arms built-up and cold war _ situation
began emerging;
(ii) second stage (1953-61), the period when bipolar
politics dominated the whole world, a period of bloc
confrontation and also a period when the spirit of
peaceful co-existence, Panchsheel and Bandung
conference paved the way for non-alignment;
(iii) third stage between 1961-65, a period when Afro-
Asian friendship received a setback owing to Sino-
Indian and Sino-Soviet conflicts and regional conflicts
in Asia;
(iv) fourth stage between 1965 and 1971, a period which
saw the differences and divisions among the bloc
members as was witnessed by the rifts between
Moscow and Beijing and between Washington and
Paris. The period also witnessed a decisive shift in
favour of non-alignment in Asia and Africa;
(Vv) fifth stage between 1971 and 1976, a period when the
détente process began, the USA and the USSR on
the one hand, and the USA and China started coming
closer;
(vi) sixth stage between 1976 and 1984, a period
characteristic of alternating processes of cooperation
and confrontation between the East and the West and
culminating in a shift towards increase in arms race, a
period which saw, on the positive side, the signing of
the Helsinki Accord, and the negotiations for SALT II
treaties;
(vii) seventh stage between 1985 and 1989, a period
which saw a dramatic turn from. politics of
confrontation to the politics of co-existence, of
negotiations and of cooperation;
(viii) eighth stage since 1989, a period of radically
changed international scene when the cold war
situation began receding, the USSR collapsed as a
single state, the unification of Germany, the end of
apartheid in South Africa, the dismantling of the
socialist-Marxist model, a period when the non-
alignment movement took upon itself the task of
building a new international economic order, a strong
United Nations, a terrorism-free world.
Non-alignment movement (NAM) has a new role in the
post-cold war world. Its tasks are numerous, including a
consensual approach to major global issues, global economic
development, comprehensive test ban treaty; effective
implementation of human rights provisions everywhere,
population control for faster and more equitable economic
development, combating environmental pollution and regional
imbalance and a cleaner/healthier world.
While the NAM is an organisation of united countries, much
like the United Nations or NATO, it is unique in some
respects, both in its organisation and structure. First, it is non-
hierarchical in nature in that there are no countries that
contain veto power or have special privileges in certain areas.
The chair is rotated officially at each summit. The
administration of the organisation falls to the responsibility of
a rotating chair. Secondly, the organisation does not have any
sort of constitution as many similar organisations do. This
was done out of recognition that with so many countries
having so many varying viewpoints and priorities, any formal
sort of administrative structure would increase divisiveness
and eventually lead to the collapse of the organisation.
Membership in the organisation has changed from the original
requirements as well.
As an organisation, it has matured and_ international,
political circumstances have changed, so too have the
requirements. There is an obvious attempt to integrate the
requirements of the NAM with the key beliefs of the United
Nations. The latest requirements are now that the candidate
— country has displayed practices in accordance with:
e Respect for fundamental human rights and for the

purposes and principles of the Charter of the United
Nations.
e Respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all
nations.
e Recognition of the equality of all races and of the
equality of all nations, large and small.
e Abstention from intervention or interference in the
internal affairs of another country.
e Respect for the right of each nation to defend itself
singly or collectively, in conformity with the Charter of
the United Nations.
e Refraining from acts or threats of aggression or the use
of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any country.
© Settlement of all international disputes by peaceful
means, in conformity with the Charter of the United
Nations.
e Promotion of mutual interests and co-operation.
e Respect for justice and international obligations.
I. (a) (i) Non-alignment: Meaning and Characteristics
Schwarzenberger (The Scope of Neutralism) refers to certain
concepts which seem as synonymous with that of non-
alignment and which understood minutely make meaningful
distinction. These concepts are _ isolationism, —non-
commitment, neutrality, neutralisation, unilateralism and non-
involvement. Non-alignment is not isolation because the latter
stands for policies of aloofness whereas non-alignment is not
standing aloof from policies which relate to world peace and
security. Non-alignment is not non-commitment, for non-
commitment implies detachment from other powers in a
triangular relationship whereas non-alignment always relates
itself with countries involved in their liberation struggle: the
apartheid policy adopted by the white-minority government
was not just a matter between the black majority and the
Smith’s government; India did involve herself with the
liberation struggle between the colonial people and _ their
colonial masters. Non-alignment is not neutrality, for neutrality
is formal, recognised and well-accepted neutral position of a
country whereas non-alignment is an informal, self-imposed
status of a country which is not neutral either in times of
peace and certainly not in times of war. Non-alignment is not
neutralisation, because neutralisation is a permanently
neutral position of a state while non-alignment is not a once-
for-all affair: Switzerland is a neutralised state. Non-alignment
is not unilateralism, for unilateralism is a nation’s own attempt
to take a unilateral step to denounce all weapons without
other doing it, something related mainly to unilateral
disarmament. Non-alignment is a disarmament but it is not
merely and only disarmament. Non-alignment is not non-
involvement, for non-involvement is a tolerant detachment or
involvement at will, whereas non-alignment is involvement in
world affairs, fully attached.
Non-alignment is a policy of keeping out of military
alliances. It is a policy framed in the context of cold war: it is a
denunciation and disassociation from the cold war. It is a
policy of living together, of peaceful co-existence, of live and
let live. It is the strengthening of the forces of peace rather of
war, avoiding military blocs, remaining away from collecting
and amassing weapons. It is cooperation and not-conflict,
peace and not war. The major characteristics of non-
alignment, as should be clear from the above, may, briefly, be
stated here as under:
(a) Non-alignment implies aversion to military alliances
and blocs created therefrom.
(b) It is diffusion of cold war situation, for cold war, in
any form, is always opposed to developmental
activities.
(c) It is opposed to polarisation, for it denounces
ideological rigidity.
(d) It is anti-colonial and anti-imperial, for non-
alignment stands for the independence and
liberation of all the enslaved world. Non-alignment
advocates equality of all nations as nations.
(e) It is friendship with all and malice towards none.
Non-alignment is peaceful living, co-existence,
cultural togetherness;
(f) It is neither isolation, nor non-involvement. Non-
alignment is strengthening of the forces of the
United Nations.
(g) It is decolonisation of the world, making erstwhile
colonies free from imperialisation. Non-alignment is
a non-racist phenomenon.
(h) It is freedom to act on the merit of a question, in
matters relating to international affairs.
Non-alignment is a policy which advocates freedom from
commitment to any power bloc. It lays emphasis on the
independence of choice and action in external affairs. It is to
diffuse the cold war situation and moderate differences which
may lead to conflict and confrontation. As a positive concept,
it promotes harmony. During 1950s and 1960s, its goal was
attaining decolonisation and the preservation of world peace;
during 1970s and 1980s; it sought to achieve a new
international economic order and an international polity based
on equity, justice, freedom and human rights, while, at
present, it has added newer arms in its objectives to include,
among others, eradication of domination, exploitation and
terrorism. Non-alignment is not only a positive concept, it is
an active concept as well, for it follows an active stance in so
far as it participates in matters that affect wars and peace.
Zambian President Kenneth Kaunda elaborated on the
goodness of this concept in 1964 in these words: “It is a
determination to preserve independence, sovereignty, to
respect such independence and sovereignty in other states
and to decline to take sides in the major ideological
struggles.... We will not hitch out carriage to any nation’s
engine and be drawn along their railway line’.
I. (a) (ii) Non-alignment: Origin and Evolution

The term ‘non-alignment’ itself was coined by Jawaharlal
Nehru during his speech in 1954 in Colombo, Sri Lanka. In
his speech, Nehru described the five pillars to be used as a
guide for Sino-Indian relations, which were first put forth by
Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai. Called Panchsheel (five
restraints), these principles serve as the basis of the Non-
alignment Movement. The five principles were:
e Mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and

sovereignty
Mutual non-aggression
Mutual non-interference in domestic affairs
Equality and mutual benefit
Peaceful co-existence
A. significant development in regard to non-alignment

movement occurred in the Asia-Africa Conference held at
Bandung (Indonesia) in 1955 when 29 leaders of the two
continents met with the aim of identifying and assessing world
issues at that time and pursue joint policies in international
relations.
The principles that would govern relations among large and
small nations, known as the “Ten Principles of Bandung’,
were proclaimed at that Conference. Such principles were
adopted later as the main goals and objectives of the policy of
non-alignment. The fulfillment of those principles became the
essential criterion for Non-Aligned Movement membership; it
is what was known as the “quintessence of the Movement”
until the early 1990s.
In 1960, in the light of the results achieved in Bandung, the
creation of the Movement of NonAligned Countries was given
a decisive boost during the Fifteenth Ordinary Session of the
United Nations General Assembly, during which 17 new
African and Asian countries were admitted. A key role was
played in this process by the then Heads of State and
Government Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, Kwame Nkrumah
of Ghana, Jawaharlal Nehru of India, Anmed Sukarno of
Indonesia and Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia, who later
became the founding fathers of the movement and _ its
emblematic leaders.
Six years after Bandung, the Movement of Non-Aligned
Countries was founded on a wider geographical basis at the
First Summit Conference of Belgrade, which was held on
September 1-6, 1961. The Conference was attended by 25
countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Yemen, Myanmar, Cambodia,
Sri Lanka, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana,
Guinea, India, Indonesia, Irag, Lebanon, Mali, Morocco,
Nepal, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia,
Yugoslavia.
The founders of NAM have preferred to declare it as a
movement but not an organisation in order to avoid
bureaucratic implications of the latter.
Thus, the primary objectives of the non-aligned countries
focused on the support of selfdetermination, national
independence and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of
states; opposition to apartheid; non-adherence to multilateral
military pacts and the independence of non-aligned countries
from great power or blocs influences and rivalries; the
struggle against imperialism in all its forms and
manifestations; the struggle against colonialism,
neocolonialism, racism, foreign occupation and domination;
disarmament; non-interference into the internal affairs of
states and peaceful coexistence among all nations; rejection
of the use or threat of use of force in international relations;
the strengthening of the United Nations; the democratisation
of international relations; socioeconomic development and the
restructuring of the international economic system; as well as
international cooperation on an equal footing.
At the Cairo preparatory meeting, the participants
discussed in detail the criteria for membership as well as for
the invitations to the First Summit Conference.
The criteria are the following:
1. The country should have adopted an independent policy
based on the coexistence of states with different political
and social systems and on non-alignment or should be
show a trend in favour of such a policy.
2. The country concerned should consistently support
movements for national independence.
3. The country should not be a member of a multilateral
military alliance concluded in the context of Great Power
conflicts.
4. If a country has a bilateral military agreement with a
Great Power, or is a member of a regional defence pact,
the agreement or pact should not be one deliberately
concluded in the context of Great Power conflicts.
5. If it has conceded military bases to a foreign power the
concession should not have been made in the context of
Great Power conflicts.
The non-alignment movement has evolved from a small
organisation of 25 states in 1961 and has grown (as of 2008)
to 118 members with a host of observers-states. It grew
amidst the rival power groups, one headed by the United
States and the other by the former USSR.
Since the 1961 Belgrade meeting, a series of structured
Non-Aligned summit level meetings have been convened.
The NAM’s purpose as declared in the Havana Declaration of
1979, is to ensure “the non-alignment independence
sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of non-aligned
countries” in their “struggle against imperialism, colonialism,
neo-colonialism, apartheid, racism, including Zionism, and all
forms of foreign aggression, occupation, domination,
interference or hegemony as well as against great power and
bloc politics”. Continuity in the NAM has been provided by the
compilation of declarations and resolutions from the fourteen
non-aligned summit-level meetings, the fifteenth to be held n
Sham El-Sheikh (Egypt) in 2009. These meetings are held
approximately every three years.
The Cairo Conference in 1964 mainly looked at economic
development and cooperation, with a special emphasis on the
role of the United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development (UNCTAD). It also considered the affects of
disarmament on world economic development.
The Lusaka Conference in 1970 established the institution
on a permanent basis. The summit focused on the
preservation and strengthening of national development,
sovereignty, territorial integrity, equality among states and
non-intervention in the internal affairs of states. With these
preoccupations in mind, the conference called for the
abolition of all forms of racial discrimination or apartheid.
From the mid 1970s, economic issues became the major
concern of the member-nations, and a series of closely linked
NAM and Group of 77 (G-77) meetings devoted to economic
issues (and the establishment of the New International
Economic Order) were convened. During the 1973 Algiers
Summit, the Movement assigned economic cooperation a
high place in its priorities, without neglecting the political
aspects of its mission. The conference expressed its concern
over the deterioration in the economic conditions in the
developing countries due to the widening gap between the
countries of the North and the South. The existing economic
order was identified as a legacy of colonialisation. At this
Summit, the leaders of the NAM called for a revision of the
global economic regime and championed the creation of a
New International Economic Order (NIEO), more favourable
to the interests of developing countries. The members of the
NAM, supported by the G-77 developing countries, pushed
for the adoption of the New International
Economic Order at the Sixth Special Session of the UN
General Assembly in May 1974. The
General Assembly subsequently adopted a Declaration and
Action Programme for a New International Economic Order.
The basic demands for a New International Economic
Order centred on seven pillars. These were
i. the creation of new commodity agreements to ensure

fair prices in a fluctuating international market,
ii. the right of the least developed countries (LDCs) to form
producer associations,
iii. rules to regulate the activities of multi-non-alignment
corporations,
iv. rules to regulate the activities of international financial
institutions,
v. sovereignty of states over natural resources,
vi. the transfer of technology, and
vii. linking commodity export prices to the prices of
manufactured exports from developed countries.
The G-77 also demanded changes in the terms of LDCs

participation in the world economy. The joint call for a New
International Economic Order illustrates the close relationship
between the NAM and the G-77. This relationship is based on
the common economic and developmental interests of the
developing countries of the global South. To a large extent,
the NAM has initiated or voiced politico-economic concerns,
which have then been taken up by the G-77 in the UN
system. A Joint Coordinating Committee of the NAM and G-
77 (JCC) plays an important role in defining the economic
agenda of the South.
The Havana Conference in 1979 was dedicated to the
assessment of the world economic situation and to the New
International Economic Order. Castro adopted a heavy-
handed approach to the NAM, with the effect that much of the
credibility and prestige of the Movement waned during
Havana’s tenure as Castro’s severe approach did nothing to
promote consensus (NAM’s decision-making process) on a
number of key political issues, including US policies in the
Middle East and Southern Africa. Egypt's membership in light
of Camp David: the recognition of Kampuchea’s Pol Pot; and
the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
At the New Delhi Conference in 1983, the members
demanded an immediate prohibition of the use of threat of
nuclear weapons, pending the achievement of nuclear
disarmament. The conference also stressed the need to
create a new equitable and universal international monetary
system.
Following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the
tumultuous collapse of the political-military fortress of
communism in Eastern Europe, there were important debates
on the continued relevance, utility and existence of the NAM.
Indeed, many critics and NAM-skeptics were convinced that
the turmoil at the end of the 1980s had tolled the death-bell
for a Movement, which had become “ineffectual, powerless,
passive and disunited.” The end of bipolarity itself heralded
an end to the very reason why the NAM had been formed.
However, the Movement was not about to disband and
proverbially “close shop” as_ with communism. Other
sympathisers urged the NAM to reorient its energies to the
emerging challenges of the post-Cold war world. The end of
the East-West confrontation had brought to the fore the long-
standing North-South tension and the aggravated plight of the
global South. The increasing economic disparities between
developed and the developing countries served to underline
this growing crisis in international relations. The then
Yugoslav foreign minister declared that the ninth NAM
summit, due to take place in Belgrade in 1989, was to be a
summit of renaissance at a time when the world was moving
from confrontation to reconciliation.
By the time of the 1993 Summit in Jakarta, much of the
uncertainty and ambiguity regarding the future existence and
role of the NAM was resolved. At this meeting, it was
acknowledged that there should not only be agenda for the
South (developing countries) but that there should also be
more dialogue, rather than confrontation, with the North. A
number of pressing concerns were added to the NAM’s
agenda, including the preservation of the natural environment
and the democratisation of the UN, in particular gaining South
representation on the Security Council. The members agreed
that the NAM had to gradually transform into an organisation
for the collective economic development of the South.
Following the Cartagena Conference in 1995, the Durban
Summit in 1998 was widely expected to chart the course of
the NAM into the new millennium. Distinguishing the meeting
from previous summits was the presence by invitation (and in
the spirit of Jakarta), of representatives of the Group of 8
industrialized nations (G-8), the European Union (EU), Britain
and France. The presence of these representatives of the
North for the first time signaled the continued importance of
the NAM in a world undergoing rapid and profound change.
Members emerged from the Summit having reached
consensus on a number of challenges facing developing
countries. These included issues such as disarmament,
international terrorism, the marginalisation of developing
countries in the process of globalisation, the crucial economic
situation in Africa and the promotion of democratic
participation at the national and international level, as well as
new challenges such as transnational crime, international
drug trafficking, HIV/AIDS and the Year 2000 (or Millennium)
Bug. The Kuala Lumpur’s 13? NAM Summit (2003) focused
on global problems such as terrorism and poverty and
discrimination. The 14? NAM Summit was held at Havana in
September 2006 where the issues such as the South-South
solidarity and rejuvenation of the movement as also matters
relating to the movement's methodology were deliberated.
The XV NAM summit was held in Egypt in 2009 and the XVI
NAM summit will be held in Tehran in 2012.
Table 36.1: Dates and Venues of the NAM Summits to

Date
Summit Venue Host Date Number

of States
| Belgrade Yugoslavia Sept. 25

1961
Il Cairo Egypt Oct. 47

1964
ll Lusaka Zambia Sept. 53

1970
IV Algiers Algeria Sept. 75

1973
Colombo Sri Lanka Aug. 85
1976
VI Havana Cuba Sept. 92

1979
VII New Delhi India March 99

1983
VIII Harare Zimbabwe Sept. 102

1986
IX Belgrade Yugoslavia Sept. 102

1989
Jakarta Indonesia Sept. 109

1992
Xl Cartagena Colombia Oct. 111

1995
Xll Durban South Sept. 113

Africa 1998
Xlll Kuala Malaysia 2003 116

Lumpur
XIV Havana Cuba 2006 118
XV Sharm EL Egypt 2009 118

Sheikh
With a membership of 118 developing countries, the NAM
has the potential to play a significant and important role in the
post-Cold war world as the custodian of Southern interests.
Issues that are now predominant on the Movement’s agenda
include resolving the adverse effects of globalisation,
promoting South-South and North-South cooperation,
resolving the external debt crisis and ensuring that
international trade and investment flows benefit developing
countries. It also concentrates on UN Security Council
reforms and questions of disarmament (nuclear, small arms,
conventional arms and landmines). The NAM is the largest
forum outside of the UN where developing countries
collectively address these great economic, social and
economic and developmental challenges of the ensuring
millennium.
I. (a) (iii). Non-alignment: Role, Achievements, Relevance

Non-alignment is more than a policy of the states which are
its members. It is a movement. The end of the cold war, the
breakup of Yugoslavia, its founder member, and the
withdrawal of Malta and Cyprus from it have not made the
movement irrelevant. That the non-alignment is a movement
has been recognised by its opponents. As a movement, non-
alignment is, now, more demanding, more radical, and more
militant. Its membership is on the increase, from 25 in 1961 to
118 in 2009, four times in a span of less than fifty years. Its
objectives have kept changing: it is now no more the voice of
the colonial people; it is now the voice of the developing
world. It is, now, no more an organisation working to defuse
the cold war, but is one to seek disarmament, an ordered
economic system. It is no more the cry of the have-nots but is
the struggle of those who want justice, human rights and
equality for all in the international field. Though the non-
aligned nations have differences among themselves, but they
all stand up together against the discriminatory attitude of the
more-industrialised countries, whether it may be the dictates
of the WTO or the World Bank. The Lusaka, the Algiers, and
the Colombo summits have given the non-alignment activities
the characteristics of a movement.
The role of the non-alignment movement has been growing
with the changing times. The non-aligned movement believes
in the policies and practices of cooperation, especially those
that are multilateral and provide mutual benefits to all those
involved. Many of the members of the NAM are also
members of the United Nations and both organisations have
a stated policy of peaceful cooperation, yet successes that
the NAM has had in multilateral agreements have been
accepted by all. The African concerns about apartheid were
linked with Arab-Asian concerns about Palestine and success
of multilateral cooperation in these areas has been a stamp of
moderate success for the NAM. The NAM has played a major
role in various ideological conflicts throughout its existence,
including extreme opposition to apartheid regimes and
support of liberation movements in various locations including
Zimbabwe and South Africa. The support of such movements
stems from a belief that every state has the right to base
policies and practices with national interests in mind and not
as a result of relations to a particular power bloc. The Non-
aligned movement has become a voice of support for issues
facing developing nations.
In recent years the US has become a target of the
organisation. The US invasion of Iraq and the war on
terrorism, its attempts to stifle Iran and North Korea’s nuclear
plans, and its other actions have been denounced as human
rights violations and attempts to run roughshod over the
sovereignty of smaller nations. The movement's leaders have
also criticised the American control over the United Nations
and other international structures. While the organisation has
rejected terrorism, it condemns the association of terrorism
with a particular religion, nationality, or ethnicity, and
recognises the rights of those struggling against colonialism
and foreign occupation.
The achievements of the non-alignment movement have
not been small. It has successfully waged war against
colonialism. It has continuously supported the national
liberation movements and the organisations that led those
movements. This support greatly facilitated the decolonisation
process in Asia and Africa.
It also condemned racial discrimination and injustice and
lent full support to the antiapartheid movement in South Africa
and Namibia.
Another area in which the NAM made a significant
contribution was towards the preservation of peace and
disarmament. Its advocacy of peace, of peaceful co-existence
and of human brotherhood, opposition to wars of any kind
contributed to the diffusion of Cold War tensions and
expanded areas of peace in the world with less states joining
military blocs. It also continuously strove for disarmament and
for an end to the arms race stating that universal peace and
security can be assured only by general and complete
disarmament, under effective international control.
The non-aligned states succeeded in altering the
composition of the U.N. and consequently in changing the
tenor of the interstate relations conducted through its organs.
In the forties and fifties deliberations in the U.N. organs were
entirely dominated by the super power and their associate
states. The emergence of non-alignment has changed this
situation. It has created not only a new voting majority in the
General Assembly but also a common platform from where
the developing world can espouse its cause.
It was the NAM that called for the establishment of a New
International Economic Order (NIEO). Despite their political
sovereignty, the newly independent states remained
economically unequal. They remained the same raw
materials producing countries, which sold their commodities
to the developed world at a lower price, and bought
manufactured good from them at a higher price. The tragedy
was that they were and continue to be part of an oppressive
economic system. In order to end this economic exploitation,
the NAM stands for a restructuring of the international
economic and monetary systems on the basis of equality,
non-discrimination and cooperation. It seeks north-south
dialogue and south-south cooperation.
Non-aligned Movement’s struggle for economic justice has
demonstrated how realistic it is to divide the world between
the North and the South rather than between the East and the
West. It has proved that what concerns the majority of
humanity is not the choice between capitalism and
communism but a choice between poverty and prosperity.
Preachings of non-alignment have made the developed world
realise, to some extent, that deprivation of the poor world
would some day affect adversely their prosperity too. This
has, to a large extent, forced them to come to the negotiating
table. Besides the general success in making the poor world’s
economic demands negotiable, non-alignment has won its
battle for some specific issues also. For example, economic
sovereignty over natural resources is now an accepted
principle. Non-alignment has also succeeded in legitimising
the interventionist trade policy that the developing countries
want to pursue. It has successfully turned world attention to
the problem created by the role as played by multinationals,
especially in the context of transfer of technology. It has also
succeeded in pursuing the IMF to establish a system of
compensatory finance, which would help the developing
states in overcoming their balance of payments difficulties.
In the cultural field, the establishment of the Pool of News
Agencies needs to be considered as an achievement. This is
the first time in history that politically and economically
weaker nations have been able to gather information and
communicate with the outside world without the aid of the
western communication system.
The NAM has not outlived its utility in a post-cold war world.
In fact the indications are that the movement is becoming
more popular and its importance is being widely recognised. If
that had not been so, why should more countries would have
sought the NAM membership. Mongolia was_ granted
admission. Germany requested to be allowed to attend the
session as a guest alongwith the Netherlands.
To quote M.S. Rajan, non-alignment is a dynamic policy
and retains its continuing relevance in world affairs by
adapting itself to the changing international context and the
needs of non-aligned community of nations. Peter Willetts,
another advocate of non-alignment, holds the view that
“whether it will be a bipolar, multipolar or unipolar world, Non-
alignment will have a place in it as an independent foreign
policy.” The former Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao: “The
pursuit of nonaligned foreign policy is ever more relevant
(today) than ever before. Nonalignment basically consists of
the espousal of the right of nations to independence and
development, regardless of the bloc phenomenon. Whether
there is one bloc or more at a given moment, the urge for a
nonaligned country would continue to be to maintain its
independence, to take decisions according to its merit, not
tagging along itself, in advance to others .... ‘
Kofi Annan, the former UN Secretary General had said in
2006 that the collective mission of the NAM is more relevant
than ever.
That the NAM has survived is a proof that it is still relevant.
Indeed, there are no major problems now in existence which
made the non-alignment emerge in the early 1950s and
1960s; colonialism and imperialism are not there around; cold
war and bipolar world do not exist now. But this does not
mean that there is no need for the non-alignment movement.
With the world facing new problems and entering into a
domain of newer challenges, the NAM has also risen to the
occasion and made itself available to achieve newer goals. It
continues to see a role for itself, as in its view, the world’s
poorest nations remain exploited and marginalised, no longer
by opposing superpowers, but rather in a unipolar world, and
it is Western hegemony and neo-colonialism that the
movement has really re-aligned itself against. It opposes
foreign occupation, interference in internal affairs, and
aggressive unilateral measures, but it has also shifted its
focus on the socio-economic challenges facing member
states, especially the inequalities manifested by globalisation
and the implications of neo-liberal policies. The non-aligned
movement has_ identified economic underdevelopment,
poverty, and social injustices as growing threats to peace and
security. It is publicly committed to the major principles of
sustainable development. It still demands the democratisation
of the United Nations system. It accepts the universality of
human rights and social justice and is opposed to cultural
homogenisation. The NAM appeals for the protection of
cultural diversity, and the tolerance of the religious, socio-
cultural, and historical particularities that define human rights
in a specific region.
The NAM is relevant until there remains pressure politics in
the world. The world may be bipolar, unipolar or multipolar,
the utility of NAM would be there to relieve the nations from
being exploited. Until the sovereignty and territorial integrity of
the states is not respected, use of force/violence/threat is not
outlawed, the dignity of the human personality is not assured,
the relevance of NAM would always be felt. The NAM’s utility
in the economic field is greater than in any other field. Its
economic agenda is, indeed, demanding so to have a just
and fair international economic order. The globalisation trends
and the World Trade Organisation with its discriminatory rules
have widened the rich-poor divide. What NAM needs to do is
to strive for reforms in the economic field to the extent that
economic inequality among the nations is reduced to the
minimum. The essence of NAM lies in the fact that it is a
concept of global politics. The NAM is a perspective of
maximising the national interests of the newly liberated
countries. It had emerged as an assertion of independence, a
symbol of defence against the super power domination and a
diplomatic innovation to stand against the politics of
confrontation and cold war. What is important in regard to the
NAM is its thrust on change more than on status quo, on
development more than on arms race, on an emerging unified
world of interdependence and coexistence more than on
fragmentation in blocs. NAM stands for peace, equality,
justice and humanism. Its significance lies in providing a new
approach to world politics. It has become a collective
movement in contemporary world politics, one that stands
against polarised policies and politics, one that opposes
imperialism, colonialism, military-blocs, arms race, cold war.
Its utility lies in its protest against economic inequality, socio-
economic injustice and discriminatory treatment. Its worth lies
in seeking global economic development, in attaining ban on
weapon testing, in building a new non-violent and non-
exploitative world.
With the collapse of the bipolar system and the emergence
of a unipolar world order, there is the further likelihood of
growing inequality and injustice. This makes the role of Nam
in the post-cold war world more important as a counter force
to unilateral military and economic coercion. With the
globalising capitalism and the neo-imperialism as
consequences of the Western hegemony, the notion of non-
alignment seems more relevant.
ll. COLLAPSE OF THE SOVIET UNION

The collapse of the Soviet Union in the early years of 1990s
was no less significant than its rise as the world’s first
socialist state in 1917. The fall of the Soviet Union was as
dramatic as was its rise. The world witnessed the rising
USSR as a superpower within a short period of thirty years.
By the end of World War Il, the USSR had become a
superpower and rose to lead the socialist bloc for about six
decades. its impact influencing world events. That its fall
could have been so swift, the world could have hardly
imagined!
ll. (a) Soviet Disintegration: Causes

The Soviet Union was a global superpower, possessing the
largest armed forces on the planet with military bases from
Angola in Africa, to Vietnam in South-East Asia, to Cuba in
the Americas. When Mikhail Gorbachev succeeded
Konstantin Chernenko as General Secretary of the Central
Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in
March 1985, nobody expected then that in less than seven
years the USSR would disintegrate into fifteen separate
states. Gorbachev's attempt at democratising the totalitarian
Soviet system backfired on him as the Soviet republics began
to revolt against Moscow’s control. This was not a case of
economic and political crisis producing liberalisation and
democratisation. Rather, it was liberalisation and
democratisation that brought the regime to a crisis point.
The collapse of the Soviet Union was so sudden and so
peaceful that it shook the Westerners as much as it surprised
the political leaders in the other parts of the world. To attribute
reasons for the collapse of the USSR to the policies of
Gorbachev would be oversimplifying what had not been so
simple. The causes of the Soviet disintegration were both
internal as well as external; economic as well as political,
remote as well as immediate.
The internal causes of the Soviet disintegration were long-
term as well as short-term. The long-term causes included
structural weaknesses in the economy, inflexible central
planning system, inability to modernise the economy, party’s
(communist) autocratic and dictatorial trends, growing
capitalisation. Among the short-term causes, one may include
economic stagnation in 1970s and 1980s, poor harvests
during 1970-80, Gorbachev's policies of glasnost and
perestroika. The external causes of the country’s collapse
included the lack of Soviet leadership as against that of the
Americans, the imposing foreign policy, interfering in the
internal matters of the socialist Eastern European nations, the
inability of the Soviet economy to spend on militarily nuclear
activities. Among the economic causes of the Soviet
integration, the ever-weakening economy was a major factor
while among the political causes, the role of the Soviet
political elite encompassing totalitarian powers. The remote
causes of the collapse of the USSR can be traced to the days
of Stalin and Khrushchev and Brezhnev. The immediate
causes included, among others, Gorbachev-Yeltsin rivalries.
There are, thus, numerous causes of the collapse of the
Soviet Union.
Il. (a)(i) Declining Soviet Economy

The socialist type of economy as was pursued by the Soviet
Union in 1917-18 picked up, with initial handicaps,
tremendously during 1930s. Between the 1930s and 1970s,
the Soviet economy, directed by a central planning
commission, geared for heavy industry and_ military
production while agriculture remained collective, technical
education vastly expanded and manufacturing attaining 17.6
per cent of the world.
The Soviet Union was happily placed in many respects: It
comprised one-sixth of the world’s land, spread over the
continents of Asia and Europe, its population kept increasing
despite the loss of 26 million people during World War Il (its
population was 228 million in 1970). The country’s usable
land was equal to that of the USA and Canada combined
while its natural resources included oil, natural gas, iron, coal,
lead, nickel, copper, zinc and many others. She had the
largest long-range fishing fleet and was the second in the
production of gold and chromium in the world. This was the
Soviet Union immediately after World War Il.
In the mid-fifties, the USSR had become a highly advanced
nation. She had nuclear power in 1949. In 1957, she was the
first to send a satellite into space, and in 1961 the Soviet
Union sent the first man into space. During this period Soviet
economy, as measured in Gross National Product (GNP),
was growing at about six per cent a year. In 1960 the Soviet
Union was producing 12.5 per cent of the world’s goods (from
farm and factory), just under half that of the United States
(25.9 per cent) and the European Economic Community (26
per cent).
From 1960s, a shift began towards the production of
consumer goods such as automobiles, electronic devices,
pharmaceutical, civilian aircrafts. The GNP, under Brezhnev
and between 1966 and 1970, held around 5.3 per cent. Then,
during 1971 and 1975, the GNP fell, averaging 3.7 growths
per year. And after 1975, the GNP fell to a growth of between
2.6 and 2.7 per cent per year.
The Soviet Union was not keeping up with sophisticated
techniques in computers, softwares and communications
electronics or the design and manufacturing of automobiles
— as were Taiwan and Korea. The Soviet Union lost its
second place standing in manufacturing, falling behind the
losers of World War Il, Japan and Germany, and falling
behind Britain and Italy. With emphasis on consumer goods
production as dictated by central planning, the USSR was
unable to suit itself with the rapid changes in the technological
development, especially with no money except one that was
being invested by the government. On the other, though the
Soviet government protected the manufacturing produced
plants from international competition, it could not do anything
from within the country. The bureaucrats, rather than the
consumers, guided as to what was to be produced: military
production was more readily available than commercial
goods.
By the 1970s, low morale of the Soviet Union’s work force
was hurting its economy. Workers were given goals that
seemed abstract or remote from tangible benefits. Common
people were criticising people in power for not responding to
their needs. Common people still lived in cramped houses
and were sesseing little material progress for themselves.
Cynicism was high among Soviet workers and alcoholism
was prevalent. People were taking less pride in their work
than people did in some other nations. Skilled workers were
also demoralised. The massive effort in the Soviet Union in
education to create a skilled work force could not compensate
for an economy that functioned poorly. Instead, education
was producing poorly employed talent. The agricultural sector
of the Soviet economy was also functioning inefficiently.
Under Brezhnev, most farming remained collectivised, with
four per cent of the Soviet Union’s arable land being farmed
on the side, as privately owned plots - with this four per cent
producing around 25 per cent of the Soviet Union’s
agricultural output. Before World War I, Russia had been one
of the greatest food exporters in the world, but now it had
become one of the world’s greatest importers of food. After
decades of collective farming, agricultural workers in the
Soviet Union had developed poor work habits. And with
distribution and transportation a problem, some _ harvests
rotted on their way to market, and sometimes as much as
forty or fifty per cent of a crop might rot in the fields. A decline
in sales of its oil abroad and the purchasing of food from
abroad was a trade imbalance that was costing the Soviet
Union hard currency and gold. Within the Soviet Union,
government agencies were involved in more deficit spending
than bureaucrats were admitting. And increases in the
printing of money were contributing to the declining value of
Soviet money—the ruble. What grew during the Brezhnev
years were bureaucracy and the size of the Communist Party
—with many Party members working in bureaucracies. And
growing too was the number of vacation residences,
pensions, perks and privileges for Party members. In the eyes
of the common Soviet citizen, corruption was growing
alongside economic stagnation.
According to an article in Business Week (1-20-09),
Brezhnev contributed to the ruination of the Soviet economy
by not having started reforms in the early 1970s. By the time
of Mikhail Gorbachev in the late 1980s, “the Soviet Union was
all but bust.” Gorbachev made it worse by printing too much
money and creating “a colossal monetary overhang. The
Russians may have thought that their savings evaporated
when prices were liberalised at the start of 1992; in truth, their
cash was already worthless.” Corruption had already entered
the upper ranks of the Communist Party, to Brezhnev’s
daughter herself.
By the time Gorbachev took over the administration, the
economy had a negative GNP, though he, like his
predecessors, believed that socialism could adapt, innovate
and be as productive as capitalism. Still believing in central
planning, Gorbachev wished to increase the efficiency in
central planning management. To make economic planning
more effective and efficient, new super-agencies were
created to oversee economic developments. In October 1985,
Gorbachev published his plan to increase production of
consumer’s goods and to increase services. His plan called
for a 30 per cent increase by 1990 and an 80 to 90 per cent
increase by the year 2000. He estimated that labour
productivity in this period would be more than double. With
diminishing natural resources for energy, the Soviet Union
had been looking toward the nuclear energy, and Gorbachev
was planning to increase the production of nuclear power by
400 and 500 per cent.
The Chernobyl disaster in April 1986 eclipsed good
harvests during 1986 and 1987. The economy went on
declining. People, in longer queues, waited for the diminishing
supply of water. The government was receiving less from sale
tax and brewing booze at home was increasing. In response
to reduced oil sales abroad, the government reduced the
importation of consumer goods. This left Soviet citizens with
less to buy and reduced revenues from sales taxes. The
incomes of consumers had been rising, but with too little on
the shelves for people to buy, and too much money chasing
too few goods; prices were rising. It was the opposite of what
capitalist nations had faced in the Great Depression, when
too little money was in the hands of consumers compared to
what was available for purchase.
Deficit spending—government spending more money than
it was acquiring in revenue—was a disaster for the Soviet
economy. To make up for the insufficient tax revenues the
government continued to print more money, increasing
inflation. People were putting the money they could not spend
into state savings banks — a bad place for money during
inflation and a waste in that it was money not being invested
in worthy enterprises. There was no monetary policy, but only
bureaucratic dictates. Economic conditions were worsening
for the people. There were rubbles but they could hardly buy;
there was no money in the treasury for competing the US in
matters relating to production of newer nuclear weapons:
economy did not support defence in advancing years. The
economy of the USSR was in such a bad shape that it could
not hold the republics together once they chose to separate
themselves. The occasional economic reforms proved
unproductive; the law on State Enterprises passed by
Gorbachev did nothing to improve the economic conditions of
the people; large-scale strikes all over the republics in the
closing years of 1980s, the pressure of keeping up arms race
with the United States amidst declining economy - all these
contributed to the disintegration of the USSR.
Il. (a)(ii) Soviet-Leadership:Power Corrupts

Lord Acton knew what he meant when he had said: power
corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Even power
corrupts ideologies, Marxism induded. When the Bolsheviks,
under Lenin, captured power, they had to establish socialism
before they could enjoy the benefits of state power. Lenin was
to seize power in the name of the dictatorship of the
proletariat. As he proceeded to make changes in the old
order, in which he did achieve certain attainments, he died, in
1924. Stalin succeeded Lenin. During his period the
oppressive reforms were enforced with the systematic
execution of all those who opposed him in the name of “great
purge”. In Stalin was born a totalitarian autocrat, a ruthless
authoritarian leader and one who made his word, the word of
the Communist Party, the word of the Communist Party as
the word of the working class, and the word of the working
class as the word of the whole society. With Stalin, the idea of
personality cult took birth. The whole economy was taken
over by the government: industries were nationalised and
agriculture came under state control, all production was
planned through policies framed by the government and the
Communist Party and supervised by the red guards.
Autocratic rule was at its best until March 5, 1953 when
Joseph Vissarionvich Djugashvili - Koba - the man of steel,
Stalin died. The power had already corrupted the party, the
military and the leader: the state and the party had become
strong, the USSR emerged as a superpower but the people
had become weak with militarily production in abundance
while there were food shortages all around.
Nikita Khrushchev (1894-1971), though condemned Stalin’s
actions as unnecessary and harmful, he attempted to
downplay his own role in Stalinist atrocities. Although
Khrushchev started a process of slight reforms, his efforts
were dismissed partly because of massive shortage of grain
and dairy products, and due partly of the fact that he had
started to seize more power. However, “His efforts to
streamline party organisations produced chaos and conflict
among party administrators.” He was also blamed for the
Russian"defeat” during the Cuban Missile Crisis, while doing
very little in foreign policy.
Khrushchev presented Russia with a new party program
and pressed for reforms in industry, agriculture and party
organisation. Of course, such efforts on his part also
managed to alienate and antagonise a great many party
officials. Hence, in October 1964, and while he was away
from Moscow on vacation, Khrushchev’s Politburo comrades
removed him from power. After the ousting of Khrushchev,
Leonid Brezhnev came to power. Under his administration,
the majority of the decentralisation of power was destroyed
bringing a centralised form of control back into effect.
Khrushchev’s denouncing of Stalin’s policies was criticised
and slowly some of Stalin’s political disciplinary policies were
restored. Stalin was named a war hero. During this time there
was an inefficient use of land, labour and resources, which
resulted in an economic slackening. As a result, what was
supposed to be ultimately a classless society became classed
as bureaucrats were paid for loyalty with material wealth,
allowing them a better standard of living; because of this,
public interests were placed secondary to personal gains. The
1980s saw a dramatic drop in the Soviet citizens’ already
impoverished standard of living. This caused strikes and
public outcry against the administration which threatened the
stability of the Soviet Union. The people were angry at the
fact that the Communist Party had not lived up to what it had
promised. Brezhnev died incompetent at the age of 75, his
television speech would witness his jaw hanging while he
would read the same page twice. Coming to power in 1985,
Gorbachev sought to introduce reforms such as perestroika
(organisational restructuring of the Soviet economy and
governmental machinery) and g/asnost (liberalising society,
with open discussion of social, economic and political issues).
The purpose of these reforms was to elevate the Soviet
standard of living in order to reaffirm the citizenry’s loyalties to
the Communist party and to enable the rebirth of the Soviet
economy and ideal. State control was loosened and individual
initiative encouraged. He expanded the authority of the Soviet
presidency and transferred power from the Communist party
to popularly elected legislatures in the union republics. In
international affairs, he withdrew Soviet troops from
Afghanistan, normalised relations with China, signed a series
of arms control agreements with U.S. Presidents Ronald
Reagan and George Bush. During this period of change,
strong nationalist opinion started in the republics of the Soviet
Union causing major upheaval. In 1991, as the Soviet
economy deteriorated, Gorbachev faced competing pressures
from the hard-line communists, from the free-market
reformers, and from nationalists and the secessionists
seeking independence for their republics. Liberalisation and
democratisation won for the USSR its disintegration.
II.(a)(iii) Gorbachev’s Role

Gorbachev factor in the disintegration of the USSR could
hardly be either ignored or denied. His reforms such as
perestroika and glasnost proved productive in arousing the
aspirations of the people. Market economy proved useful
more for the managers of the enterprises than for the
common man. Private enterprise, when permitted, stood
against the very tenets of Marxism-Leninism, and proved a
step towards capitalism, classless society began to transform
into class society; the new emerging capitalists started
exploiting the situation and the workers; commodities were
either not available or were available at a cost four to five
times their normal price; economy got stagnated and virtually
was on decline while the erstwhile whole social welfare
system seemed collapsing. Gorbachev's reforms did not
work, and only succeeded in hastening the collapse of the
USSR.
The mono-ideological control of the Soviet Communist
Party, the irresponsible leadership, incompetence of the
command-administrative system entrenched into the state
and society, when relaxed during Gorbachev's period, gave
impetus to the force demanding more freedoms. In fact, his
reforms undermined some of the principal features of socialist
Russia. His focus on “all human values” instead on the class
struggle notion, on the rule of law, international peace,
parliamentary representation ideals, multiparty system, the
open society—all these went well with John Stuart Mill than
with Karl Marx. Gorbachev was consciously or sub-
consciously moving toward a new ideological orientation. The
fall of the Soviet autocracy was not far away.
Gorbachev's perestroika and glasnost were good things in
themselves but too much too fast also meant the danger of
confusion amidst liberation, and that was what was made of
Gorbachev's efforts.
Gorbachev's introduction of glasnost (openness) gave new
freedoms to the people, such as a greater freedom of speech;
a radical change as control of speech and suppression of
government criticism had previously been a central part of the
Soviet system. The press became far less controlled and
thousands of political prisoners and many dissidents were
released in the spirit of glasnost. In January 1987, Gorbachev
called for demokratizatsiya (democratisation)—the infusion of
democratic elements such as multi-candidates elections into
the Soviet political process. In June 1988, at the CPSU’s
Nineteenth Party Conference, Gorbachev launched radical
reforms meant to reduce party control of the government
apparatus. In December 1988, the Supreme Soviet approved
the formation of a Congress of People’s Deputies, which
constitutional amendments had established as the Soviet
Union’s new legislative body. Prof. Macpherson had predicted
in 1977 (see his Democratic Theory) that the socialist-Marxist
states would adopt libertarianism sooner than the libertarian
states adopted equalitarism. But he never knew that the
process would also cost the very existence of socialism. In
October 1990, Gorbachev had very sadly remarked that
“unfortunately, our society is not ready for the procedures of a
law-based state”. The fact of the matter is that he had himself
brought the country, both politically, and economically, to the
brink of collapse.
Il.(a)(iv) Emerging Capitalisation of Socialism

David Kotz and Fred Weir Revolution from Above: The
Demise of the Soviet System give a detailed account of the
pre-capitalist sentiments among the intelligentsia, the small
business owners and a part of the Soviet Party elite in the
USSR. By the 1980s, few members of the Soviet elite had
believed the official socialist ideology but instead were
concerned mainly with power and privilege. A study of the
ideology of a sample of the Moscow elite in June 1991 found
that 76.7 per cent had come to favour capitalism while only
12.3 per cent supported democratic socialism and another 9.6
per cent had a communist or nationalist ideology. Another
study shows that 62 per cent of the hundred top businessmen
in Russia in 1992-93 were former members of the Soviet
party-state elite.
The idea that the Soviet elite rapidly evolved toward a pre-
capitalist position was controversial ten years before but now
it was no longer so in 1991. The most open proponent of
capitalism in the Soviet Union were the intellectuals who
founded and led the Democratic Russia movement and the
leader of the pro-capitalist forces was none else but Boris
Yeltsin, himself a communist from Sverdlovsk region, a part of
the Russian Republic of the USSR. The rise of Yeltsin to the
position of the chairman of the Russian Republic Parliament
in 1990 created a situation of dual power in the Soviet Union.
(Russian Republic, though one of the 15 Republics of the
USSR, had half of the country’s population and three-fourth of
the land area.) This was so because the Gorbachev (head of
the Soviet Union) and Yeltsin (Chairman and later the head of
the Russian Republic) conflict was not just a personality
conflict but was a clash between two futures, with Gorbachev
wanting to reform socialism while Yeltsin wanting to bring
about capitalism in the country.
Throughout the second half of 1990, Yeltsin sought ways to
assert Russia’s independence of the Union government and
to undermine its authority. In October he pushed through the
Russian parliament the “500 Days Plan” which Gorbachev
had rejected at the Union level. This was a radical blueprint
for economic transformation that called for establishing a free
market system and privatising most of the state enterprises in
less than two years. Yeltsin demanded that the Union
government also adopt the plan, which would have spelled
the end of socialism. In December 1990, Gorbachev was able
to push through the Soviet Parliament a plan for a referendum
on preserving the Soviet Union. Yeltsin together with some
other heads of the other Republics was able to force
Gorbachev to negotiate a new Union Treaty for the country in
April
1991. Yeltsin’s popularity enhanced with his victory in the
election of the President of the Russian Republic in June
1991.
In the two months following Yeltsin’s election, there was a
feeling that power was slipping away from the Union
government towards Yeltsin. Trying to save some kind of
Union state, Gorbachev gave way to Yeltsin’s main demands
in order to get a new Union treaty. On July 23 a draft Union
treaty was agreed to by the negotiators, which reportedly
gave the right to collect taxes entirely to the republics and
also gave Russia immediate control over the natural
resources and enterprises on its territory, along with their
hard currency earnings. The draft treaty, which was to be
signed on August 20, while preserving the facade of a Union
state, would not have left any significant role for the central
government. The attempted coup of August 1991 could not
deny Yeltsin his dominant position. Four months later, the
USSR was abolished and Russia emerged as an independent
state as did the other fourteen states.
Il.(a)(v) Russian and Non-Russian Nationalisms

The introduction of reforms such as perestroika, glasnost and
demokratizatisya gave rise to nationalist movements in Soviet
politics to come into open. In 1989, some independent
movements arose in the Baltic republics of Lithuania, Latvia
and Estonia (incorporated in the Soviet Union forcibly in
1939), and also in Georgia, which had been an independent
state in the past. While these independence movements
presented a challenge for the Soviet leadership, those four
republics together constituted only 4.7 per cent of the Soviet
population and had no important natural resources. Then in
June 1990 an entirely new element was injected into the
nationalist conflict, when the parliament of the Russian
Republic passed a resolution declaring that Russia was a
sovereign entity within the USSR. Russia had always
occupied a paradoxical position in the Soviet system. The
Russians were the dominant national group. Not only did they
make up about half of the Soviet population, they were
disproportionally represented in the Union party and state
institutions. Ethnic Russians also occupied high positions in
the party and government organs in all of the other republics.
The rebellious republics on the periphery of the Soviet Union
were, to a significant extent, rebelling against what they saw
as domination by the Russians.
Despite of all these ways in which the Russians dominated
the Soviet Union, at the same time Russian nationalism was
in certain respects held in check by the Soviet system. Lenin
had warned that “Great Russian chauvinism” might threaten
the unity of the Soviet state, and the organisation of the
Soviet system reflected that fear. Unlike the other 14
republics, the spirit of the Russian nationalism had been
purposely suppressed. With nationalist movement around the
Soviet periphery, there also grew the Russians’ sense of
national grievances. Yeltsin stressed the Russian national
grievances, often pointing out that, within the USSR, only
Russia and Turkmenistan produced a greater value of goods
than they consumed. One month after Yeltsin became
chairman of the Russian parliament, the leaders of
Democratic Russia proposed a piece of legislation declaring
Russia to be a sovereign entity, with control of its own natural
resources, and with precedence for its own republican laws
over those of the Soviet Union. Yeltsin recognised in this
proposal a way to finally outmaneuver Gorbachev and the
entire Union government. Although no basis for such a law
could be found in the Soviet constitution, Yeltsin prevailed
upon the Russian Republic parliament to pass the
sovereignty measure on 8 June 1990, by a vote of 544 to
271.
The leadership of the republics which had previously been
relatively quiet now immediately passed sovereignty
resolutions. By August 1990 sovereignty resolutions had been
passed by Uzbekistan, Moldavia, Ukraine, Turkmenistan, and
Tadzhikistan. By October even loyal Kazakhstan followed suit
as well. In several of these republics no mass-based
nationalist movement had even appeared, but the Communist
leaders in these republics were positioning themselves to
hold onto power if Yeltsin was able to actually abolish the
Soviet state. In May,
1992, twelve of the fifteen republics had declared their
independence and the entire empire of the Czars and the
Communists had fallen to pieces.
Il.(a) (vi) East European Protests

The advent of communism in some of the East European
countries, following World War Il, was indeed, the victory of
the USSR, but its collapse in the late 1980s, one after the
other, was no less dramatic. The collapse of the Berlin Wall in
November 1989, though related to the events of the Soviet
Union, demonstrated that an imposed ideology could hardly
last long. In all cases, except that of Yugoslavia, communism
was imposed in numerous countries of East Europe such as
Poland, East Germany, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia,
and Hungary. If these countries were held together, the major
reason was the threat of the Soviet intervention, which
loomed large during the greater period of the cold war era. As
and when socialism and the integrity of the Soviet bloc
seemed at risk as in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in
1968, the USSR acted uncompromisingly. Though the
Warsaw Pact (1955) and Brezhnev doctrine held the socialist
bloc together, communism could hardly take roots in such
East European countries except that they found communism
as an alien ideology and the Soviet Union as a dominant and
repressive system. The Polish never found the Soviets as
their friend; the East Germans were more intimate with West
Germans than with the Soviet Russians; Romania’s
communism turned into the personal autocratic rule of
Ceausescu; in Bulgaria, the communists maintained their
authoritarian rule under Zhivkov. Czechoslovakia, like Poland
and Hungary, never cherished Soviet communism. The East
European communist rulers lost all faith in the Marxist-
Leninist ideology and ruled their respective regions in the
most ruthless manner. What was new was _ not. that
communism, as a polity, was oppressive, but that the crisis of
and crisis in communism was systemic. What was happening
in most of the communist regimes in East Europe in the
1980s, was an indication that something more astonishing
was yet to happen—the fall of the Soviet Union as a State.
Il. (a)(vii) External Factor:US-USSR Relations

An argument is stated that Reagan’s tough stance towards
the USSR, especially his uncompromising view on the
development of the strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), had
been a decisive factor in forcing the Soviet Union to the
negotiating table and subsequently bringing about the fall of
communism itself. The US was in a position to outspend the
Soviet Union, particularly in nuclear arms, thereby compelling
the USSR either to match the West and bankrupt itself or
come to terms and negotiate real reduction in nuclear arms.
Gorbachev chose the latter course and signalled the
Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty in December 1987.
He had announced the unilateral reduction in conventional
armaments at the United Nations in 1988; he also signed the
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) I, in July 1991.
Reagan alone was not responsible for bringing Gorbachev to
terms. In fact, without signing all these agreements,
Gorbachev could not fund his domestic projects, nor he could
have faced the challenges from within, especially the one
posed by Boris Yeltsin. The deteriorating economic conditions
of the USSR and the compulsions of Soviet internal politics
(nationalists of the numerous Republics, the conservative
party-military combines, the pro-capitalist democratic forces
led by Yeltsin etc.) forced Gorbachev to take a comprising
stance in policy towards the West in general and the USA in
particular. That everything went against Gorbachev was his
destiny and that the fall of the USSR came about despite all
his efforts to the contrary was what he could not avoid.
That the Reagan factor was itself a solitary factor is too
simple an external argument. Indeed, Reagan was anti-USSR
describing it an evil empire in 1983; indeed also, he had,
during his first term (1981-84) as the US President, a massive
nuclear and conventional arms built-up, but it would be
overestimating Reagan’s potentialities if one does not take
into account Gorbachev's role as a perestroika and a glasnost
man. Gorbachev had introduced a new thinking in his foreign
policy. He knew for sure that in an age of weapons of mass
destruction, there was no reliable defense; in an age of
amassing more and more weapons, there could be no
security; in an age of contending politics, there could be no
other solution than that of cooperation and interdependence.
True to what he thought, Gorbachev announced the
withdrawal of the Soviet troops from Afghanistan in 1989,
committed himself to a nuclear disarmament by the year
2000, a unilateral reduction of Soviet armed forces by
500,000.
To say that the Reagan factor brought Gorbachev to the
negotiating table in matters relating to the reduction of arms
race is as half a truth as is to say that Gorbachev’s new
thinking (corresponding to his domestic vision of perestroika
and glasnost) brought him to Reagan’s terms. To say that
Gorbachev factor was solely responsible for the Soviet
integration is to underestimate a host of causes that
underwent to make the USSR collapse.
lll, UNIPOLARITY: AMERICAN HEGEMONY

With the end of the cold war, the USA emerged as a nation
with self-confidence. It rose from the position of decline to the
position of hegemony. Three events, we are told, after 1989,
had the American position fairly extra-ordinary. The first was
when the USA attacked Panama and arrested its dictator, a
former ally, Manuel Noriega. The conclusion was that the
USA would not hesitate to use force when required to do. The
second event was when Iraq invaded Kuwait. This time the
USA responded with an even more massive display of force.
The conclusion was that the USA had the capacity and also
the will to destroy those who challenge the world order. The
third event was one relating to the disintegration of the USSR
in late 1991, though the USA had no direct role in the
collapse. But the event left the USA as the solitary
superpower with unlimited freedom of maneuvering
situations. These events apart, then started the era of US
economy boom and by the turn of the century, nobody talked
about the American decline. Charles Krauthammer (The
Unipolar Moment) describes such a time as the moment of
unipolarity. He says, “the most striking feature of the post-cold
war world is its unipolarity. No doubt, multipolarity will come in
time. In perhaps another generation or so there will be great
powers coequal with the United States and the world will, in
structure, resemble the pre-World War | era. But we are not
there yet, nor will we be for decades. Now is the unipolar
moment.” Explaining his argument, he continues, “There is
today no lack of second rank powers. Germany and Japan
are economic dynamos. Britain and France can deploy
diplomatic and to some extent, military powers. The Soviet
Union possesses several elements of power - military,
diplomatic and political — but all are in rapid decline. There is
but one first-rate power and no prospect in the immediate
future of any power to rival it.” Andrea Ciambra (Unipolarity
and Hegemony in the Global Political System) also says, “the
end of the cold war changed the appearance of the global
system and its political order. The United States faced an
unpredictable phase of hegemony and political autonomy,
shaping new balances within the international community
through an uncontested unipolarity”. Robert Jervis (The
Remaking of a Unipolar World) holds the view: “Measured in
any conceivable way, the United States has a greater share
of world power than any other country in history. Whether it is
referred to an empire by those who oppose them, it is a
hegemon in today’s unipolar world order.”
As against these views, David Skidmore (Teaching About
the Post-Cold War World: Four Future Scenarios) refers to
four future scenarios. The first is benign hegemony. Skidmore
says, “It is sound mathematics to suggest that if we subtract
one superpower from a bipolar world, we are then left with a
unipolar system. Some have indeed argued that the U.S. is
the world’s sole remaining superpower and will remain so for
some time (Nye, What New World Order). No other country
possesses as impressive an accumulation of resources
across the three major dimensions of national power: political,
economic, and military. Accepting, this premise, however,
only moves us partly towards filling in a picture of the future of
international politics. The interests of the dominant state, or
partly, generally lie in furthering the cause of global
integration and in suppressing fragmentationist impulses. An
integrated world order provides the widest scope for the
exercise of hegemonic power and facilitates the maintenance
of global order through the influence of common rules and
institutions of the hegemony’s own design. This scenario is
not altogether unfamiliar. It represents a universalisation of
the U.S.-led Western alliance that together faced the Soviet
bloc during the Cold War. The principal difference is that the
former communist countries would be gradually integrated
into this liberal world order, rather than stand in opposition to
it, and that mutual interest, rather than the presence of a
common enemy, would constitute the glue underlying
cooperation.
The second future scenario is coercive hegemony.
According to Skidmore, “In this scenario, other states and
non-state actors resist, rather than willingly accede to, U.S.
leadership. In so far as the United States succeeded in
salvaging an integrated world order of sorts, it would rest
upon coercive imposition, instead of consent. The costs of
exercising hegemony in this sort of environment would
escalate considerably. The United States would be compelled
to resort to hard power in a world of coercive hegemony. The
label of “world policeman” would aptly describe U.S. behavior.
The United States would force open protected markets
through hard ball trade tactics, hunt down terrorists and drug
traffickers, struggle to constrain or counter local arms races
and weapons proliferation, intervene in civil disputes and
cases of cross-border aggression, support friendly but often
unpopular leaderships abroad through military and economic
aid, aggressively counter religious and nationalist movements
that took on anti-American overtones, and rely upon the
threat of force or economic sanctions to insure secure access
to critical raw materials.”
The third future scenario, according to Skidmore, is concert
of great power: a third possibility is that mulipolarity could
coincide with the dominance of integrationist forces. Unlike
scenario one, there would exist no hegemonic power to pay
for collective goals or to oversee interstate coordination.
Instead, cooperation would rest more upon mutual burden
sharing and decentralised coordination would be managed
through more autonomous and more elaborate multilateral
institutions. Cooperative ties would be the victims and more
fragile than under benign hegemony, but the impetus towards
mutual accommodation would remain strong. A modern-day
concert of great powers would in many ways resemble the
nineteenth century Concert of Europe.
The final scenario assumes that multipolarity and
fragmentation each triumph. The combination of the two could
take a number of forms, from John Mearshiemer’s state-
centric, Hobbesian war of all against all, to Samuel
Huntington’s clash of civilisations, to Robert Kaplan’s
Malthusian vision of environmental degradation, resource
scarcity and crumbling structures of social and_ political
authority.
The changes in the world are changing with speed, and yet
it cannot be denied that the USA has primacy over numerous
upcoming nations. Germany, Japan, China, India, re-armed
Russia appear to be economic heavyweights of future, but
they cannot seem to be rivalling the United States. Huntington
is, therefore, of the view that the post-Cold war world reflects
a uni-multipolar system with one superpower and several
major powers. What is most clear is that the USA is the
world’s most capable state with global power projection, an
expanding economy of the nuclear posture, alongwith the
“soft power” attributes of ideology and technology. All the
other great powers are limited or lopsided in one critical way
or another. The USA’s position does not resemble a power of
“first among equals’ (primus inter pares) as were Britain in the
nineteenth century or France in the late seventeenth century;
her position, rather, resembles a great power in an
international system of second rank powers (Japan,
Germany, Britain, France, Russia, China or India). Her
primacy over other powers has been accepted by all; the US
no longer faces a major threat to her security (General Colin
Powell had remarked in 1991: | am running out of demons, |
am running out of enemies. “Il am down to Castro and Kim Il
Sung); there are no challengers (leave aside the non-state
actors either Osama Bin Laden or Al-Qaida) to US primacy.”
With Germany and Japan playing the subordinate role within
the American-led system and with Russia and China, still not
ready to stand-up to the USA and busy with their assertive
regional policies; weapon states such as North Korea, Iraq
and Libya are too young to challenge the USA, though they
may possibly disturb her; peace and stability of the world rest
on the American power.
The post-cold war world reflects, one may thus conclude,
the preferences and the interests of the United States, the
world’s pre-eminent state and the only superpower. The
unipolar moment is likely to characterise international politics
in the foreseeable future. A return to a competitive multipolar
world is still decades off.
Practice
Questions
1. Explain the meaning of non-alignment

both as a policy and as a movement.
(700-800 words)
2. What are, in your view, the
characteristics of Non-alignment? (200-
250 words)
3. State briefly the origins of NAM and its
evolution. (700-800 words)
4. What has been the role of NAM?
Describe its achievements. (700-800
words)
5. Do you think that NAM is relevant in the
post-Cold war era? Give arguments.
(700-800 words)
6. Evaluate the causes of the collapse of
the Soviet Union. (700-800 words)
7. How far was Gorbachev responsible for
the demise of the USSR? (200-250
words)
8. Describe the economic and military
causes of the fall of the USSR. (700-800
words)
9. Write a brief note on Gorbachev-Yeltsin
rivalry. (200-250 words)
10. What is unipolarity? How do you
explain the American hegemony in the
post-cold war world? (700-800 words)
11. Highlight the major features of the non-
alignment 2.0 document. (2013) 200-
250 words (200-2500 words)
International Economic
System: WTO, CMEA, NIEO
\VV/ e cannot appreciate or even understand the intricacies of International

Relations completely without going into the details of not only events
that are political, but also events that are, by their nature, economic,
geographical, and cultural. Understanding international economic systems one
may even describe it international political economy—IPE, is a major key to the
understanding of International Relations. Three strands of international economy
as seen are:
i. the development from mercantilism to capitalism to globalisation, a liberal

strand leading to the world trade as have been enunciated by the World
Trade Organisation (WTO);
ii. the trading bloc as maintained by the erstwhile Soviet Union, referred to as
the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA), also called as
COMECON, now almost defunct with the demise of the Soviet Union;
iii. the voice of the developing nations seeking a New International Economic
Order (NIEO) so as to promote their interests by improving their terms of
trade and developing their developmental tasks as also building as modern
and as advanced economy as is there in the industrially advanced nations.
The mercantilist-liberal perspective of world economy is different from the

perspectives of both, the Marxists and that of the developing nations. The
mercantilist perspective regards the world economy as an arena of the inter-state
competition, one in which states seek to maximise their wealth and independence
vis-a-vis other states; order in the competition is obtained either through the
balance of power or through hegemony. The liberal perspective regards world
economy as having the potentiality of a global market in which free trade and free
movement shape the policies of the governments and the economic actors and
where the order is maintained by the invisible hand of the market. The Marxist
perspective of world economy regards the global economy as an arena of
capitalist competition in which opposing classes (say the capitalists and the
workers) are in constant conflict and where order is obtained by submitting all the
other classes at the altar of the possessing classes. The Third World perspective
of the world economy regards the world divided into countries of the Northern
hemisphere and those of the Southern hemisphere, the former possessing most of
the wealth and infrastructure (technology, etc.) of the world and the latter,
possessing most of the natural resources together with illequipped and outmoded
structures; one the rich and the other the poor, and where order is sought to
establish a new and equitable international economic order.
|. DEVELOPMENT OF ECONOMY: MERCANTILISM, CAPITALISM,

GLOBALISATION
Feudalism was a rural economy in most of the Western world where commodities
were produced for local use. Not much of the economy could make any headway
during feudalism: production was not much and consumption was too less.
Feudalism gave way to mercantilism when the economy began opening up.
Mercantilism as an economic category was popular in the European countries
between the 164 century and the greater part of the eighteenth century. It is one in
which the source of economic growth was the persistent favourable balance of
trade and where export was also more than the import, and above all where the
accumulation of bullion was a part of national policy. Obviously, it always required
a high degree of economic regulation, sponsorship and protection by the
government. Adam Smith, known as the father of classical capitalism, while
challenging the mercantilist view, argued that the real worth of the nation was
found not in the treasury, but in the productive capacity of the nation. The
characteristic features of mercantilism included more sale than what one buys,
more export than import, more accumulation of gold and silver against which
commodities were sold than the productive capacities, more state protection and
sponsorship than individual freedom of initiative, production of goods more for use
than for profit, more amassing of money than its circulation.
Capitalism displaced feudalism in so far as towns and cities took over the
country, urban economy replacing the rural one. On the other hand, it improved on
mercantilism in so far as it made market the bedrock of all economic activities and
gave money as much exposure as could be possible. What distinguished
capitalism from all earlier economic categories was the greater expansion of
capital through the process of investing. Capitalism as an economic category is
earning wealth for wealth’s sake; it is circulating money for the sake of earning
more money: investing money in goods, production, technology, in machinery, and
in raw-material so as to earn limitless profit from regions as far away as are the
continents. The investment is an attribute of capitalism both at the local level as
well as at the national level. The more one invests, the more profit one attains, and
a bigger capitalist one becomes.
The classical notion of capitalism coming from Adam Smith and his associates
was one of using one’s capabilities to produce more wealth rather than sit on the
stock of wealth. Adam Smith stood for economic freedom: /aissez faire, laissez
alter: “Give freedom to the businessman, he will free the world”. Unhindered
economic activities produce capacities for earning more and more wealth; free
trade was the mantra of Adam Smith. This was the early capitalism, one that gave
birth to ‘corporate’ capitalism, cartels, syndics, and corporations together with
nation-wide banks, leading to oligo-politic economy. Lenin called it imperialism, the
highest stage of capitalism: the capitalist-imperialistic nations exploiting the
relatively less developed nations and ultimately leading the world to wars.
Capitalism did end up in imperialism and what exploded in the process was not
capitalism, but imperialism in the post war period, and socialism after the post cold
war world.
Globalisation takes over and has its definite role in the world economy.
Capitalism, as a form of economy, has its own characteristic features. It exists to
maximise unlimited profit; it is based on private property system; it works through
private ownership of means of production and for maximum profit through
competition; it advocates free trade and is ruled through the laws of open and free
market; it objects to globalisation restrictions on individual initiative and individual
liberties. Capitalism is a system of production in which human labour and its
products are commodities that are bought and sold in the market with the seller
seeking maximum price and the buyer with giving minimum price. In the Marxist
analysis, there are three characteristics of capitalism:
i. everything involved in production (raw material, machines, labour,

commodities, etc. ) is given an exchange value, and all can be exchanged
one for the other; everything has its price;
ii. everything that is needed to undertake production (factories, raw-material,
etc.) is owned by one class, i.e., the capitalist; and
iii. workers are “free” but in order to survive must sell their labour to the
capitalist class.
Under capitalism, the capitalists own the means of production while the workers
do not own them; the capitalists manage and supervise what is to be produced
while the workers only produce commodities; the capitalists obtain all profits while
the workers receive only wages; the capitalists do not create value, they only
usurp surplus value, while all value is created by the workers.
While mercantilism helped state pile up stockpile of precious metals like gold
and silver, and in the process created empires (Britain is the example) capitalism
found free trade more lucrative with trade flourishing all around, and in the process
created hegemony (the United States is an example of it). Empires control
economic transactions in their areas centrally with a poor record of economic
performance. Hegemony, on the other hand, has been much more successful in
achieving economic growth and prosperity, with rival states sharing a part of
economic growth.
Globalisation, though vaguely defined, is clearly an important concept. It
encompasses many aspects: expanded international trade, telecommunications,
monetary coordination, multinational corporations, technical and_ scientific
cooperation, cultural exchanges, migration, relations between between both rich
and poor countries. It has been defined as “the widening, deepening and speeding
up of worldwide interconnectedness in all aspects of contemporary social life.”
With imperialism gone after World War Il and with the abandonment of the
Marxist-Leninist model after the post-cold war period, the world eased towards
globalisation whose path had already been made easier with the development of
telecommunication and technology on the one hand, and successful functioning of
the multinational and transnational corporations (MNCs and TNCs). Globalisation,
in the present world, means, at least in the economic sense of the term, free flow
of money and investment so as to facilitate free flow of goods and commodities,
and of trade. Capitalism finds itself in globalisation for the latter imbibes in itself the
cultural values of the former - work, productivity, profit, investment—all attributes
open and free, and under private control, either individual or corporate, while
globalisation gives supporting facilities.
Globalisation has its rewards, especially in the five decades that followed World
War Il. During the first half of this period, the economies of the advanced industrial
nations grew nearly twice as fast as in any comparable period before or since. In
the other half, the industrialising nations too made certain gains, though in these
years, there were periods of inflation, high unemployment and_ productivity
slowdowns in the industrialised nations. Though, globalisation has not resulted in
as much success in the developing nations as in the developed ones, especially in
consolidating the core group of the world system—the United States, the
European Union and Japan. In 2003-05, for example, USA, EU and Japan
accounted for 54 per cent of the world inflows of foreign direct investment and 75
per cent of the world outflows.
I (a). From Bretton Woods to WTO

The international economic system is about the interplay of economics and politics
in world affairs. Of the three strands, one is the world economy which runs from
capitalism to globalisation. This post war world economy has its roots in the
planning for a new economic order, concentrating on trade regime, monetary
regime and investment regime.
| (a) (i) Bretton Woods System

The Bretton Woods system was an agreement to stimulate international trade by
stabilising currency fluctuations between countries. The allies, forty four in number
including the Soviet Union met for a conference in Bretton Woods, New
Hampshire, in 1944 so as to formulate financial arrangements for post-war period.
They established a system of fixed exchange rates that lasted until 1971. The
exchange rate was fixed to the US dollar, and the US government promised to
convert all dollars to gold at $35 per ounce. As no signatory state could change
the rate without first applying to International Momentary Fund, the exchange rate
was Said to be stable and fixed. The Bretton Woods agreement was to create:
i. International Trade Organisation (ITO) so as to deal with the trade rules and
regulations;
ii. International Momentary Fund so as to ensure a stable exchange rate
regime as also the provision for emergency assistance to countries facing
emergency crisis in their balance of payments regime; and
iii. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), later the
World Bank (WB) so as to facilitate private investment and reconstruction in
Europe: trade regime, monetary regime and investment regime.
The Bretton Woods conference was held for two major purposes: (a) to ensure
that crisis such as the depression of 1929-30 does not happen again, and (b) to
help rebuild the war-torn economies of Europe. The other purposes of the
conference could be enlisted as:
i. to ensure a stable exchange of the rate system,

ii. to reserve asset
iii. to control the international capital flows;
iv. to provide short term temporary loans to countries suffering from the balance
of payment taxes; and
v. to formulate rules so as to keep the economies open to trade.
Trade Regime: ITO, GATT, WTO

The Bretton Woods agreement sought to establish the International Trade
Organisation— ITO. It was to be an institution for a free and open international
trade regime. It ultimately failed when the US opposition to it described it “too
socialistic’, allowing the ITO to intervene in the corporate’s and state’s activities.
ITO was taken over by a General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT) in 1947 and later by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in
1995. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was an interim
agreement signed in 1947, thinking that it would be superseded by an international
trade organisation. A permanent trade organisation was not created until 1994,
and so for four decades the interim GATT continued to exist as an arrangement
among “contracting parties” backed up by a very small secretariat based in
Geneva. In essence, GATT was a forum for trade negotiations with numerous
rounds of talks culminating in the very successful Kennedy Round of 1962-67
when breakthroughs were made in the reduction of trade barriers among
industrialised countries. However, when protectionism flourished in the 1970s,
GATT proved powerless to restrain powerful members such as the United States
and European countries from restricting trade (e.g. the Multi-fibre Arrangement
1974 restricting textiles imports) and abusing the many exceptions and safeguards
written into the agreement. GATT also functioned as a forum for dispute
settlement (i.e. upholding trade rules); however, it was both slow and impotent in
this regard, constrained by the need for consensus on any decision regarding
disputes. GATT was replaced by the World Trade Organisation as a result of
agreements forged in the last round of GATT talks, the Uruguay Round (1986-94).
The WTO was established on January 1, 1995. Its functions include: administering
WTO trade agreements, acting as a forum for trade negotiations; handling trade
disputes; monitoring national trade policies; providing technical assistance and
training for developing countries; cooperation with other international
organisations. It is located in Geneva.
Monetary Regime: International Monetary Fund—IMF

The IMF is to maintain international liquidity, helping states having insufficient
foreign reserves by making short-term loans, enabling them to balance their books
in the event of a shortfall in foreign currency reserves or other monetary assets.
For example, if a country had a negative trade balance and insufficient funds to
cover the cost of imports in excess of export earnings, it could borrow from the
IMF. Since 1980s, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has become an
institution offering financial and technical assistance to developing and transition
economies. The terms on which countries receive assistance include the
government having to commit to undertake specific ‘conditions’ or policy reforms,
called ‘conditionality’. Its purposes remain to assist in the establishment of a
multilateral system of payment; to provide temporary resources to members
experiencing balance-of-payments difficulties; and to shorten the duration and
lessen the degree of disequilibrium in the international balance of payments of its
members. Attacking the problem in a piecemeal manner, the IMF’s immediate
post-war objective was to restore exchange rate stability among the currencies of
the combatant countries and to provide the basis for peaceful economic exchange.
Once monetary stability had been achieved and the foundation set for the
expansion of post-war trade, the IMF’s responsibility shifted to ensuring exchange
rate stability among the entire world’s trading countries.
Investment Regime: IBRD—The World Bank

The original purpose of the International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development (IBRD), later known as the World Bank (WB) was to rebuild war-torn
economies in Europe. It has since become the world’s largest source of
development assistance, providing nearly $16 billion in loans annually to eligible
member countries, through the IBRD, the International Development Association
(IDA), the International Finance Corporation (IFC), and the Multilateral Guarantee
Agency (MIGA). As with the IMF, the World Bank requires members to which it
lends to undertake specific reforms within their economies. Most recently this has
included requiring borrowing governments to demonstrate their commitment to
reducing poverty within their countries. With the exception of the IDA (which is
funded by donations), the World Bank’s resources come from its issue of bonds in
the capital markets. These bonds are backed up by guarantees provided by the
governments that belong to the institution.
The breakdown of the Bretton Woods agreement became clear when in August
1971 the US Government announced that it was suspending the convertibility of
the dollar to gold at $35 per ounce. This removed gold from the dollar-gold
standard and paved the way for major currencies to ‘float’ instead of staying at
fixed values. The USA also announced in August 1971 that it was adding a 10 per
cent surcharge on import duties to improve its trade balance by curtailing imports
which were flooding into USA, and to try to stem the outflow of dollars to the rest of
the world, hence also turning back the Bretton Woods ideal of maintaining open
trade in times of economic difficulty.
| (a)(ii). World Trade Organisation

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) is an international organisation designed
to facilitate, supervise and liberalise international trade. It came into existence in
January 1995. It is a successor to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT) which was created in 1947, and which itself was the one which followed
the International Trade Organisation established by the Bretton Woods System.
The WTO, with its 153 members as of 2008 and covering 95 per cent of world
trade, deals with the rules of trade among nations. It is responsible for negotiating
and implementing new trade agreements, and supervises the member-states to
abide by its rules and regulations. It is currently working with its members on the
Doha Trade negotiation as launched in 2001.
The objectives and functions of the WTO are:
Administering WTO trade agreements;

Acting as a forum for trade negotiations;
Settling and handling trade disputes;
Monitoring and reviewing national trade policies;
Assisting the members in trade policy issues, through technical assistance
and training programmes;
e Technical assistance and training for developing countries;
e Cooperating with other international organisations;
e Overseeing and implementing the operation of the covered agreements.
Additionally, it is the WTO’s duty to review and propagate the national trade
policies, and to ensure the coherence and transparency of trade policies through
surveillance in global economic policy-making. Another priority of the WTO is the
assistance of developing the least-developed and low-income countries in
transition to adjusting them to WTO rules and disciplines through technical
cooperation and training. The WTO is also a centre for economic research and
analysis: regular assessments of the global trade picture in its annual publications
and research reports on specific topics are produced by the organisation. Finally,
the WTO cooperates closely with the two other components of the Bretton Woods
system, the IMF and the World Bank.
Principles of the Trading System

The WTO establishes a framework for trade policies; it does not define or specify
outcomes. That is, it is concerned with setting the rules of the trade policy games.
Five principles are of particular importance in understanding both the pre-1994
GATT and WTO:
1. Non-Discrimination. It has two major components: the most favoured nation
(MFN) rule, and the national treatment policy. Both are embedded in the main
WTO rules on goods, services, and intellectual property, but their precise
scope and nature differ across these areas. The MFN rule requires that a
WTO member must apply the same conditions on all trade with other WTO
members, i.e. a WTO member has to grant the most favourable conditions
under which it allows trade in a certain product type to all other WTO
members. “Grant someone a special favour and you have to do the same for
all the other WTO members.” National treatment means that imported and
locally produced goods are to be treated equally (at least after the foreign
goods have entered the market) and introduced to tackle non-tariff barriers to
trade (e.g. technical standards, security standards et al. discriminating against
imported goods).
2. Reciprocity. It reflects both a desire to limit the scope of free riding that may
arise because of the MFN rule and a desire to obtain better access to foreign
markets. A related point is that for a nation to negotiate, it is necessary that
the gain from doing so be greater than the gain available from unilateral
liberalisation; reciprocal concessions intend to ensure that such gains would
materialise.
3. Binding and enforceable commitments. The tariff commitments made by
WTO members in a multilateral trade negotiation and on accession are
enumerated in a schedule (list) of concessions. These schedules establish
“ceiling bindings”: a country can change its bindings, but only after negotiating
with its trading partners, which could mean compensating them for loss of
their trade. If satisfaction is not obtained, the complaining country may invoke
the WTO dispute settlement procedures.
4. Transparency. The WTO members are required to publish their trade
regulations, to maintain institutions allowing for the review of administrative
decisions affecting trade, to respond to requests for information by other
members, and to notify changes in trade policies to the WTO. These internal
transparency requirements are supplemented and facilitated by periodic
country-specific reports (trade policy reviews) through the Trade Policy
Review Mechanism (TPRM). The WTO system tries also to improve
predictability and stability, discouraging the use of quotas and other measures
used to set limits on quantities of imports.
5. Safety valves. In specific circumstances, governments are able to restrict
trade. There are three types of provisions in this direction: articles allowing for
the use of trade measures to attain non-economic objectives; articles aimed at
ensuring “fair competition’; and provisions permitting intervention in trade for
economic reasons.
The origins and evolution of WTO can briefly be stated as follows:
The WTO’s predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT),
was established after World War II in the wake of other new multilateral institutions
dedicated to international economic cooperation—notably the Bretton Woods
institutions known as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. A
comparable international institution for trade, named the International Trade
Organisation was successfully negotiated. The ITO was to be a United
Nations specialised agency and would address not only trade barriers, but other
issues indirectly related to trade, including employment, investment, restrictive
business practices, and commodity agreements. However, the ITO treaty was not
approved by the United States and a few other signatories and therefore never
went into effect.
In the absence of an international organisation for trade, GATT, over the years,
transformed itself into a de facto international organisation.
Seven rounds of negotiations occurred under GATT. The first GATT trade
rounds concentrated on further reducing tariffs. Then, the Kennedy Round in the
mid-sixties brought about a GATT anti-dumping Agreement and a section on
development. The Tokyo Round during the seventies was the first major attempt to
tackle trade barriers that do not take the form of tariffs, and to improve the system,
adopting a series of agreements on non-tariff barriers, which in some cases
interpreted existing GATT rules, and in others broke entirely new ground. Because
these plurilateral agreements were not accepted by the full GATT membership,
they were often informally called “codes”. Several of these codes were amended in
the Uruguay Round and turned into multilateral commitments accepted by all WTO
members. The Uruguay Round (launched in September 1986 was so far the
biggest negotiating mandate on trade; trading system extending to areas such as
intellectual property, trade in services, agriculture and textiles. The current Doha
Round (launched in November 2001) which is still on, and which, as an ambitious
effort, is expected to make globalisation more inclusive and help the world’s poor,
with agenda relating to trade liberalisation and new rule-making. The following
table sums up GATT and WTO trade Rounds.
Table 37.1 GATT and WTO Trade Rounds
Name Start Duration Countries Subjects Achievements

covered
Geneva April 1947 7 months 23 Tariffs Signing of

GATT, 45,000
tariff conces-
sions affecting
$10 billion of
trade
Annecy April 1949 5 months 13 Tariffs Countries

exchanged
some 5,000
tariff
concessions
Torquay September 8 months 38 Tariffs Countries

1950 exchanged
some 8,700
tariff
concessions,
cutting the
1948 tariff
levels
by 25%
Geneva January 5 months 26 Tariffs, $2.5 billion in
Il 1956 admission tariffreductions
of Japan
Dillon September 11 26 Tariffs Tariff

1960 months concessions
worth $4.9
billion of
world trade
Kennedy May 1964 37 62 Tariffs, Anti- Tariff

months dumping concessions
worth $40
billion of world
trade
Tokyo September 74 102 Tariffs, non- Tariffs,

1973 months tariff reductions
measures worth more
“framework” than
agreements. $300billion
dollars
achieved
Uruguay September 87 123 Tariffs, non- The round led

1986 months tariff to the creation
measures, of WTO, and
rules, extended the
services, range of trade
intellectual negotiations,
property, leading to
dispute major
settlement, reductions in
textiles, tariffs (about
agriculture, 40%) and
creation of agricultural
WTO, etc. subsidies, an
agreement to
allow full
access for
textiles and
clothing from
developing
countries, and
an extension of
intellectual
property rights.
Doha November 141 Tariffs, non-tariff The round is

2001 measures, not yet
agriculture, concluded.
labour
standards,
environment,
competition,
investment,
transparency, patents etc.

Major agreements agreed upon by the WTO members run into around sixty,
usually concluded in the Uruguay Round (1986-94). They cover vast areas from
tariff reduction on specific manufactured goods and service, while others deal with
trade in textiles, agriculture, services, trade in intellectual property, cross-border
investments, anti-dumping duties and the like.
Decisions are made by the all members together and by consensus. A majority
vote is also possible, but it has never been used in the WTO. After the decision by
individual countries, the VTO’s agreements are ratified in all members’
parliaments.
The structure of WTO is: The WTO’s top level decision-making body is the
Ministerial Conference which meets at least once every two years. Below this is
the General Council (normally ambassadors and heads of delegations in Geneva,
but sometimes officials sent from members’ capitals), which meets several times a
year in the Geneva headquarters. The General Council also meets at the Trade
Policy Review Body and the Dispute Settlement Body. At the next level, the Goods
Council, Services Council and Intellectual Property (TRIPS) Council report to the
General Council. Numerous specialised committees, working groups and working
parties deal with the individual agreements and other areas such as the
environment, development, membership applications and regional trade
agreements.
Major Agreements
Some of the major agreements are as follows.
Agreement on Agriculture (AoA)

The Agreement on Agriculture came into effect with the establishment of the WTO
at the beginning of 1995. The AoA has three central concepts, or “pillars”:
domestic support, market access and export subsidies.
General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)

The General Agreement on Trade in Services was created to extend the
multilateral trading system to service sector, in the same way the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) provides such a system for merchandise
trade. The Agreement entered into force in January 1995.
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPs)

The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights sets
down minimum standards for many forms of intellectual property (IP) regulation. It
was negotiated at the end of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1994.
Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary (SPS) Agreement

The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures — also
known as the SPS Agreement was negotiated during the Uruguay Round of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and entered into force with the
establishment of the WTO at the beginning of 1995.
Under the SPS agreement, the WTO sets constraints on members’ policies
relating to food safety (bacterial contaminants, pesticides, inspection and labelling)
as well as animal and plant health (imported pests and diseases).
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)

The Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade is an international treaty of the
World Trade Organisation. It was negotiated during the Uruguay Round of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and entered into force with the
establishment of WTO.
WTO, in addition to its full members, has a certain number of observers (28).
While Russia is an observer, it is not one of WTO’s members. The disputes arising
out of the WTO members are settled not unilaterally, but through the use of
multilateral system.
The WTO is criticised on a number of grounds. World trade has led to
divergence instead of convergence of income levels: the rich are getting richer and
the poor get poorer. Martin Khor, Director of the Third World Network, says that
WTO, in its operation, has a systematic bias towards rich countries and
multinational corporations, harming smaller countries, which have less negotiation
power. He argues that the developing nations have not benefited from the WTO
agreements of the Uruguay Round because the market access for such countries
has not improved, textile quotas have not phased out for them. Other critics claim
that the issues of labour relations and environment are steadfastly ignored. Steve
Charnovitz, former director of the Global Environment and Trade Study (GETS),
believes that the WTO “should begin to address the link between trade and labour
and environmental concerns.” Further, labour unions condemn the labour rights
record of developing countries, arguing that to the extent the WTO succeeds at
promoting globalisation, then in equal measure do the environment and labour
rights suffer. Bhagwati is also critical towards “rich-country lobbies seeking on
imposing their unrelated agendas on trade agreements.” Therefore, both Bhagwati
and Arvind Panagariya, Professor at Columbia University, have criticised the
introduction of TRIPs into the WTO framework, fearing that such non-trade
agendas might overwhelm the organisation’s function.
Other critics have characterised the decision-making in the WTO as
complicated, ineffective, unrepresentative and non-inclusive, and they have
proposed the establishment of a small, informal steering committee (a
“consultative board”) that can be delegated responsibility for developing
consensus on trade issues among the member countries. The Third World
Network has called the WTO “the most non-transparent of international
organisations” because “the vast majority of developing countries have very little
real say in the WTO system”.
ll. SOCIALIST ECONOMIES AND THE COUNCIL FOR MUTUAL

ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE
Socialist economies differ from liberal-capitalist economies. In such economies,
especially oriented towards Marxian ones, all means of production are owned by
the society while the whole process of production is conducted through planning.
The social products are distributed in accordance with what one contributes: from
each according to his abilities to each according to his work. There is no private
property permitted and there are no markets to buy and sell commodities. What is
owned is controlled by the state through the single official political (communist)
party. To that extent such an economy may be described as state capitalism or
party capitalism. Viotti and Kauppi (/nternational Relations and World Politics)
write: “Instead of privately owned capital being at the core of the domestic political
economies of these (socialist-Marxian) countries, capital was expropriated in the
name of the “people” from private owners. It was concentrated in the hands of
state authorities in centrally planned or controlled economies following a Leninist
political design of ‘democratic centralism’ within a ruling party apparatus’.
Continuing their argument, they say, “... the centrally planned and directed political
economies of these regimes still remain(ed) part of a worldwide capitalist political
economy and retain(ed) in their domestic political economies a capitalist reliance
on markets, money and investment subject to state direction or control with a
supporting commercial culture expressed in a Marxist-Leninist materialist ideology
. State capitalism is not free-market capitalism, but it bears the marks of capitalism
all the same.”
With the establishment of communist regime after World War Il in the East
European States as elsewhere, China particularly, and with growing dominance of
e US politics and economy in most areas of the world, the Soviet Stalin sought to
strengthen the Soviet bloc. A communist institution organisation known as the
Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA), also described as COMECON
was established in 1949 to organise the eastern European economies in the
Stalinist mould, even to the point of striving for autarchy for individual members,
each pursuing independent, centralised plans. However, this proved unsuccessful
and in 1958 COMECON was reorganised by Khrushchev. The goal of autarchy
was abandoned, but the mutual trade among the members of the Soviet bloc was
fostered. After the collapse of Soviet Union in 1991, the CMEA or COMECON
members began scrambling to join up with the world economy. The
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) may hopefully become an economic
coordinating body for a free trade area in the region.
The decision to establish the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA)
was announced in a joint communiqué issued by Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia,
Hungary, Poland, Romania, and the Soviet Union in January 1949. Albania joined
in February 1949; East Germany in 1950; Mongolia in 1962; Cuba in 1972, and
Vietnam in 1978. Albania ceased participation in 1961.
COMECON or CMEA members were united by their commitment to Marxism-
Leninism, Soviet-style central planning, and economic development. COMECON
served as an organisational counterweight first to the Marshall Plan and then to
the European Iron and Steel Community and its successor, the European
Economic Community.
The Soviet Union dominated COMECON. From 1949 to 1953, Stalin used
COMECON primarily to redirect members’ trade from outside COMECON to within
COMECON and to promote substitution of domestic production for imports from
outside COMECON. The COMECON econoniic integration function was stepped
up in 1956, the year of the Soviet invasion of Hungary, with the establishment of
eight standing commissions, each planning for a different economic sector across
the member countries. Notable real achievements included partial unification of
electric power grids across East European members, coordination of rail and river
transport in Eastern Europe, and the construction of the Friendship pipeline to
deliver Siberian oil to Eastern Europe. In 1971, the COMECON initiated a
compromise Comprehensive Programme for Socialist Economic Integration as a
counterweight to integration within the European Economic Community. The
COMECON continued planning various integration and coordination efforts
through the 1970s and 1980s. In 1985-86, these efforts culminated in the
Comprehensive Programme for Scientific and Technical Progress to the Year
2000. With the loss of Soviet control over its East European trading partners,
COMECON tried to survive as a purely coordinating body, but was finally formally
disbanded in June 1991.
lil. DEVELOPING NATIONS: NEW INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC
ORDER
The term New International Economic Order (NIEO) has been derived from the
Declaration for the Establishment of a New International Economic Order adopted
by the United Nations General Assembly in 1974. It constitutes a set of proposals
put forth in 1974 by the developing countries:
(a) to promote their interests by improving their terms of trade;
(b) to increase development assistance; and
(c) to reduce developed countries tariff.
The demand for a just and fair economic order was first made in the Algiers
NAM Summit in
1973 which was formally resolved the following year by the United Nations
General Assembly. The demand for New International Economic Order was made
to correct the global economic imbalance so as to establish equality. Global
inequality exists between the developed nations, mostly of the northern
hemisphere and the developing ones, mostly of the southern hemisphere in fields
such as trade, level of development, consumption of energy, and possession of
technology. The rich nations have all these while the poor nations do not have
them. The colonial West exploited the colonial people of Asia and Africa and made
them poor in every respect. It is now neo-colonialism and globalisation through
which the process of exploiting the developing people is being carried on. The two
world wars (1914-18, 1939-45) did damage the economies of the West, but they
soon marched on their path of reconstruction through the Bretton Woods
institutions. The colonial people who obtained independence, following World War
ll, were yet to build themselves, for they had with them economic backwardness,
unemployment, illiteracy, social apathy, ill-equipped tools and implements, and
political inexperience. The colonial states became independent, but with poverty
and underdevelopment as their lot. Over 100 developing countries with 2/3rd
population of the world accounted for only 20 per cent of the world’s industrial
output in late 1950s.
The difference between the rich northern nations and the poor southern states is
that of affluence and poverty. The existing economic order is both unjust and
discriminatory. During a 30 year period between 1950 and 1980, per capita
income in the developed countries increased on an average by $ 6500 whereas in
the developing countries, average increase in per capita income was a mere $80.
The share of developing countries in the total world production was just 15 per
cent in 1970, 18 per cent in 1980, and about 20 per cent in 1980. That means 80
per cent of production is being recorded in a small number of developed countries.
In the late 1980s, the total population in developing countries was about 67 per
cent of world’s population, but even their agricultural production was just 38 per
cent of that of the world. This is when developing countries primarily depend upon
agriculture. Industrial power in developing countries is less that 10 per cent, while
more than 90 per cent is in the developed countries. Of the total exports per year
in the world, exports from developing countries amount to only 22 per cent.
The demand for reforms in the international economic order was forcefully
articulated in the early 1960s. The United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development was established in 1964 so as to serve as a platform for the
articulation of demands for better trade relations. It was also the time when the
Group of 77 developing and developed countries was also established. The
general feeling, then, was that the rich nations and the Bretton Woods Institutions
were lukewarm towards the demands of the developing nations. The energy crisis
of early 1970s also prepared ground for the world institutions to have a favourable
view of the problems faced by the developing nations. These included institutions
such as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), International
Development Association (IDA) and the UNCTAD. The UNDP, composed of 17
agencies, was established for the development of production in, and purchasing
power of, nearly 125 developing countries. The IDA was set up to provide loans for
development projects on easy terms.
After the Lusaka Summit (1970) of the NAM, the developing countries presented
their case in the U.N. General Assembly in 1970 on the occasion of consideration
of Second Development Decade. The developing countries sought for higher rate
of development with the help of United Nations system. Meanwhile, the Group of
77 continued to deal with the issues related with an economic system based on
equality and justice.
The Algiers NAM Summit of 1973 sought the special session of the United
Nations General Assembly for considering the demand for the establishment of the
New International Economic Order (NIEO). The sixth special session of the
General Assembly adopted a resolution on May 1,
1974 and gave a call for a New International Economic Order. It was resolved
that:
“We, the Members of the United Nations ... solemnly proclaim our united
determination to work urgently for the establishment of a New International
Economic Order based on equity, sovereign equality, interdependence, common
interest and cooperation among all States, irrespective of their economic and
social systems, which shall correct inequalities and redress existing injustice,
make it possible to eliminate the widening gap between the developed and the
developing countries, and ensure steadily accelerating economic and social
development in peace and justice for present and future generations.”
This resolution became the basis for the formation of a just and equitable
international economic system. A reference may be made here to Article 55 of the
United Nations Charter which makes the United Nations responsible for creation of
proper conditions of economic progress and development. It says:
“With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well being which are
necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations... the United Nations
shall promote:
(a) higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic
and social progress and development; and
(b) solutions of international economic, social health, and related
problems...”.
The concept of New International Economic Order is not based on donor-donee
relationship. It does not seek charity from the developed countries. There is a
growing realisation that economic problems of developing states need to be solved
only through aid and assistance. North-South relations have to be transformed into
a mutually beneficial relationship. New International Economic Order seeks a new
relationship between the developed and the developing countries on the basis of
mutual reciprocity, give and take, in which ultimately the developed countries will
also stand to gain. NIEO is not a mere reiteration of UNCTAD resolutions. It seeks
to create a futuristic and forward-looking scenario. It adopts an integrated
approach to international economic problems through steps such as an integrated
programme of economic development and a code of conduct in respect of transfer
of technology and the conduct of multinational corporations.
The aim of New International Economic Order is to create a restructured system
based on cooperation rather than confrontation. The NIEO looks at the resources
of the world as common heritage of mankind. Finally, NIEO believes that peace
and prosperity go together. So long as the developing countries continue to be
deprived, there can be no real and lasting peace in the world. Thus, NIEO is
essential for international peace and security. It is a message for a world based on
social justice and free from exploitation. It seeks to ensure adequate transfer of
technology to the developing countries to ensure all-round development,
discouraging brain drain by providing better opportunities within the country to the
young intellectuals, scientists, doctors, etc. The NIEO seeks more favourable
conditions of trade for the developing countries. It wants a system in which buffer
stocks would be ensured and the South-South cooperation will include economic
and technological cooperation. The developing countries are trying to emphasise,
under NIEO, that the IMF and World Bank decision-making would be fair and just
towards them.
A conference was held in Paris in 1975 to work out cooperation between the
developed and the developing countries. The idea of the conference was to devise
a mechanism for the introduction of New International Economic Order. The Paris
meet was attended by 27 countries, which included 19 developing, and 8
developed-industrialised countries. Thus, it came to be known as North-South
Dialogue. The Paris Conference on International Economic Cooperation (CIEC)
met for 19 months, but with modest results. Meanwhile, the UN General Assembly
in 1975 stressed that the overall objective of NIEO was to increase the capacity of
developing countries, individually and collectively, to pursue their development.
The idea of promoting collective self-reliance among the developing countries
became one of the essential components of the NIEO.
To augment the cause of the NIEO, the United Nations, in November 1977,
appointed an Independent Commission on International Development Issues. The
Commission was headed by former West German Chancellor Willy Brandt and
was composed of 18 eminent experts including L.K. Jha (India), Edward Health
(Britain) and Olof Palme (Sweden). The Commission came to be known as the
Brandt Commission. The UN Resolution of the New International Economic Order
and the Programme of Action (1974) were the bases of Brandt Commission
negotiations. Its 304 page report was finalised after two years of hard labour late in
1979, and was presented to UN Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim in February
1980.
The principal theme of the Brandt Report was mutuality of North-South interest,
which called for joint efforts for a common goal. The Report said, “We are
convinced that there are gains for all in a new order of international economic
relations.” The Commission called upon the developed countries to change their
ways in their own interest. However, the Report did not evoke much enthusiasm in
the North, though it was welcomed in the G-7 of highly industrialised countries
summit held in Venice in 1980. In March 1980, the Group of 77 demanded
decisive measures towards NIEO and an end of economic colonialism. In June
1980, the Geneva Accord initiated by 101 countries created a 750 million dollar
Common Fund under the auspices of UNCTAD-V for establishing the raw material
prices. This fund was an important, though modest step in the direction of
implementation of NIEO.
A North-South Summit was held at Cancun (Mexico) on October 22-23, 1981. It
was attended by 22 countries representing both developed and developing
countries. They all had more than half of the World’s population between
themselves. The Cancun Summit agreed that in the interest of a New International
Economic Order, the developing countries should be provided immediate
assistance for the development of alternative sources of energy. Two years later,
seven highly industrialised countries in their meeting at Williamsburg (Virginia)
declared their willingness to increase assistance to the developing countries. This
decision has been reiterated several times since 1983, but the quantum of
assistance has been found unsatisfactory by the developing countries. The Brandt
Commission, in another report, in February 1983 highlighted the lack of progress
in the establishment of a New International Economic Order.
SUMMING UP
The demand for a New International Economic Order was initially made by NAM in
1973 and formally endorsed by the United Nations in 1974. During the next twenty
years this demand gained momentum. Dialogues between North and South were
initiated and continued for better monetary regulation and improved trade
relations. The developing countries realised that they could not be full partners in
international trade and could not achieve their proper development until donor-
donee relationship was completely changed. Economic assistance from North is
important, yet nothing would be achieved without a self-reliant approach. The
South-South cooperation is being encouraged.
The efforts of NIEO are, indeed, laudable. And yet the global economic order is
one that is dominated by the developed world and its institutions like the World
Trade Organisation. The globalisation measures too do not favour the developing
world. Certain structural changes are needed in the global economy. The existing
economic framework has to be so changed that it is able to achieve international
economic cooperation, solidarity and all-round development.
The process of economic liberalisation as has been launched by several
countries aims at improving and modernising their economies. The result has
indeed been encouraging. The developing countries are in the process of
development and once they get developed, the international economic order would
itself become fair and just.
Practice Questions
1. Explain the Mercantilist, Capitalist-Liberal and the

Marxist perspectives of world economy. (200-250 words)
2. Give a brief account of the development of economy
from mercantilism to globalisation. (700-800 words)
3. What do you mean by Bretton Woods System? List the
institutions established by it. (700-800 words)
4. Discuss the organisation, objectives/functions and
principles of World Trade Organisation. (700-800 words)
5. Write a brief note on Council for Mutual Economic
Assistance (CMEA). (200-250 words)
6. Explain the rationale behind the New International
Economic Order (NIEO). (700-800 words)
7. Sketch the Leadership role of India in WTO. (2013) (200-
250 words)
8. Discuss the main factors that have contributed to the
gradual transformation of the world from Billiard Ball
Model to Cobweb Model. (2014) (700-800 words)
9. How do you explain the growing importance of the
multinational corporation and_ civil society’ in
contemporary international politics? (2014) (700-800
words)
10. Identify the major changes in the international political
economy of the post-cold war period. (2013) (200-250
words)
Ci
‘The United Nations System
Ty he United Nations as an international organisation

exists with its system, a whole range of specialised
agencies covering almost every aspect of human life.
All these together make the world safe for world peace, if not
for democracy. There was the League of Nations in the
1920s, but the world could not be made safer and World War
Il had occurred in 1939. Then, there emerged the United
Nations in 1945 and the world had a sigh of relief. We have
not witnessed any world war since then. There is no surety
that a world war will not occur, but the reality is that it has not
occurred since, and hopefully it will not in the future also. War
did not occur when there were all chances of war during, say,
the cold war period (opposing armies and armaments stood
confronting each other). Then, how could war occur now
when there is no such likelihood?
Now, there is United Nations which stands to safeguard
world peace; there is the General Assembly ready to
deliberate any issue that threatens peace; there is the
Security Council ready to meet and discuss problems of world
security; there is a whole range of regional organisations
(European Union, South Asian Association of Regional
Cooperation, Association of South East Asian Nations with
their full members and observers drawn from all parts of the
world) working in the spirit of cooperation and friendship;
there is the non-alignment movement with 118 states voicing
against any state howsoever powerful it may be if it tries to
intimidate any other state; there are the financial, trade,
communication, international organisations (the World Bank,
IMF, UNESCO, UPU, WHO, WTO and the like) connecting all
the states of the world. Why would the people allow any state
to destroy the world order created with all sacrifices? The
arsenal administrators, the quantity of the weapons which
they possess and with which they can destroy our earth over
twenty times, would not be allowed to indulge in so horrible a
catastrophe. What all this means is that we are safe under the
shadow of weapons, and under the shadow of terrorism. The
world had never been so safe earlier. The major credit for this
situation goes to the United Nations. Under its nose, the
nuclear weapons are being made, and yet we are safe. We
are safe under uncertainties, and we are safe under
helplessness.
| THE UNITED NATIONS: GENERAL

The United Nations (UN) with 192 members as of 2008 is an
international organisation of sovereign states. Founded in
1945 after World War II the UN exists to maintain world peace
and security, to develop friendly relations among nations, to
promote cooperation in resolving world’s problems, to create
harmony among its members, and to encourage respect for
human rights.
The purposes of the UN find space in Article 1 of the
Charter and these are:
to maintain international peace and security;

to develop friendly relations among nations;
to achieve international cooperation in solving
international problems of an economic, social, cultural
or humanitarian character, and in promoting and
encouraging respect for human rights and for
fundamental freedoms; and
to be a centre for harmonising the actions of nations in
the attainment of their common interests.
Article 2 of the Charter refers to the principles on which the

UN functions. These are:
all the members of the UN are sovereign and are equal;

all have to fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by
them as specified in the Charter;
all the members agree to settle their national disputes
by peaceful means and in a manner that the world
peace and security are not endangered;
all the members would refrain from the threat as use of
force against the territorial integrity and political
independence of the other states;
all the members would assist the UN in any action that it
takes in accordance with the Charter and shall refrain
from giving assistance to any state against the UN; and
Vi. the members would not interfere in the internal affairs of
any other member-state or any other state which is not
a UN member.
Member-States of UNO
Following is the list of the 192 Member-States of the United
Nations with dates on which they joined the organisation:
Afghanistan — (19th Nov., Barbados — (9th Dec.,

1946) 1966)
Albania — (14th Dec., Belarus — (24th Oct., 1945)

1955)
Algeria — (8th Oct., 1962) Cambodia — (14 Dec.

1955)
Andorra — (28th July, 1993) Cameroon — (20 Sep.

1960)
Angola — (1st Dec., 1976) Canada — (9 Nov. 1945)
Antigua and Barbuda — Cape Verde — (16 Sep.

(11th Nov., 1981) 1975)
Argentina — (24th Oct., Central African Republic —

1945) (20 Sep. 1960)
Armenia — (2nd Mar., Chad — (20 Sep. 1960)

1992)
Australia — (1st Nov., Chile — (24 Oct. 1945)

1945)
Austria— (14th Dec., 1955) China — (24 Oct. 1945)
Azerbaijan — (2nd Mar., Colombia — (5 Nov. 1945)

1992)
Bahamas — (18th Sep., Comoros — (12 Nov. 1975)
1973)
Bahrain — (21st Sep., Costa Rica — (2 Nov.

1971) 1945)
Bangladesh — (17th Sep., Céte d’lvoire — (20 Sep.

1974) 1960)
Croatia — (22 May 1992) Ethiopia — (13 Nov. 1945)
Cuba — (24 Oct. 1945) Fiji — (13 Oct. 1970)
Cyprus — (20 Sep. 1960) Finland — (14 Dec. 1955)
Czech Republic — (19 Jan. France— (24 Oct. 1945)

1993)
Qatar — (September 21, Gabon — (20 Sep. 1960)
1971)
Democratic People’s Gambia — (21 Sep. 1965)

Republic of Korea —
(17 Sept. 1991) Georgia — (31 July 1992)
Democratic Republic of the Germany — (18 Sep. 1973)

Congo — (20
Sept. 1960) Ghana — (8 Mar. 1957)
Denmark — (24 Oct. 1945) Greece — (25 Oct. 1945)

Djibouti — (20 Sep. 1977) Grenada — (17 Sep. 1974)
Dominica — (18 Dec. 1978) Guatemala — (21 Nov.

1945)
Dominican Republic — (24 Guinea — (12 Dec. 1958)

Oct. 1945)
Ecuador— (21 Dec. 1945) Guinea-Bissau — (17 Sep.

1974)
Egypt — (24 Oct. 1945) Guyana — (20 Sep. 1966)
El Salvador — (24 Oct. Haiti — (24 Oct. 1945)

1945)
Equatorial Guinea — (12 Honduras — (17 Dec.

Nov. 1968) 1945)
Eritrea — (28 May 1993) Hungary — (14 Dec. 1955)
Estonia — (17 Sep. 1991)
Iceland — (19 Nov. 1946) Malaysia— (17 Sep. 1957)
India — (30 Oct. 1945) Maldives— (21 Sep. 1965)
Indonesia — (28 Sep. Mali — (28 Sep. 1960)

1950)
Iran (Islamic Republic of) — Malta — (1 Dec. 1964)

(24 Oct. 1945)
Iraq — (21 Dec. 1945) Marshall Islands — (17
Sep. 1991)
lreland — (14 Dec. 1955) Mauritania — (27 Oct.

1961)
Israel — (11 May 1949) Mauritius — (24 Apr. 1968)
Italy — (14 Dec. 1955) Mexico — (7 Nov. 1945)
Jamaica — (18 Sep. 1962) Micronesia (Federated

States of) — (17
Japan — (18 Dec. 1956) Sep. 1991)

Jordan — (14 Dec. 1955) Moldova (Republic of) — (2
Mar. 1992)
Kazakhstan — (2 Mar. Monaco — (28 May 1993)

1992)
Kenya — (16 Dec. 1963) Mongolia — (27 Oct. 1961)
Kiribati — (14 Sept. 1999) Montenegro — (28 June,

2006)
Korea (Republic of) — (17 Morocco — (12 Nov. 1956)

Sep. 1991)
Kuwait — (14 May 1963) Mozambique — (16 Sep.

1975)
Kyrgyzstan — (2 Mar. Myanmar — (19 Apr. 1948)
1992)
Lao People’s Democratic Namibia — (23 Apr. 1990)

Republic — (14
Dec. 1955) Nauru — (14 Sept. 1999)
Latvia — (17 Sep. 1991) Nepal — (14 Dec. 1955)
Lebanon — (24 Oct. 1945) Netherlands — (10 Dec.

1945)
Lesotho — (17 Oct. 1966) New Zealand — (24 Oct.

1945)
Liberia — (2 Nov. 1945) Nicaragua — (24 Oct.

1945)
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya — Niger — (20 Sep. 1960)

(14 Dec. 1955)
Liechtenstein— (18 Sep. Nigeria — (7 Oct. 1960)

1990)
Lithuania — (17 Sep. 1991) Norway — (27 Nov. 1945)
Luxembourg— (24 Oct. Oman — (7 Oct. 1971)

1945)
Macedonia (The former Pakistan — (30 Sep. 1947)
Yugoslav Republic
of) — (8 Apr. 1993) Palau — (15 Dec. 1994)
Madagascar — (20 Sep. Panama — (13 Nov. 1945)

1960)
Malawi — (1 Dec. 1964) Papua New Guinea — (10

Oct. 1975)
Paraguay — (24 Oct. 1945) Swaziland — (24 Sep.

1968)
Peru — (31 Oct. 1945) Sweden — (19 Nov. 1946)
Philippines — (24 Oct. Switzerland — (10 Sep.

1945) 2002)
Poland — (24 Oct. 1945) Syrian Arab Republic — (24

Oct. 1945)
Portugal — (14 Dec. 1955) Tajikistan — (2 Mar. 1992)
Republic of Korea (17 Sep. Tanzania (United Republic

1991) of) — (14 Dec.
Republic of Moldova (2 1961)

March, 1992)
Romania — (14 Dec. 1955) Thailand — (16 Dec. 1946)

Russian Federation — (24 Timor-Leste — (27 Sep.
Oct. 1945) 2002)
Rwanda — (18 Sep. 1962) Togo — (20 Sep. 1960)
Saint Kitts and Nevis — (23 Tonga — (14 Sep. 1999)

Sep. 1983)
Saint Lucia — (18 Sep. Trinidad and Tobago — (18

1979) Sep. 1962)
Saint Vincent and the Tunisia — (12 Nov. 1956)

Grenadines -(16
Sep.1980) Turkey — (24 Oct. 1945)
Samoa — (15 Dec. 1976) Turkmenistan — (2 Mar.

1992)
San Marino — (2 Mar. Tuvalu — (5 Sept. 2000)

1992)
Sao Tome and Principe — Uganda — (25 Oct. 1962)

(16 Sep. 1975)
Saudi Arabia — (24 Oct. Ukraine— (24 Oct. 1945)

1945)
Senegal — (28 Sep. 1960) United Arab Emirates — (9

Dec. 1971)
Serbia — (1 Nov. 2000) United Kingdom of Great
Britain and
Seychelles — (21 Sep. Northern lreland— (24 Oct.

1976) 1945)
Sierra Leone — (27 Sep. United States of America —

1961) (24 Oct. 1945)
Singapore — (21 Sep. Uruguay — (18 Dec. 1945)

1965)
Slovakia — (19 Jan. 1993) Uzbekistan — (2 Mar.

1992)
Slovenia — (22 May 1992) Vanuatu — (15 Sep. 1981)
Solomon Islands — (19 Venezuela (Bolivarian

Sep. 1978) Republic of) — (15
Somalia — (20 Sep. 1960) Nov. 1945)
South Africa — (7 Nov. Viet Nam — (20 Sep. 1977)

1945)
Spain — (14 Dec. 1955) Yemen — (30 Sep. 1947)
Sri Lanka — (14 Dec. 1955) Zambia — (1 Dec. 1964)
Sudan — (12 Nov. 1956) Zimbabwe — (25 Aug.

1980)
Suriname — (4 Dec. 1975)

UN membership is open to any country willing to further the
UN objectives and abide by its rules. Each country, no matter
how large or small, has an equal voice and vote. Each
country is also expected to pay dues to support the UN.
According to Article 4, the admission of a new state in the UN
is effected by a decision of the General Assembly on the
recommendations of the Security Council.
The League of Nations (1920-39) having failed in its
objectives of maintaining peace and security, the important
leaders of the world began visualising the formation of a new
international organisation even during the course of World
War Il. The U.S. President Roosevelt and the British Prime
Minister Winston Churchill announced the Atlantic Charter in
1941 in which they pledged to work toward a system to keep
world peace and_ promote cooperation. In 1942,
representatives of the Allies—the World War II coalition of 26
nations fighting against Germany, Italy and Japan—signed a
Declaration by United Nations accepting the principles of the
Atlantic Charter. The declaration included the first formal use
of the term United Nations, a name coined by President
Roosevelt. A year later, four of the Allies — the United States,
the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and China—agreed to
establish a general international organisation. The four
countries met in 1944 at the Dumbarton Oaks estate in
Washington D.C. and drafted a Charter for the new
organisation. They called the new league the United Nations,
but they still could not agree to certain details such as
membership and voting rights.
The four countries met again in early 1945 at a summit
known as Yalta Conference in Yalta, Ukraine. There, they
called for a conference of nations to complete their work. On
April 25, 1945, the United Nations Conference on
International Organisation convened in San Francisco with
delegates from 50 countries attending. The delegates worked
for two months to complete a Charter for the UN that included
its purpose, principles, and organisational structure. The
Charter contained a formal agreement committing all the
world’s nations to a common set of basic rules governing their
relations. The UN officially came into existence on October
24, 1945, with 51 member countries — the 50 represented at
the conference and Poland, which had not been able to send
a delegate.
| (B) STRUCTURE OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Though there are six principal organs of the United Nations
(The General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic
and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, the International
Court of Justice and the Secretariat), the Trusteeship Council
has formally suspended operations since November 1994.
These operative principal organs are discussed hereunder:
I (a)(i) The General Assembly

The General Assembly is composed of all the member-states
of the United Nations each with one vote, though the
member’s delegation consists of a number of officials. It
undertakes all major decisions, routine matters with a simple
majority vote while the important decisions require a two-third
majority. The General Assembly is like a global town hall,
providing a powerful means to the member-states the
opportunity to put forward their views on matters relating to
the UN Charter. The Assembly debates issues, discusses
matters, and makes recommendations on any item covered
by the UN Charter though it cannot force its decisions on
member-states.
The General Assembly meets annually in a regular session,
which runs between mid-September and mid-December.
Special sessions can also be convened as also the
emergency sessions. At the beginning of the sessions, the
member-states elect a president to preside over its meetings.
The Assembly admits new members, can expel those which
are already members, approves the budget, elects members
so as to serve on its other organs, and coordinates activities
through its numerous committees.
The General Assembly is like the parliament of the nations
and as such is a forum for discussion of any matter that is
related to international peace and security. Increase in its
number, from 51 in 1945 to 192 till 2006 indicates that it has
supported the end of imperialism and colonialisation. The
Assembly represents the world. Through its numerous
committees, the Assembly has been able to take stock of
numerous issues that have confronted the world. The fact that
it has discussed matters like peace and_ security,
disarmament, social, cultural and humanitarian issues,
economic development and the like indicates that the
Assembly has made itself a debating society and a forum to
express concerns affecting the future of mankind. Its special
sessions (on Palestine in 1947, on financial situation facing
the UN in 1963, on disarmament in 1982, on World Summit
for children in 2002, for example) prove that the Assembly is
alive to the problems the world faces from time to time. The
Assembly’s discussions address the world’s concerns about
its problems. The Assembly has proved to be a consensual
body, working on the decisions reached through discussions
rather than through majority. Indeed, the Assembly’s
resolutions are recommendatory, but they are accepted and
implemented by the member-states having the strength of the
world’s public opinion. Since the end of the cold war, more
than 70 per cent of the Assembly’s resolutions have been
adopted by unanimous consent. Since 1990s, the trend
towards positive voting has increased. What this means is
that the Assembly is functioning as a negotiating body, rather
than a legislative body, though the caucus type of functioning
has begun in the process.
f- »
UNQuotes
“lam like a doctor. | have written a prescription to help the

patient. If the patient does not want all the pills, | have
recommended, that is up to him. But | must warn that next
time | will have to come as a surgeon with a knife.” Javier
Perez De Cuellar
“The whole basis of the United Nations is the right of all
nations - great or small - to have weight, to have a vote, to
be attended to, to be a part of the (present) century.”
Stevenson
“We prefer world law in the age of self-determination, to
World war in the age of mass extermination.” John F.
Kennedy
“The United Nations is designed to make possible lasting
freedom and independence for all its members”. Henry S.
Truman
“This organisation is created to prevent you from going to
hell. It is not created to take you to heaven.” Henry Lodge
“The basic rule of human nature is that powerful people
speak slowly and subservient people quickly ... because if
they do speak fast nobody will listen to them.” Michalel
Caine
“What the United States does best is to understand itself.
What it does worst is to understand others.” Carlos Fuentes
“America is the only nation in history which, miraculously,
has gone directly from barbarism to degeneration without
the usual interval of civilization.” Georges Clemencean
“Money has never made men happy, nor will it; there is
nothing in its nature to produce happiness. The more of it
one has, the more one wants.” Benjamin Franklin
“Money speaks in a language all nations understand.”
Aphra Behn
| (a)(ii) The Security Council

The Security Council is the most powerful organ of the United
Nations. It is like the executive of the UN government. To the
Security Council has been given the task of maintaining
international peace and security, restoring peace when there
are conflicts among the nations. Its decisions are binding and
have the sanctions of international law. It is the Security
Council which defines the threat to peace and security; it is
the Security Council which determines as to how the UN
would respond to such threats. It is the Security Council,
which enforces the decisions by ordering the member-states
to take certain actions (actions such as economic sanctions,
stopping and halting trade, sending peacekeeping forces and
the like). The Security Council can meet any time when there
is a threat to international peace or when a member-state
complains against any other state.
The Security Council has 15 members, 5 of which hold
permanent seats. The General Assembly elects the other 10
members for rotating two-year terms. The 5 permanent
members — the United States, the United Kingdom, France,
Russia (formerly the Soviet Union), and China—have the veto
power. The decisions of the Security Council on important
matters require nine votes which include five votes of its
permanent members. This is what is called the veto power.
This means that the Security Council is effective only when its
permanent members reach a consensus. During the cold war
period, i.e. between 1945 and 1990, the Security Council
frequently deadlocked because USA and USSR would not
agree. Beginning with 1990s, the increased cooperation
between USA and Russia (formally, the USSR) enabled the
Security Council to become relatively an effective body. The
Council has a variety of ways it can try to resolve conflicts
between countries. Usually, the Council’s first step is to
encourage the countries to settle their disagreements without
violence. The Council can mediate a dispute or recommend
guidelines for a settlement. It can send peacekeeping troops
into a distressed area. If war breaks out the Council can call
for a ceasefire. It can enforce its decisions by imposing
economic sanctions on a country, or by authorising joint
military action.
The Security Council is presided over by its President,
elected alphabetically, every month. The Council acts through
its numerous committees (Some such committees are:
committee on Admission of New Members, and Committee of
Experts on Rules and Procedures). Ad hoc committees can
also be established as also the sanctions committees.
The Security Council has numerous powers. It uses good
offices to resolve the disputes among the nations; it can send
forces as well. As of July 2005, it had endorsed war on two
occasions, in 1950 to defend South Korea against North
Korea, and in 1991 to remove invading Iraq from Kuwait. It
sends peacekeeping forces as well as peace-enforcing and
peace-making forces wherever required. It recommends to
the General Assembly new members for admission, old
members for expulsion, and the Secretary General’s name.
The Security Council recommends the methods for
adjudicating disputes, devises strategies to control
armaments (i.e., recommending disarmaments) and the like.
| (a)(iii) Economic and Social Council

The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) works under
the authority of the General Assembly so as to coordinate the
economic and social work of the UN. ECOSOC has 54
members elected by the General Assembly for three-year
terms, 1/3rd retiring every year. The ECOSOC coordinates
studies and recommends actions on international topics such
as medicine, education, economics, and social needs. It
promotes higher living standards, full employment, respect for
human rights, and economic and social progress. It oversees
the work of a large number of UN programmes and agencies.
It operates mainly through various standing committees,
functional commissions, and regional commissions. There are
five regional commissions that supervise as to how the UN
programmes in a particular region are working together.
There are ten functional commissions that deal with topics
such as population growth, narcotics trafficking, human rights,
and the status of women. Other committees work on topics
relevant to several UN programmes such as_ crime
prevention, public finance, natural resources, science and
technology, and geographical names. The ECOSOC
coordinates the work of many specialised agencies that
provide a variety of social, economic, and related services.
The agencies operate independently, but work with other
programmes in the UN. These agencies include the World
Health Organisation (WHO), the World Bank, the International
Monetary Fund; the United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), the International Labor
Organisation (ILO), and the Food and Agriculture
Organisation (FAO). The ECOSOC also works closely with
the private sector and with more than 2,000 non-
governmental organisations.
I (a)(iv) Trusteeship Council

The Trusteeship Council was established by the United
Nations so as to supervise eleven trust territories to be
administered by seven member-states. It was to ensure that
adequate steps were taken to prepare the said territories for
self-government. By 1994, all the trust territories were made
independent either as separate states or by joining the
neighbouring countries. Palau, for example, was the last such
territory which was administered by the United States of
America. Though not in operation, the Trusteeship Council
now has five permanent Security Council members.
I (a)(v) The International Court of Justice

The International Court of Justice, also known as the World
Court, is the judicial organ of the United Nations. It has 15
judges, elected by the General Assembly, and the Security
Council, for a period of nine years, 1/3 retiring every three
years. It is located at the Hague, the Netherlands. The
participation of the state as a party to any conflict is voluntary,
but if it agrees to participate, it is obligatory on the part of the
concerned state to agree to its decisions. The Court provides
advisory opinion to the General Assembly and the Security
Council on request. It registers treaties between the states. It
also helps in the codification of international law. It may be
noted that though the judges can be reelected, but no two
judges belong to the same state.
Normally, the disputant-states agree to the decision of the
International Court of Justice. However, there have been two
cases as of 2005 when one of the disputant did not comply
with the decisions of the Court; one, in 1946, in the Confu
Channel case when Albania failed to pay the United Kingdom
compensation for damages (the amount was £ 843,947); the
second, in 1984, in the case of Nicaragua vs. the USA in
which Nicaragua charged the US government with mining the
harbour of Minagua. Between 1946 and 2005, about one
hundred cases were referred to the world Court and the
decisions were made in eighty-nine. The rest are still pending
with the Court.
| (a)(vi) The Secretariat-The Secretary General

The Secretariat is the administrative organ of the United
Nations. It supervises the UN’s administration, programmes
and policies and executes day-to-day operations. It is headed
by the secretary general who acts as the UN’s spokesperson.
The Secretary General oversees the daily operations of the
UN and plays a major role in setting the UN’s agenda in
international security affairs. The Secretary General can bring
to the Security Council any matter that might threaten world
peace. He has the authority to serve as a neutral mediator in
international conflicts and to bring hostile parties together to
negotiate. His personal attention to a problem can often help
bring about a resolution. For example, in the 1990s, Secretary
General Boutros Boutros-Ghali personally mediated conflicts
in Somalia, the former Yugoslavia, and elsewhere. In the
1980s, Secretary General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar mediated
conflicts in Central America. The Secretary General also
works to build consensus among the five permanent
members of the Security Council, knowing that without it the
Council cannot act. The Secretary General is formally chosen
by the General Assembly. The Secretary General must first
be nominated by the Security Council and win the consent of
all five of its permanent members. The Secretary General
serves a five-year term which may be renewed. The Security
Council can nominate a candidate from any country, but it is
an unwritten tradition that the position rotates geographically,
with a Secretary General chosen from a new region after
every two terms. In 1997, the General Assembly created the
post of deputy Secretary General to assist in the
management of the Secretariat. The Secretary General
appoints the deputy Secretary General.
Kofi Annan of Ghana was elected by the General Assembly
to be Secretary General from 1997 through 2001. In 2001, the
General Assembly unanimously elected him to a second
term, running from 2002 through 2006. He is the first
Secretary General from sub-Saharan Africa and the first to
rise through the UN staff to the top job. Before becoming
Secretary General, Annan served as undersecretary general
for peacekeeping operations. Annan’s_ immediate
predecessor, Boutros Boutros-Ghali of Egypt, was Secretary
General from 1992 through 1996. He tried to expand the UN’s
role as peacekeeper and peacemaker. He was outspoken
with the Security Council, a trait that got him into trouble with
its members, particularly the United States. For example, he
scolded the Council for giving him big projects without enough
money to carry them out. In 1996, the United States vetoed
his candidacy for a second term. In 2007, Ban Ki Moon,
former foreign Minister of South Korea, was elected the
Secretary General. The secretaries general have come from
various regions of the world, but it is an unwritten rule that
they never should come from one of the most powerful
countries. This tradition is a response to concerns that a
Secretary General selected from such a country would not be
perceived by other nations as objective or neutral. There is
also a fear that such a selection would give the world’s most
influential nations that much more power. The early
Secretaries General included Trygve Lie of Norway, who
served from 1946 to 1953; Dag Hammarskjold of Sweden,
1953 to 1961; U Thant of Burma (now Myanmar), 1961
through 1971; Kurt Waldheim of Austria, 1972 to 1982; and
Javier Pérez de Cuéllar of Peru, 1982 through 1991.
| (b) United Nations: Functions and Role

The United Nations (UN) performs the same functions as
listed in its Charter. It provides to its members world peace. It
helps them to develop and prosper, thereby improving the
lives of their citizens. In addition to it, the UN provides a forum
for countries to promote their views and settle conflicts
without violence. It allows countries to cooperate to solve
world problems such as poverty, disease, and threats to the
environment. It serves as a symbol of international order and
global identity. It works to address economic and social
problems in developing countries. The UN helps coordinate
the work of hundreds of agencies and programmes, both
within its own organisation and outside it.
I(b)(a) Maintenance of International Peace and Security

United Nations has three primary ways to maintain
international peace and security. All directly involve the
Security Council: (i) Under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, the
UN can assist in the peaceful resolution of international
disputes. This authority has evolved into the use of UN-
authorised peacekeeping forces; (ii) Under Chapter VII of the
Charter, the UN can authorise military action to enforce its
resolutions; and (iii) the UN can serve as a forum for
international deliberations on long-term solutions to pressing
security issues such as arms control and terrorism.
Peacekeeping is the non-aggressive use of military force to
help nations in conflict reach a settlement. The UN Charter
does not mention peacekeeping forces, although Chapter VI
of the Charter does establish guidelines for peaceful
resolution of international conflicts. The UN’s | first
peacekeeping effort took place in the Middle East in 1948.
The UN sent unarmed observers to help maintain the truce
negotiated after five Arab countries attacked Israel earlier in
the year. The UN first used armed peacekeepers during the
Suez Crisis of 1956 when England, France, and Israel fought
Egypt for control of the Suez Canal. The peacekeepers
oversaw the withdrawal of the French, British, and Israeli
troops and acted as a buffer between the warring parties.
Today, the UN’s peacekeeping forces play a neutral role,
working to calm regional conflicts in several ways. They can
go into an area of conflict as observers, making sure
agreements reached between opposing sides are being
followed. They can provide a buffer between warring parties
by physically interposing themselves in the middle. They can
negotiate with military officers on both sides, providing a
channel of communication. They can also monitor ceasefires,
supervise elections, and provide humanitarian aid.
The Security Council grants authority for peacekeeping
missions, usually for several months, although the Council
can reauthorise missions for many years. The UN does not
have its own army, so the Security Council borrows forces for
each mission from the military and police personnel of
member-countries. The Security Council also chooses a
single commander, and the forces operate under UN
command. The forces operate only if the parties in conflict
agree to their presence. Thus, the success of a peacekeeping
mission depends upon the cooperation of the opposing
parties.
Peacekeeping forces are funded by special fees paid by
UN members. The General Assembly must approve the
funds. Today, lack of funds is the single greatest constraint in
the use of peacekeeping forces. As peacekeeping operations
have expanded, they have required more and more money.
UN peacekeepers won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1988 in
recognition of their successes. In the early 21st century the
UN had nearly 90,000 troops from 112 countries carrying out
peacekeeping missions in regions such as South Asia, the
Middle East, Eastern Europe, and Africa. For example, in
2007 the UN Security Council authorised a peacekeeping
force of 26,000 for the Darfur region of Sudan.
In addition to peacekeeping missions, the United Nations
can also authorise peace enforcement operations. Unlike
peacekeeping missions that help willing parties maintain an
existing peace agreement, peace enforcement operations
seek to repel international aggression using military force if
necessary. Under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the Security
Council may authorise member countries to take military
action in response to international breaches of the peace. The
UN’s founders initially envisioned Chapter VII as the teeth in
the UN Charter. An early example of the UN’s role in peace
enforcement came in 1950 when North Korea invaded South
Korea. The UN Security Council condemned the invasion and
authorised a multinational force led by the United States to
repel the attack.
The UN again authorised a peace enforcement mission in
1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. After Iraq refused to comply
with UN demands to withdraw, the UN launched a military
operation to expel Iraq from Kuwait in early 1991. This
operation was again led by the United States, and it included
a vast coalition of forces from many UN member countries.
UN-sponsored peace enforcement operations remain rare,
however, because all veto-power states do not generally
agree.
The UN Charter authorises the Security Council to plan for
worldwide disarmament and arms control. To help achieve
those goals, the UN has sponsored arms control negotiations
in Geneva, Switzerland, for decades. The General Assembly
also held a special session on disarmament in June 1982.
None of these UN activities have had much direct effect on
actual arsenals. Instead, during the Cold War, the most
important arms control agreements were reached by
countries negotiating directly with each other, particularly by
the United States and Soviet Union. At that time, arms control
was dominated by the nuclear arms race between the
superpowers. The United States and the Soviet Union
reached several important agreements and then other
countries signed on. Examples include the 1963 Limited Test
Ban Treaty, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, the 1968
Nonproliferation Treaty, and the 1990 Conventional Forces in
Europe Treaty. In some instances the General Assembly
ratified these agreements, but in none of these cases did the
UN play a major role. After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the
UN agencies sought to inspect Iraq’s secret nuclear weapons
programme. After Iraq had failed to cooperate, USA in March
2003, led a military assault on Iraq. However, U.S. forces
failed to find any evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass
destruction, and subsequent investigations revealed that
much of the pre-war intelligence about Iraq’s weapons
programmes was flawed.
I(b)(ii) Economic and Social Development

The United Nations promotes economic and_ social
development worldwide. It engages itself in numerous
activities so as to achieve such a goal. It operates on a
principle that economic and social development would bring
about lasting world peace. The UN Charter calls on the UN to
promote full employment for all, higher standards of living,
and economic and social progress. As a result, the UN
devotes a major proportion of its staff and budget to economic
development programmes worldwide. The General Assembly
has recognised the need to restructure international economic
relations to help developing countries and has recommended
a series of steps aimed at reducing the gap between wealthy
and poor countries.
4 a
United Nations: Major Achievements
e Deployed around 54 peacekeeping forces as of the

early years of 21S century; 18 missions still in
operation.
e Peace-making efforts through negotiations in
Cambodia, Namibia, El Salvador, Eritrea, Nicaragua,
South Africa, Kosovo, East Timor.
e Enabled people in over 45 countries to adopt and
promote democracy.
e Promoted development through economic assistance
and annual grants more than $ 10 million; UNDP in
cooperation with over 170 countries.
e UNICEF sends more than $800 million a year for child
health care in about 140 member-states.
e Promotion of Human Rights all over the world,
especially women’s rights in around one hundred
nations.
e Promotion of environments “Agenda 21”, especially
efforts at sustainable development.
e Helped minimise threat of nuclear war; prevents
nuclear proliferation, inspection on regular basis in
over 90 nations.
e Strengthened international law; the World Court
helped settle disputes.
e Over 30 million refugees received help from UN
sources.
e Helped eliminate apartheid.
e Assisted in eliminating hunger, poverty, diseases,
focus on rural development.
e Attempts at curbing global warming, natural disasters.
\ JS
The UN operates many programmes to promote economic

development and provide assistance to the developing
countries. One of those programmes is the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Many
developing countries rely on income from trade to support
their economic development efforts. UNCTAD was founded in
the 1960s to help negotiate international trade agreements
that stabilise prices and promote trade with developing
countries. During 1970s, the General Assembly included
these goals in its call for a New International Economic Order
to promote growth in developing nations. The other UN efforts
with regard to economic development relate to UNDP, i.e.
United Nations Development Programme. Thousands of
projects are funded by it. It is the world’s largest international
agency providing development and financial assistance.
The United Nations helps finance development through the
World Bank. The World Bank was established in 1944 to help
in the first instance the European nations recover their
economy, and after 1950s, the developing nations. The World
Bank grants loans to member-states to finance specific
projects and in the process encourages foreign investing. A
related agency, the International Monetary Fund (IMF),
established around the same time as the World Bank
encourages a stable and an orderly pattern of monetary
exchange rates among nations.
Promotion of Health is another area devoted to social
development. The World Health Organisation (WHO) is a
leading UN specialised agency which addresses global health
concerns. Its goal is to improve health through a number of
global health programmes. The WHO epidemiologists help
track outbreaks of new diseases and epidemics. For example,
the WHO was instrumental in diagnosing and containing the
spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in
2003. The WHO also helps deliver basic immunisations to
underserved populations. One of =the — greatest
accomplishments of the WHO was the eradication of
smallpox, a viral disease that once devastated humans
around the globe. The UN has also taken action to combat
the worldwide epidemic of Acquired Immuno-Deficiency
Syndrome (AIDS). In 1995, it established the Joint United
Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) to coordinate the
international response to the disease. In 2000, the United
States led a special session of the Security Council to
address the global threat from AIDS and the General
Assembly held a special session on AIDS the following year.
Sessions such as these focused global attention on the
disease and helped to win commitments of resources to the
UNAIDS programme.
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
encourages and coordinates sound environmental practices
throughout the world. It grapples with ways to approach
environmental problems on an international level, provides
expertise to member-countries, monitors environmental
conditions worldwide, develops environmental standards, and
recommends alternative energy sources.
f— a
An Agenda for Peace
In the early 1990s, after the end of the cold war, the UN
agenda for peace and _ security expanded quickly.
Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali outlined the more
ambitious role for the UN in his seminal report, An Agenda
for Peace. The report described interconnected roles for
the UN to maintain peace and security in the post-cold war
context. These included: o Preventive Diplomacy: Involving
confidence building measures, fact finding, and preventive
deployment of UN authorised forces.
e Peacemaking: designed to bring hostile parties to
agreement, essentially through peaceful means.
However, when all peaceful means have failed, peace
enforcement authorised under Chapter VII of the
Charter may be necessary. Peace enforcement may
occur without the consent of the parties.
e Peacekeeping: the deployment of a UN presence in
the field with the consent of all parties (this refers to
classical peacekeeping).
e Post-conflict Peace Building: to develop the social,
political and economic infrastructure to prevent further
violence and to consolidate peace
\ JS
UNEP’s work is guided by principles adopted at the 1992

UN Conference on Environment and Development, also
known as the Earth Summit. The summit, which took place in
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, was the largest such conference ever
held, attracting more than 100 national leaders. It was the
third international environmental conference hosted by the
UN. The first UN environment conference took place in
Stockholm, Sweden, in 1972. It adopted general
environmental principles such as the idea that one country’s
actions should not cause environmental damage to another. It
also raised awareness about the international aspects of
environmental damage. A second conference was held in
Nairobi, Kenya, in 1982. Nairobi is the headquarters of the
UN Environment Programme.
In 2002, UNEP sponsored the World Summit on
Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa.
This conference sought to help developing countries undergo
industrialisation without harming the environment. The United
Nations operates a host of other economic and social
programmes. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
addresses the needs of children worldwide. The International
Labour Organisation (ILO) advocates workers’ rights. The
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organisation (UNESCO) helps countries improve education
and literacy, promotes ethics in science, and works to
preserve cultural diversity.
I(b)(ii) Human Rights

One of the major functions of the UN is to promote and
encourage respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms for all people, regardless of race, sex, language, or
religion. After the atrocities committed by the Germans in the
holocaust, the slaughter of Jews that occurred during World
War Il, the UN adopted a Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. The declaration was adopted on December 10, 1948.
It proclaims that “all human beings are born free and equal”
and establishes basic rights for all people and norms for the
behaviour of governments in many areas. For example, it
says that all people have the right to liberty, religious and
political freedom, education, and economic well-being. It bans
torture and states that all people have the right to participate
in their governments.
The Human Rights Council (HRC) has replaced the earlier
Human Rights Commission. The HRC was established in
2006 to address the problem of human rights abuses. The
members of HRC are elected by the General Assembly. The
HRC reviews the human rights records of member countries,
and systematic violators of human rights can be suspended
from the Council by a two-thirds vote of the General
Assembly. The Council meets more frequently than the earlier
commission did—three times a year for a total of ten weeks
compared with the commission’s single session of six weeks
each year. The Council has the ability to meet quickly to
address a human rights emergency. The purpose of the
Council is to monitor human rights abuses in countries and
address complaints about human rights violations. The High
Commissioner for Human Rights, a position created in 1993,
oversees all of UN’s human rights programmes, works to
prevent human rights violations, and investigates human
rights abuses.
The UN has also drawn up four international conventions
(treaties) on human rights, which are legally binding but are
difficult to enforce. The conventions address the problems of
genocide, racial discrimination, civil and political rights, and
economic and social rights. The treaties have been ratified by
only about half of the world’s nations. United States has
ratified the convention on genocide.
One of UN’s most recent activities regarding human rights
has been the creation of special war crimes tribunals to
prosecute those responsible for atrocities committed during
civil wars in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra
Leone. These tribunals, established by the Security Council in
1993, 1994, and 2002 respectively, operate independently of
the UN. The UN also played an important role in the creation
of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to prosecute war
criminals, although the ICC is not a UN organ.
I(b)(iv) Humanitarian Assistance
Since the end of the Cold War, the United Nations has
become increasingly involved in providing humanitarian
assistance. The UN _ has_ successfully responded to
humanitarian crises caused by natural disasters such as
floods or hurricanes. Conflicts and wars may create refugee
crises, aS and when people flee their homes for fear of
persecution or harm. Agencies such as the Office of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
and the World Food Programme (WFP) can mobilise
international assistance in a short timeframe to respond to a
crisis. Increasingly, UN agencies work with non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) that provide relief and assistance, as
well as with the aid agencies of governments to coordinate a
global response to humanitarian crises. For example, in 1999
members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)
began to bomb the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to protest
its treatment of ethnic Albanians in the province of Kosovo.
The conflict created a massive flow of refugees out of Kosovo
and into the neighboring province of Montenegro and the
countries of Albania and Macedonia. International aid
agencies, led and coordinated by the UN, responded to the
crisis and were able to house, feed, and care for thousands of
refugees.
The UN played an important role in the development of
international law. Formally, the UN _ could produce
international law in two ways: First, Security Council
resolutions which have the force of international law, and
second, by the decisions of the World Court. Through these
two bodies the UN has been responsible for the development
of a significant body of international law. The UN, now, helps
evolve ideas about international law through numerous
conferences. Two UN commissions have been charged with
developing and codifying international law. The UN’s
International Law Commission, created in 1947, studies
important questions of international law and prepares drafts of
treaties codifying these topics. Over the years, topics have
included the law of the sea, diplomatic relations and
immunity, treaties between nations, shared natural resources,
nationality and statelessness, relations between nations and
international organisations and many other issues. The UN’s
Commission on International Trade Law, created in 1966,
drafts texts on laws concerning international commerce and
economic development. These commissions submit their
texts and recommendations to the General Assembly, which
may then call an international diplomatic conference to
incorporate the texts into a treaty.
I(b)(vi) Decolonisation
One of the tasks of the UN Charter was decolonisation —
ending the practice of colonialism. The Trusteeship Council
was established as the UN organ to aid in the decolonisation
process. As colonies gained their independence in the mid-
20th century, one of their first steps was to join the UN. This
act announced their arrival on the international stage as a full-
fledged member of the international community. The
Trusteeship Council served as a transitional authority to help
a country make the transition from a colony to an independent
nation.
ll. UNITED NATIONS SPECIALISED AGENCIES

The United Nations has numerous specialised agencies. The
UN Charter stipulates that the principal organs of the UN can
establish various specialised agencies to fulfil their
obligations. At present, there are sixteen such specialised
agencies. Some such agencies together with other bodies
can be briefly discussed.
(1) The Food and Agriculture Organisation—FAO

The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) is a specialised
UN agency. It was established on October 16, 1945. In 1951,
its headquarters were moved from Quebec (Canada) to
Washington (USA), and then to Rome (Italy). It has an FAO
conference which meets every two years to review the work,
and to approve a programme of work and its budget. The
conference elects a Council of 49 member-states who serve a
three-year rotating term. The Council acts as an interim
governing body. There is the director general who heads the
FAO. There are eight departments of the FAO. The FAO
helps modernise and improve agriculture, forestry and
fisheries practices, ensuring good nutrition and food security
for all. As of 2008, the FAO had 191 members, alongwith the
European Union and the Faroe Islands as its associate
members.
(2) International Atomic Energy Agency—lIAEA

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is an
intergovernmental forum for scientific and technical
cooperation in the field of nuclear technology. It seeks to
promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy and to inhibit its
use for military purposes. The IAEA was set up as an
autonomous organisation on July 29, 1957. Prior to this, in
1953, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower envisioned the
creation of this international body to control and develop the
use of atomic energy in his “Atoms for Peace” speech before
the UN General Assembly. The organisation and its Director
General, Mohamed E|Baradei, were jointly awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize announced on October 7, 2005. Its current
membership is 144 countries.
(3) International Civil Aviation Organisation—ICAO

The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) was
founded in 1947. It codifies the principles and techniques of
international air navigation and fosters the planning and
development of international air transport to ensure safe and
orderly growth. Its headquarters are located in the Quartier
international de Montréal of Montreal, Canada.
The ICAO Council adopts standards and recommended
practices concerning air navigation, prevention of unlawful
interference, and facilitation of border-crossing procedures for
international civil aviation. In addition, the ICAO defines the
protocols for air accident investigation followed by transport
safety authorities in countries signatory to the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, commonly known as the Chicago
Convention.
(4) International Labour Organisation—ILO

The International Labour Organisation is the specialised
agency of the United Nations which seeks the promotion of
social justice and internationally recognised human and
labour rights. It was founded in 1919 and is the only surviving
major creation of the Treaty of Versailles which brought the
League of Nations into being, and became the first
specialised agency of the UN in 1946. The ILO formulates
international labour standards in the form of Conventions and
Recommendations, setting minimum standards of basic
labour rights; freedom of association, the right to organise
and collective bargaining, abolition of forced labour, equality
of opportunity and treatment, and other standards regulating
conditions across the entire spectrum of work related issues.
It provides technical assistance primarily in the fields of
vocational training and vocational rehabilitation; employment
policy; labour administration; labour law and _ industrial
relations; working conditions; management development;
cooperatives; social security; labour — statistics and
occupational safety and health. It promotes the development
of independent employers’ and workers’ organisations. Within
the UN system, the ILO has a tripartite structure with workers
and employees participating as equal partners. The four
strategic functions of ILO are:
e Promote and realise fundamental principles and rights

at work;
e Create greater opportunities for women and men to
secure decent employment and income;
e Enhance the coverage and effectiveness of social
protection for all; and
e Strengthen tri-partism and social dialogue.
There is the International Labour Conference and a

Governing Body where the employees and the workers are
equally represented. The executive chief heads the ILO.
(5) International Telecommunication Union—ITU

The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) was
established to standardise and regulate international radio
and telecommunications. It was founded as the International
Telegraph Union in Paris on May 17, 1865. Its main tasks
include standardisation, allocation of the radio spectrum, and
organising interconnection arrangements between different
countries to allow international phone calls—in which regard it
performs for telecommunications a similar function to what
the UPU performs for postal services. It has its headquarters
in Geneva, Switzerland, next to the main United Nations
campus.
(6) United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organisation—UNESCO
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organisation) is a specialised agency of the United Nations
established in 1945. Its stated purpose is to contribute to
peace and security by promoting international collaboration
through education, science, and culture in order to further
universal respect for justice, the rule of law, and the human
rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the UN
Charter. The UNESCO works to:
e develop and promote universal principles and ideas,

based on the need to protect the vulnerable and
disadvantaged;
e recognise and safeguard diversity and human rights;
and
© promote empowerment and participation in the
emerging knowledge society through universal access,
capacity-building and sharing of knowledge.
The UNESCO functions as a laboratory of ideas—

anticipating and defining emerging challenges within its
mandated spheres of education, science, culture, information
and communication. It plays a pivotal role in gathering and
sharing available information, knowledge and best practices
within these spheres. The UNESCO serves as a central
forum for examining and identifying the ethical and intellectual
issues of our time, working towards universal agreements on
these issues, benchmarking targets and _ mobilising
international opinion. At the heart of the UNESCO’s mission
and activities is a global vision of a culture of peace based
upon observance of human rights, sustainable development,
mutual respect and the alleviation of poverty.
(7) United Nations Industrial Development Organisation—

UNIDO
The United Nations Industrial Development Organisation
(UNIDO), French/Spanish acronym ONUDI, is a specialised
agency in the United Nations system, headquartered in
Vienna, Austria. The organisation’s primary objective is the
promotion and acceleration of industrial development. in
developing countries and countries with economies in
transition and the promotion of international industrial
cooperation. UNIDO believes that competitive and
environmentally sustainable industry has a crucial role to play
in accelerating economic growth, reducing poverty and
achieving the Millennium Development Goals. The
organisation, therefore, works towards improving the quality
of life of the world’s poor by drawing on its combined global
resources and expertise in the following three interrelated
thematic areas:
e Poverty reduction through productive activities;

e Trade capacity-building; and
e Energy and environment.
(8) World Health Organisation—WHO

The World Health Organisation (WHO) is one of the original
agencies of the United Nations, its constitution formally
coming into force on the first World Health Day, (April 7,
1948), when it was ratified by the 26th member-state. Prior to
this its operations, as well as the remaining activities of the
League of Nations Helath Organisation, were under the
control of an Interim Commission following an International
Health Conference in the summer of 1946. The WHO
coordinates international efforts to monitor outbreaks of
infectious diseases such as SARS, malaria, swine flu, and
AIDS. The WHO also sponsors programmes to prevent and
treat such diseases. It supports the development and
distribution of safe and effective vaccines, pharmaceutical
diagnostics, and drugs. After over two decades of fighting
smallpox, the WHO declared in 1980 that the disease had
been eradicated — the first disease in history to be eliminated
by human effort. The WHO aims to eradicate polio within the
next few years. The organisation has already endorsed the
world’s first official HIV/AIDS Toolkit for Zimbabwe (from
October 3, 2006), making it an international standard. In
addition to its work in eradicating disease, the WHO also
carries out various health-related campaigns — for example,
to boost the consumption of fruits and vegetables worldwide
and to discourage tobacco use.
lll INDEPENDENT BODIES UNDER UNITED

NATIONS
Some of the independent bodies working under the guidance
of the United Nations are as under:
(1) United Nations Development Programme—UNDP

The UNDP was founded in 1965 to combine the Expanded
Programme of Technical Asisstance and the United Nations
Special Fund. In 1971, the two organisations were fully
combined into the UNDP. The UNDP is an executive board
within the UN General Assembly. Some of its functions are:
Democratic Governance: UNDP supports national

democratic transitions by providing policy advice and
technical support, improving institutional and individual
capacity within countries, educating populations about
and advocating democratic reforms, promoting
negotiation and dialogue, and sharing successful
experiences from other countries and locations. UNDP
also supports existing democratic institutions by
increasing dialogue, enhancing national debate, and
facilitating consensus on national governance
programmes.
. Poverty Reduction: UNDP helps countries develop
strategies to combat poverty by expanding access to
economic opportunities and resources, linking poverty
programmes with countries’ larger goals and policies,
and ensuring a greater voice for the poor. UNDP also
works at the macro level to reform trade, encourage
debt relief and foreign investment, and ensures that the
poorest of the poor benefit from globalisation.
Crisis Prevention and Recovery: UNDP works to reduce
the risk of armed conflicts or disasters, and promote
early recovery after crises have occurred. UNDP works
through its country offices to support local government
in needs assessment, capacity development,
coordinated planning, and policy and standard setting.
Examples of UNDP risk reduction programmes include
efforts to control small arms proliferation; strategies to
reduce the impact of natural disasters; and programmes
to encourage use of diplomacy and prevent violence.
Recovery programmes include disarmament,
demobilisation and reintegration of ex-combatants,
demining efforts, programmes to reintegrate displaced
persons, restoration of basic services, and transitional
justice systems for countries recovering from warfare.
iv. Environment and Energy: As the poor are
disproportionately affected by environmental
degradation and lack of access to clean, affordable
energy services, UNDP seeks to address environmental
issues in order to improve developing countries’ abilities
to develop sustainably. UNDP works with countries to
strengthen their capacity to address global
environmental issues by providing innovative policy
advice and linking partners through environmentally
sensitive development projects that help poor people
build sustainable livelihoods.
(2) United Nations Children s Fund—UNICEF

The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) was
established by the United Nations General Assembly on
December 11, 1946,to provide emergency food and
healthcare to children in countries which had been devastated
by World War Il. In 1953, UNICEF became a permanent part
of the United Nations System and its name was shortened
from the original United Nations International Children’s
Emergency Fund, but it has continued to be known by the
popular acronym based on this old name. Headquartered in
New York City, UNICEF provides long-term humanitarian and
developmental assistance to children and mothers in
developing countries. UNICEF relies on contributions from
governments and private donors. UNICEF’s total income for
2006 was $ 2,781,000,000. Governments contribute two
thirds of the organisation’s resources; private groups and
some 6 million individuals contribute the rest through the
National Committees. UNICEF’s programmes emphasise
developing community-level services to promote the health
and well-being of children. UNICEF was awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize in 1965 and the Prince of Asturias Award of
Concord in 2006. UNICEF’s three main priorities are:
i. Child Survival and Development,

ii. Basic Education and Gender Equality, and
iii. Child Protection from violence, exploitation and abuse.
IV. UNITED NATIONS: STRENGTH AND

LIMITATIONS
The United Nations has made a major contribution to world
peace, though there have not been many accomplishments
with regard to its political activities. Indeed, there has been no
third world war and the credit must go to the United Nations,
yet the conflicts among the nations have also been there. We
usually remember failures and forget about the successes;
the state-to-state conflicts in the later half of the twentieth
century have been less in number than such conflicts in the
first half of that century. We remember Rwanda, but forget
successful operations in El Salvador; we focus on Kosovo,
but forget Cyprus. If the UN peacekeeping missions have
failed, why should there have been more and more requests
for peace-making, peace-building and peacekeeping
missions? Colonialism and imperialism would not have ended
without the United Nations; more than 80 nations with more
than 750 million people would not have been freed from the
clutches of colonial rule without the United Nations. An annual
collection of $ 700 million in supplies for the children would
not have been collected without the efforts of UNICEF. Safe
water, sanitation programmes, elimination of diseases in over
100 countries would not have been a success without the
World Health Organisation. The world economy would not
have improved and developed without the World Bank, the
International Monetary Fund and the World Trade
Organisation. Who would do the work of UNESCO to foster
cooperative scientific and cultural programmes? Who would
provide the cooperative framework for ensuring safe air
travels if we did not have the UN’s Civil Aviation Agency?
Who would do the work of the
International Postal Union which arranges co-operative
agreements for international mail delivery? What agency
would provide the coordination agreements that put the www
in the World Wide Web if we did not have the International
Telecommunications Agency?
And yet, the United Nations has its weaknesses. The ideals
and the objectives of the United Nations have been lofty, but
it lacks the corresponding means to achieve them. The
sovereign rights of the member-states were acknowledged on
grounds of equality for each and all, but there were states
(veto power states), which were made more than equal. The
United Nations was constituted in such a way that the world
came to be dominated by five powerful states. The beginning
of the United Nations was rooted in artificial soil and it was
made to work on the selfish whims of certain powers. The
United Nations was never a representative body of the world
when it came into existence. The UN, from the start was a
collection of countries run by the kings, dictators, monopoly-
clad political parties under the guise of a two-party system
and moneyed interests.
Is it any wonder that we now have a World Monetary Fund,
a World Bank, a World Trade Organisation, World
Peacekeeping Forces, a World Court, and every other world
thing, while the world keeps spiraling in a materialistic ball of
ignorance and selfishness and fear and violence? This UN
blueprint is working just for those who created it for
themselves, but it does not work for everyday people and it
does not work, at its root level, with compassion and concern
for love and freedom.
The United Nations does not have its own army; it is not a
sovereign body; it does not have its own finances. USA,
which gives 25 per cent of the UN expenditure, imposes
restrictions on its functioning while some other states do not
pay their subscription regularly. The UN is functioning under
limitations, constraints which create tensions for it. The first is
the tension between the UN’s role as an autonomous actor
and its role as a collection of nations. The UN can call on
member-nations for action, but it has a hard time enforcing its
own resolutions because it is also committed to the principle
of sovereignty which asserts each country’s right to set its
own policies.
The UN requires member-nations to contribute to its
peacekeeping operations and relief missions, but when no
nation wants to contribute, it becomes an impotent body. The
UN also faces the tension of the gap between the developed
and developing world. The developing world represents the
majority of the UN’s members, both in terms of number of
countries and of global population. The developed world,
meanwhile, controls the majority of financial and military
resources available to the UN. Developing countries want to
build their societies, but to do this they need help from the
developed countries, many of which are reluctant to spend
their resources on others. There is another constant tension
between the International Law of the UN Charter and the
diplomacy that the member-nations conduct on a daily basis.
The UN Charter only has value to the extent that members
follow its provisions. Nations can ignore elements of the
Charter and can also work outside the Charter.
Peacekeeping, for example, is never mentioned in the
Charter but has become a key UN diplomatic function. A
longstanding tension exists between the UN and the United
States. The United States has a streak of isolationism in its
foreign policy that runs counter to the idea of the UN. It
always seeks to dominate the UN agenda; in its functioning
and in its activities, the USA dictates its own terms.
Constantly challenged, the United Nations still remains the
only forum where all the nations of the world gather to discuss
pressing issues of peace and security. The UN’s greatest
asset remains its ability to speak as the world’s voice.
V. UNITED NATIONS: REFORMS

That the United Nations has to be reformed was the definite
opinion of the former Secretary-General Kofi Annan. It is also
the priority of the present Secretary-General, Ban Ki Moon.
During the ten years of his tenure between 1997 and 2006,
Kofi Annan realised the significance of the reforms in the
United Nations if it has to conduct its work, implement its
mandate, and manage the funds entrusted to it.
The former Secretary-General initiated his reform agenda
with a bold vision in 1997 with “A Programme for Reform” —
A/51/950 [PDF, 5772K] (and its Addenda 1 [PDF, 15K], 2
[PDF, 22K], 3 [PDF, 14K], 4 [PDF, 15K], 5 [PDF, 16K], 6
[PDF, 22K] and 7 [PDF, 11K]). He followed it up in 2002 with
“An Agenda for Further Change [PDF, 175K]” (and
Corrigendum 1 [PDF, 18K]).
Security Council
The Security Council does not reflect today’s distribution of
military or economic power, and does not reflect a
geographic balance. Germany and Japan have made
strong cases for permanent membership. Developing
countries have demanded a better reflection of their
numbers in the Security Council, with countries such as
India, Egypt, Brazil, and Nigeria making particular claims.
However, it has proved to be impossible to reach
agreement on new permanent members. Should the
European Union be represented instead of Great Britain,
France and Germany individually? How would Pakistan feel
about India’s candidacy? How would South Africa feel
about a Nigerian seat? What about representation by an
Islamic country? These issues are not easy to resolve.
Likewise, it is very unlikely that the P-5 countries will
relinquish their veto. Nonetheless, while large-scale reform
has proved impossible, there have been changes in
Security Council working procedures that have made it
more transparent and accountable.
NX S
At the 2005 World Summit, the former Secretary-General

opined to Member-States that it was time for “bold decisions”
and submitted his report “In Larger Freedom”. On
management reform in particular and the World Summit
Outcome Document, the Secretary-General was requested
“to submit proposals for implementing management reforms
to the General Assembly for consideration and decision in the
first quarter of 2006.” He subsequently did so in his March
2007 reform report “Investing in the United Nations: For a
stronger organisation worldwide”. He also presented his
report “Mandating and Delivering” in March of 2006, laying
out a framework for updating and analysing mandates in each
of the Organisations’ programme priorities. An electronic
registry of mandates was produced which compiled all of the
approximately 9000 active mandates that guide the work of
the UN.
The former Secretary-General made certain proposals
which can be stated briefly as these: Restructuring of the
Security Council was one such proposal. He proposed in
March 2005, two plans for reforms in the Security Council
under the head “The Larger Freedom’. In one Plan A, he
called for creating six new permanent members, plus three
new non-permanent members. In Plan B, he called for
creating eight new permanent members, serving for four
years, and one non-permanent seat, making the strength of
the Security Council upto 24. In June 2005, five UN members
(Argentina, Italy, Canada, Columbia, and Pakistan)
representing a large number of member-states, in a Uniting
for Consensus, proposed twenty non-permanent members to
the already ten non-permanent membership of the Security
Council.
The 1997 reform package included a number of changes to
the Secretariat structure, most notably the creation of the
Department of Economic and Social Affairs from three
existing departments and consolidation of two programmes
into the Office on Drugs and Crime. The Centre for Human
Rights was also merged into the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights. At this time, approximately
1,000 staff posts that had not been filled in 1996 were
permanently eliminated.
Three important new structures were introduced to improve
UN management. First, the post of Deputy Secretary-General
was created in 1997 to strengthen the management of the
Organisation at the most senior level. Second, the Secretary-
General established his own cabinet in the form of the Senior
Management Group which included all the heads of the
Secretariat Offices and Departments as well as the Heads of
the UN Funds and Programmes. Finally, four sectoral
committees were formed to bring coherence to the work of
the UN on peace and security, humanitarian affairs,
development and economic and social affairs.
So as to improve the quality and speed of executive
decisions, the Secretary-General in 2005 established two new
committees. The Policy Committee advises him on issues
requiring strategic guidance and cross-cutting thematic policy
decisions, while the Management Committee considers
internal reform and management-related issues requiring
strategic direction from the Secretary-General.
Efforts to improve the overall efficiency of the Organisation
have moved on several fronts. In the 2004/5 budget cycle,
nearly 1000 reports and activities were consolidated or
discontinued and resources redeployed to higher-priority
areas of work. In his 2005 report, the Secretary-General
proposes that a more comprehensive review of mandates
older than five years be approved by Member-States. As of
2006, Member-States had not yet taken decisive action on
this proposal.
A High-Level Panel, chaired by Lakhdar Brahimi conducted
a comprehensive review of UN’s peace operations in 2000 in
what was to be later called the “Brahimi Report’. This has
also resulted in a major strengthening of the Organisation’s
planning and staffing capacity, and its rapid deployment
capability. The 2005 World Summit Outcome Document,
emphasising the need for a “coordinated, coherent and
integrated approach to post-conflict peacebuilding and
reconciliation”, and recognising the vital role of the United
Nations in that regard, decided to establish a Peacebuilding
Commission as an intergovernmental advisory body. This
Commission was to be supported by a Peacebuilding Support
Office, which was duly created by the Secretary-General in
May 2006. The Peacebuilding Support Fund, with a target of
$250 million and designed to support the activities of the
Peacebuilding Commission, had US$140 million pledged at
the time of launching it in October 2006.
In support of international efforts to combat terrorism, the
Secretary-General presented his report “Uniting against
Terrorism” in May 2006. This report presented elements for a
counterterrorism strategy that builds on the so-called “five Ds”
of the strategy presented by the Secretary-General in Madrid
in March 2005. The five Ds are:
e dissuading people from resorting to terrorism or

supporting it;
denying terrorists the means to carry out an attack;
deterring States from supporting terrorism;
developing State capacity to defeat terrorism; and
defending human rights.
This significant institutional reform builds on the Secretary-

General’s first term; a push was made to mainstream human
rights, particularly into the peacekeeping and development
work of the Organisation. The Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights established several sub-
offices in the field to enhance its response and monitoring
capacity. More assistance is now provided to countries to
build human rights institutions and to assist them in
compliance with treaties. The Secretary-General also
appointed a Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide,
and pressed the Security Council to ensure proper protection
of civilians in armed conflict. Member-States agreed to the
significant strengthening of the High Commissioner’s Office in
2005.
World leaders agreed to the creation of the Human Rights
Council to succeed the Human Rights Commission. By May
2006, the General Assembly elected the first 47 members of
the new Human Rights Council.
No institution claims to be perfect at any point of time.
There is always room for improvement in every institution.
The United Nations is, in this regard, no exception. All the
Secretaries-General from Trygve Lie down to the present Ban
Ki Moon have made suggestions for reforms in the UN. Kofi
Annan’s efforts, in this connection, are really praiseworthy.
The reforms suggested from time to time relate to fields such
as infrastructure, administration, finances, programmes and
the like. We propose to point out the UN reforms in two broad
categories: one, the general proposals for reforms, and other
particular ones:
The general proposals for reforms in the United Nations
may be briefly stated as under:
1. Democratisation of the United Nations system be
undertaken on regualr basis;
2. Representation, accountability, transparency and
participation of all the state-actors and the legitimate non-
state actors be ensured;
3. The organisation be made rich enough so as to bear its
financail burden itself;
4. The organisation be given more teeth so as to implement
its deicsions without having to look to mercenaries in
situation of emergencies;
5. The organisation be shaped in a manner that it looks like
a confederation, taking upon itself the tasks that are
‘global’ in nature;
6. Gradual process of limiting the state sovereignties be
taken up along with the speeding up of an equitable
international economic order; and
7. Universal citizenship, multi-culturally evolved, be
devised.
Chronology of UN Reform
December 1985: The General Assembly creates the Group

of 18 to consider and make recommendations on the
reform of UN administrative and financial operations.
August 1986: The Group of 18 makes seventy-one
recommendations on UN reform to the Secretary-General.
March 1993: The Thornburgh Report calls for the creation
of an office of inspector general and other reforms.
July 1994: The General Assembly creates the Office of
Internal Oversight Services.
January 1997: Secretary-General Annan creates thematic
executive committees to coordinate policy in four broad
areas.
March 1997: The Secretary-General merges _ three
departments into one Department of Economic and Social
Affairs. He also announces his_ intention to cut
administrative costs from 38 per cent to 25 per cent of the
UN budget.
July 1997: UN Secretary-General Annan issues Renewing
the United Nations: A Programme for Reform.
December 1997: The General Assembly approves the first
set of reform measures that Secretary-General Annan put
forward.
March 1998: The post of Deputy Secretary-General is
created and charged with overseeing reforms.
January 1999: Kofi Annan proposes a Global Compact
with corporations.
August 2000: The reform recommendations of the Panel
on UN Peace Operations (Brahimi Report) are published.
September 2000: The Millennium Declaration is adopted.
December 2000: The Secretary-General endorses results-
based budgeting. It also lowers the “ceiling” in the scale of
assessment to no more than 25 per cent for any member.
July 2002: The UN Ombudsman is appointed.
November 2003: The Secretary-General appoints the
High-level Panel to make rec-ommendations on UN
reforms to address world security challenges.
June 2004: The Cardoso Report recommends more active
involvement of global civil society in UN affairs.
December 2004: The High-level Panel makes its
recommendations on UN reforms to address security
challenges in the world, calling for a broader interpretation
of collective security.
March 2005: In his report /n Larger Freedom, the
Secretary-General proposes enlargement of the Security
Council, creation of a Peace-building Commission,
replacement of the Commission on Human Rights with a
smaller Human Rights Council elected by two-third vote of
the General Assembly, and major Charter revisions.
Pe
~~ F
The particular proposals for UN reforms relate to

addressing the immediate concerns so as to make the
general proposals feasible as early as possible. Some of the
particular suggestions for UN reforms may be stated as
under:
i. The procedural and functional aspects of the UN

General Assembly be made open, transparent,
democratic, representative and accountable.
ii. The UN General Assembly to explore and improve its
relationship with civil society at all levels of its
functioning;
iii, The UN General Assembly to act in such a way that it
becomes a negotiative, legislative and deliberative body
where the decisions are taken consensually;
iv. Administration be devised in a manner that efficiency,
transparency, accountability are visibly expressed;
making the right to information available to world
citizens and institutions;
The UN programmes should incorporate tasks that are
global in nature while connecting them with those that
are local, regional and national;
Vi. The UN partnerships need to be ever expanding,
democratically governed and participatory in nature;
Vii. The Security Council to be expandeed in a manner that
it is geogrpahically and populationwise made
representative;
Vili. The rotation of permanent membership of the Security
Council can be temporarily given a chance;
The veto power, as presently stated, be exercised
without any consideration of power politics;
The disitnction between the permanent and the non-
permanent members be abolished;
Xi. The concept of collective responsibility be introduced in
the working of the Security Council;
Xii. The UN be authorised to impose taxes as suggested by
Paul Hawken (The Ecology of Commerce): “A tax on
missiles, planes, tanks, guns would provide UN with its
entire budget..
xiii. The UN be given the responsibility of addressing its
concerns to problems such as global warming and other
environmental issues;
Xiv. The UN be entrusted with the task of ensuring
disarmament, including the diffusion of nuclear and non-
nuclear weapons; and
XV. Threats such as terrorism be tackled globally by
organisations like the United Nations.
Practice
Questions
1. Why was the United Nations formed?

(200-250 words)
2. How is the General Assembly
composed? Describe its functions. (200-
250 words)
3. Discuss the working, functions and role
of the UN Security Council. (700-800
words)
or
Bring out the objectives of India

seeking a seat in the Security Council.
(2013) (200-250 words)
4. Write short note on “Economic and
Social Council”. (200-250 words)
5. Write short note on “International Court
of Justice”. (200-250 words)
6. How is the UN _ Secretary-General
elected? What reforms did Kofi Annan
suggest in the United Nations? (700-800
words)
7. Describe the functions and role of the
United Nations. (700-800 words)
8. Mention the role and functions of any
four UN specialised agencies. (700-800
words)
9. Discuss the achievements and role of
the United Nations. (700-800 words)
10. Describe the limitations of the United
Nations. (200-250 words)
11. What reforms would you suggest in the
United Nations? (700-800 words)
12. Argue a case for UN reform in the
changing global milieu (2014) (700-800
words)
he Regionalisation of World
Politics:
EU, ASEAN, APEC, SAARC, NAFTA
R egionalisation is the process of bringing a host of

states belonging to a particular geographical region
together. It is an attempt to foster among the
neighbouring states, cooperation and harmony on a regional
scale. It is a step towards internationalisation though the
realists regard it as an outward expansion from the nation-
state. It is the basis which helps prepare grounds for a better
international order. It serves as a theoretical tool for the
analysis of international relations. As a dynamic process,
regionalisation is a continuing process of forcing regions as
geopolitical units into organised political cooperation within a
particular group of states and/or as regional communities.
Regionalisation (some examples of it are the European
Union—EU; Association of South East Asian Nations—
ASEAN; Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation—APEC; South
Asian Association for Regional Cooperation—SAARC, African
Union—AU; North American Free Trade Agreement—
NAFTA) brings the geographically neighbouring states to sit,
deliberate and debate their mutual problems; to understand
each other’s point of view in the most cordial atmosphere; to
settle mutual issues in the spirit of reconciliation; to
contribute, in the process, to the larger interests of their own
security as well as that of the whole world.
Conflicts are common among the states which are
neighbours to each other. It is also common that the
neighbouring states sort out their differences through battles.
The history of all hitherto neighbouring states is the history of
wars among them, now here and now there; now hidden and
now open. Regionalisation is an endeavour to help make
erstwhile enemies into friends: friends in trade, friends in
facing natural calamities, friends in combating terrorism, and
friends in all domains of cooperation.
Regionalisation may take either the path of integration as
the European Union or the path of cooperation such as the
regional organisations like ASEAN, APEC, SAARC, and
NAFTA. The process can be cooperation in the initial stages
and integration in later ones. The evolution of Coal and Steel
organisation and the European Atomic Energy community
into European Economic Community (later European
Community and then European Union) was a gradual process
of integration while the other regional organisations stated
above are moving towards cooperation. There are, thus,
substantial differences between the European Union as an
example of regional integration and other regional
organisations as examples of the process of cooperation.
Thomas Christiansen (“European Integration and Regional
Cooperation” in Baylis and Smith (Eds.) The Regionalization
of World Politics) refer to the following differences:
Table 39.1 Differences between Regional Integration in

Europe and Regional Cooperation in other Continents
Parameters Regional European
Cooperation Integration
Institutional Reliance purely on Presence of

characteristics intergovernmental autonomous
forms of decision- supranational
making institutions that
initiate and
enforce common
policies
Form of Consensual Extensive use of

decision- decision-making (i.e. qualified majority
making states have veto voting (i.e., states
over decisions) have no veto
over decisions)
Degree of Arbitration and Permanent court

legal dispute settlement of system
integration individual cases developing a
supranational
legal order
Extent of Concentration on Development of a

political economic political union
integration cooperation among with a system of
states economic, social
and political
rights for citizens
Range of Emphasis on trade, Expansion of

issues investment and competencies
covered related economic into much wider
issues areas (single
currency
environments,
culture, etc.)
Presence of Minimal, if any, Establishment of

democratic involvement of a democratic
procedures parliaments process based on
a directly elected
parliament.
Foreign policy Coordination of Development of a

cooperation external relations common foreign
limited to security and
participation in defence policy
negotiations multilateral trade
However, regionalisation as expressed in organisations

such as the European Union, Association of South-East Asian
Nations, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, South Asian
Association for Regional Cooperation, African Union and
North American Free Trade Agreement can be analysed.
|. EUROPEAN UNION
The European Union has been the outcome of numerous
treaties concluded by the member-states at different times.
These include the treaties such as the Paris Treaty (1952),
the Rome Treaty (1957), the Single European Act (1985), the
Maastricht Treaty (1992), the Amsterdam Treaty (1997), Nice
Treaty (2000), the Constitutional Treaty (2004), slowly
evolving into gradual integration to become a union of 27
member-states (Austria, 1995; Bulgaria, 2007, Cyprus, 2004;
Czech Republic, 2004; Belgium, 1953; Denmark, 1973,
Estonia, 2004; Finland, 1995; France, 1953; Germany, 1953;
Greece, 1981; Hungary, 2004; Ireland, 1973; Italy, 1952;
Latvia, 2004; Lithuania, 2004; Luxembourg, 1953; Malta,
2004; the Netherlands, 1953; Poland, 2004; Portugal, 1986;
Romania, 2007; Slovakia, 2004; Slovenia, 2004; Spain, 1986;
Sweden, 1995; United Kingdom, 1973). These member-
states negotiated through intergovernmental conferences and
in the process built the European Union institutions which are
briefly described below:
Table 39.2 EU Institutions
EU Responsibilities Location
Institutions
European Initiating, Brussels and

Commission administering and Luxembourg
overseeing the
implementation of
EU policies and
legislation (consists
of one member from
each state; term five
years)
European Directly elected Strasbourg

Parliament representatives of (plenary
(EP) EU citizens, sessions);
scrutinising the Brussels (MEP
operation of the offices, committee
other institutions, meetings and
and, in certain areas, some plenary
sharing with the sessions
Council the power to Luxembourg
determine EU (administration)
legislation sessions);
(total membership:
785)
Council of Representing the Brussels (some

Ministers view of national meetings in
governments and Luxembourg)
determining, in many
areas jointly with the
EP, the ultimate
shape of EU
legislation (foreign
ministers of all
member-states)
European Regular summits of City in the

Council Heads of State and member-state
Government, setting holding the
the EU’s broad presidency
agenda and a forum
of last resort to find
agreement on
divisive issues (NB:
different from the
Council of Europe),
includes all heads of
states
European The EU’s highest Luxembourg
Court of court (15 judges for
Justice a six year term)
ruling in disputes on
matters of EU law
between member-
states and EU
institutions, as well
as providing
preliminary rulings
on request from
national courts in
cases involving
private persons
European Central bank Frankfurt am Main

Central responsible for
Bank setting the interest
rates and controlling
the money supply of
the single European
currency, the Euro
Committee Advisory committee Brussels

of the of 317 members
Regions representing the
interests of local and
regional authorities
in the EU
(strength344
members)
Economic Advisory committee Brussels
and Social of 317 members
representing the
interests of labour,
employers and
consumer
organisations in the
EU (strength 344
members)
Court of The EU’s audit office © Luxembourg

Auditors responsible for
auditing the revenue
and the expenditure
under the EU budget
(one member from
each state
The integrative institutions built as the components are the

result of gradual process. They stand as_ supranational
institutions, and in their own right, create a new polity above
the level of their respective states whose supranational laws
provide constraints on the member-states.
The European Union is not a finished system, but is a
system that has kept evolving and may go on evolving in
future as well: the development of integration is a continuing
process. Though the European Union has a common market,
monetary system, and financial and judicial coordination, yet
each state has its own sovereignty kept intact. There are the
confederative and federative moments in the European
Union. The confederative moments are:
(a) The primal founding treaties are by their nature
international documents, with whose change all the
members must agree.
(b) The basic democratic decision processes are a
constitutional privilege of the single member-state,
when the European Parliament has the legitimate
power based on voting in the single countries, but
the creation of legal norms is usually a privilege of
delegated organs.
(c) Further transponding of the sovereignty of national
states depends on the common (of international
legal nature) as well as on their own constitutional
legal decision.
The federative moments of European Union:
The primal treaties and partially also the so-called

secondary right is directly binding on the member-
states.
. In many areas of law and state policy, the member-
state’s economy, social and legal policy is being
followed.
The EU acts outside as a fixed organised system which
sets the rules for joining of further countries and decides
about their acceptance by general consensus.
The citizenship of EU exists and is derived from the
legality of citizenship of member-states.
There exists certain limited basis of the Union, which
consists of the single areas of the member-states.
The European Union corresponds in a special way to the

usual 3 criteria of stateship: the ground, population and the
existence of power. It has a ground, where the community law
is being applied; the population is under the European
citizenship; and certain mechanism of public power exists.
There is the spirit of the European identity, though there is no
Euroland. The European Union oscillates between a
federation and the federative union on the one end of the
scale, and a confederation and confederative union, on the
other.
ll. THE ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH-EAST ASIAN

NATIONS — ASEAN
The Association of South-East Asian Nations-ASEAN is more
than a regional cooperation, though it cannot claim to be a
union like the EU. The ASEAN is slowly evolving on the same
path as that of the EU, standing somewhere between
cooperation and integration, building its own institutions such
as (a) ASEAN Security Community; (b) ASEAN Economic
Community; (c) ASEAN Socio-cultural Community.
ASEAN was established in 1967 by five countries-
Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and
Singapore. Except for Thailand, all of these countries had just
acquired political independence from centuries of colonisation
and foreign domination. This common experience motivated
the countries of South-east Asia, like most newly-independent
developing countries, to work together to preserve their
common interest. Forming a regional organisation could fill
the power vacuum left by the major powers which used the
region for proxy wars and major power rivalry. Forming a
regional organisation could provide a self-help mechanism for
these newly-independent countries enabling them to
concentrate on nation-building and economic development.
Forming a regional organisation could also provide more
weight to their collective voice in the international community.
Brunei, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, and Cambodia joined
ASEAN in 1984, 1995, 1997, 1997, and 1999 respectively. As
of 2006, the ASEAN region has a population of 560 million, a
total area of 4.5 million square kilometres, a combined gross
domestic product of almost US$ 1,100 billion, and a total
trade of about US$ 1,400 billion.
The Bangkok Declaration (1967) establishing ASEAN
stated the aims and objectives as: (a) to accelerate the
economic growth, social progress and cultural development in
the region through joint endeavours in the spirit of equality
and partnership; (b) to promote regional peace and stability;
and (c) to maintain close and beneficial cooperation with
existing international and regional organisations with similar
aims and purposes. The Hanoi ASEAN Summit (1998)
reaffirmed these goals. The first ASEAN Summit in 1976
adopted the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) and
binds the member-states with certain fundamental
principles in their relations with one another. These
principles are: (a) mutual respect for the independence,
sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity and national identity
of all nations; (b) the right of every state to lead to its national
existence free from external interference, subversion or
coercion; (c) noninterference in the internal affairs of one
another; (d) settlement of differences or disputes by peaceful
manner; (e) renunciation of the threat or use of force; and (f)
effective cooperation among themselves.
The attainment of economic integration has been the
objective of the 1992 Framework Agreement on Enhancing
ASEAN Economic Cooperation. For attaining such an
objective of the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), the ASEAN
Common Effective Preferential Tariff Scheme has been
launched as the AFTA’s main mechanism.
The ASEAN works through a system of committees. It has
21 ministerial bodies, 29 committees of senior officials and
120 technical or working-level organs. All of them meet
regularly so as to formulate, implement, monitor and review
policies and projects. The highest decision-making organ of
ASEAN is the Meeting of the ASEAN Heads of Government,
which takes place every three years. The areas covered by
ASEAN include education, environment, social welfare,
science and technology, culture and information, youth,
transnational crime, trade, investment, agriculture, transport,
tourism, energy, finance, political matters and _ security.
ASEAN seeks to empower civil society. It has about 45
affiliated non-governmental organisations working in various
fields. Among the major organisations which contribute to
ASEAN policies and decisions are the ASEAN Chambers of
Commerce and Industry (ASEAN-CCl), the ASEAN Business
Forum, ASEAN Vegetable Oils Club, Federation of
International Food Science and Technology Associations,
ASEAN NGOs for the Prevention of Drug and Substance
Abuse, several NGOs working on HIV/AIDS, the ASEAN
University Network, ASEAN _ Tourism Association, the
Working Group on the Establishment of a Regional
Mechanism on Human Rights, and the ASEAN Institutes for
Strategic and International Studies.
The establishment of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in
1994 after the end of the cold war was aimed at consolidating
peace and stability in the region. ASEAN believes that the
security of the region is tied with the overall security of the
whole Asia-Pacific region. Accordingly, the peace and
security in one region affects the peace and security of
another region. The whole region, for its security concerns,
has to achieve the promotion of confidence building
measures and preventive diplomacy. The ARF comprises,
along with the ASEAN members, states such as Australia,
Canada, China, the European Union, India, Japan, South
Korea, Mongolia, New Zealand, Russia and the USA.
Concerned as it is with the security of the region the ASEAN
Regional Forum calls for the total cessation of nuclear testing
and urges the states to refrain from weaponising and
deploying missiles. Accordingly, ASEAN adopted the Treaty
on the South-east Asia Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone on
December 15, 1995. It came into force on March 25, 1997.
Consultations are underway on the accession of the Nuclear
Weapon States to the Protocol of the SEANWFZ Treaty.
Happily, since the establishment of ASEAN, there has been
no tension; neither in the region, nor among the member-
states of ASEAN.
ASEAN Plus Three (China, Japan and the Republic of
Korea—ROk) continue to expand and deepen in the areas of
security dialogue and cooperation, transnational crime, trade
and investment, environment, finance and monetary areas,
agriculture and forestry, energy, tourism, health, labour,
culture and the arts, science and technology, information and
communication technology, social welfare and development,
youth, and rural development and poverty eradication. There
are now thirteen ministerial-level meetings under the ASEAN
Plus Three process. The bilateral trading arrangements have
been or are being forged between ASEAN member countries
and China, Japan, and ROK. These arrangements serve as
the building blocks of an East Asian Free Trade Area as a
long term goal. ASEAN continues to develop cooperative
relations with its Dialogue Partners, namely, Australia,
Canada, China, the European Union, India, Japan, ROK, New
Zealand, the Russian Federation, the United States of
America, and the United Nations Development Programme.
ASEAN also promotes cooperation with Pakistan in some
areas of mutual interest. Consistent with its resolve to
enhance cooperation with other developing regions, ASEAN
maintains contact with other __ inter-governmental
organisations, namely, the Economic Cooperation
Organisation, the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Rio Group,
the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, the
South Pacific Forum, Asian-African Sub-Regional
Organisation Conference, APEC, Asia-Europe Meeting
(ASEM) and the East Asia - Latin American Forum (EALAF).
ASEAN is an association of regional security (through
ASEAN Security Community), economic cooperation (through
ASEAN Economic Community) and a socio-cultural union
(through ASEAN Socio-cultural Community).
(a) Asean Security Community

To build on what has been constructed over the years in the
field of political and security cooperation, the ASEAN leaders
have agreed to establish the ASEAN Security Community
(ASC). The ASC aims to ensure that countries in the region
live at peace with one another and with the world in a just,
democratic and harmonious environment. The members of
the Community pledge to rely exclusively on peaceful
processes in the settlement of intra-regional differences and
regard their security as fundamentally linked to one another
and bound by geographic location, common vision and
objectives. It has the following components: political
development; shaping and sharing of norms; conflict
prevention; conflict resolution; post-conflict peace building;
and implementing mechanisms. It is built on a_ strong
foundation of ASEAN processes, principles, agreements, and
structures, which evolved over the years and are contained in
the following major political agreements:
e ASEAN Declaration, Bangkok, August 8, 1967;

e Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality Declaration,
Kuala Lumpur, November 27, 1971;
e Declaration of ASEAN Concord, Bali, February 24,
1976;
e Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in South-east Asia,
Bali, February 24, 1976;
e ASEAN Declaration on the South China Sea, Manila,
July 22, 1992;
e Treaty on the South-east Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free
Zone, Bangkok, December 15, 1997;
e ASEAN Vision 2020, Kuala Lumpur, December 15,
1997; and
e Declaration of ASEAN Concord Il, Bali, October 7,
2003.
(b) Asean Economic Community

The ASEAN Economic Community is the end-goal of
economic integration measures as outlined in the ASEAN
Vision 2020. Its goal is to create a stable, prosperous and
highly competitive ASEAN economic region in which there is
a free flow of goods, services, investment and a freer flow of
capital, equitable economic development and _ reduced
poverty and socio-economic disparities by year 2020.
The ASEAN Economic Community establishes ASEAN as
a single market and production base, turning the diversity that
characterises the region into opportunities for business
complementation and making ASEAN a more dynamic and
stronger segment of the global supply chain. ASEAN’s
strategy shall consist of the integration of ASEAN and
enhancing ASEAN’s economic competitiveness.
In moving towards the ASEAN Economic Community,
ASEAN has agreed on the following:
e Institute new mechanisms and measures to strengthen
the implementation of its existing economic initiatives
including the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), ASEAN
Framework Agreement on Services (AFAS) and ASEAN
Investment Area (AIA);
e Accelerate regional integration in the following priority
sectors by 2010: air travel, agro-based products,
automotives, e-commerce, electronics, fisheries,
healthcare, rubber-based products, textiles and
apparels, tourism, and wood-based products.
e Facilitate movement of business persons, skilled labour
and talents; and
e Strengthen the institutional mechanisms of ASEAN,
including the improvement of the existing ASEAN
Dispute Settlement Mechanism to ensure expeditious
and legally-binding resolution of any economic disputes.
Launched in 1992, the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) is

now in place. It aims to promote the region’s competitive
advantage as a single production unit. The elimination of tariff
and non-tariff barriers among member-states is expected to
promote greater economic efficiency, productivity, and
competitiveness.
As of January 1, 2005, tariffs on almost 99 per cent of the
products in the Inclusion List of the ASEAN-6 (Brunei
Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore,
and Thailand) have been reduced to no more than 5 per cent.
More than 60 per cent of these products have zero tariffs. The
average tariff for ASEAN-6 has been brought down from more
than 12 per cent when AFTA started to 2 per cent today. For
the newer member-states, namely, Cambodia, Laos PDR,
Myanmar, and Vietnam (CLMV), tariffs on about 81 per cent
of their Inclusion List have been brought down to within the 0-
5 per cent ranges.
In addition to the above, the other integration-related
activities of ASEAN include financial and monetary
integration, transport network (railways, air __ link),
telecommunication cooperation and numerous others.
(c) Asean Socio-cultural Community

The ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community envisages a South-
east Asia bonded together in partnership as a community of
caring societies and founded on a common regional identity.
The Community would foster cooperation in_ social
development aimed at raising the standard of living of
disadvantaged groups and the rural population, and shall
seek the active involvement of all sectors of society, in
particular women, youth, and local communities.
ASEAN would ensure that its work force shall be prepared
for, and benefit from, economic integration by investing more
resources for basic and higher education, training, science
and technology development, job creation, and_ social
protection.
ASEAN would further intensify cooperation in the area of
public health, including in the prevention and control of
infectious and communicable diseases.
The development and enhancement of human resources is
a key strategy for employment generation, alleviating poverty
and socio-economic disparities, and ensuring economic
growth with equity.
To sum up, one may say that ASEAN began with a modest
start (it was preceded by the Association of South-east Asia-
ASA) and is going to attain heights of political security,
economic cooperation and a socio-cultural identity of its own.
It is an example of a high degree of regional collaboration
system, showing signs of regional integration.
lll. ASIA-PACIFIC ECONOMIC COOPERATION—

APEC
Asia-pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) is the largest and
the most diverse trans-Pacific forum. Known as the Pacific
Rim (countries bordering the Pacific Ocean from North and
South America to Asia to Oceania), APEC is a body of
economies in the Asia-pacific region formed to foster
economic cooperation and trade with a view to enhancing
international trade. Its members work together to reduce trade
barrier, open investment opportunities, ease the exchange of
goods, services, resources and technical know-how, and
strengthen economic and technical cooperation amongst
themselves.
APEC member-economies include the major economies of
the region and the most dynamic and _ fastest-growing
economies in the world. The 21 economies together
constitute more than half of the world’s annual output and
almost half of the world’s total merchandise trade, constituting
about two-fifths of the world’s population. Founded in 1989,
the founding members of APEC were: Australia, Brunei,
Canada, Indonesia, Japan, Republic Of Korea, Malaysia,
New Zealand, The Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and The
United States (all in 1989), Taiwan (officially Chinese Taipei)
Hong Kong (China), People’s Republic of China joined the
APEC in 1991 while Mexico and Papua New Guinea, joined it
in 1993 and Chile in 1994. The 1998 entrant members of the
APEC have been Peru, Russia and Vietnam. Others trying to
seek its membership are India, Pakistan, Laos, Bangladesh,
Columbia and Ecuador.
APEC has adopted a_ declaration which envisions
elimination of all trade and investment barriers by 2010 for the
wealthiest nations and 2020 for the poor ones. The APEC
was formed because of the: (a) fear that the Uruguay Round
of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) might
possibly collapse and might lead to increased dprotectionism
on the one hand, and the emergence of new restrictive trade
blocs on the other; and (b) the sweeping political and
economic changes in the USSR and Europe might affect the
trade in regions such as of the APEC. The Seoul Declaration
(1991) outlined the following objectives of the APEC:
e To sustain the growth and development of the region for

the common good of its people and, in this way, to
contribute to the growth and development of the world
economy;
e To enhance the positive gains, both for the region and
the world economy, resulting from increasing economic
interdependence, to include encouraging the flow of
goods, services, capital and technology;
e To develop and strengthen the open multilateral trading
system in the interest of Asia-Pacific and all other
economies; and
e To reduce barriers to trade in goods and services and
investment among participants in a manner consistent
with GATT principles where applicable, and without
detriment to other economies.
APEC is a loose consultative body driven by consensus. It

has no legalising agreement as does the North American
Free Trade Agreement. It is not even a trade bloc. “Every
economy represented in Canberra relies heavily on a strong
and open multilateral trading system, and none believes that
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation should be directed to the
formation of a trading bloc.” the founders declared. The APEC
members have resolved to “pursue free and open trade and
investment in Asia-Pacific in a manner that will encourage
and strengthen trade and investment liberalisation in the
world as a whole. Thus, the outcome of trade and investment
liberalisation in Asia-Pacific will not only be the actual
reduction of barriers among APEC economies, but also
between APEC economies and non-APEC economies.” The
APEC is a consultation, and is not a negotiation forum. All
the commitments made by APEC member economies are
voluntary and depend on what an economy is willing to give
on the basis of its economic status. The association operates
by consensus. Its chairmanship rotates yearly. It works
through a series of working groups, committees, ministerial
meetings and senior officials’ meetings with all decisions to
be decided in a somewhat ad hoc fashion. While the technical
matters are handled by its ten working groups and four
committees, the bulk of APEC’s work programme is planned
and executed by national bureaucrats, residing in their own
capital cities, in cooperation with their counterparts in other
national governments. While the APEC possesses a small
secretariat in Singapore, its administrative role is managed by
the national bureaucrats in their respective places.
The APEC’s organisational structure is given in Figure
39.1.
The APEC is unique in many respects. Unlike the
European Union, it is merely an arrangement of promoting
trade and economic cooperation. It is not like ASEAN in so far
as it neither seeks regional security, nor socio-cultural
identity. It is not SAARC because it does not extend to areas
other than the economic ones. It is unique because
multilateral cooperation in such a vast region had never taken
any roots; it is one where the three Chinas (Taipei, Hong
Kong and Beijing) find their membership, and unlike WTO,
the APEC has no treaty obligations. It is confined to reduce
region-wide barriers to trade and investment so as to foster
long term economic cooperation. APEC is a process and not
an organisation; it is a framework and not an institution; its
decisions
APEC Economic Leaders Meeting (ALEM)
APEC Business Advisory Council

(ABAC)
APEC Ministerial Meeting APEC Sectoral

(Trade and Foreign Ministers, AMM) Ministerial Mectings
Senior Officials (SOM)
APEC Secretariat
Permanent Committees
Budget and Administrative Committee om Trade Economic Committee

Committee (BAC) and Investment (CIT) (EC)
Wotking Groups and Ad hoc Fora
Energy (EWG)
EA
Marine Resources Trade APEC Study
Conservation Promotion Centres (ASC)
Fisheries (FWG) Telecommunications ‘Transportation Environment/Sustain=

(TELWG) (TPTWiG) able Development
H E Res« Ces A 0 1 i -
Aaa ene mes ora Agnculture Small anal
SE ; . Technology Medium-sized
Industrial
SITTAL 2Science
Toe Trade
BOC and
Ane Sian
pre ia in i Se
ray (TPWG)
& Technology Investment Data -
Figure 39.1 APEC: Organisational Structure
require unanimous approval of its members, though its

consensual functioning results in frustrating and _ time-
consuming processes. Structural reforms are in the offing in
order to support the efficient functioning of markets,
contributing to micro-economic stability, productivity and
economic growth, and enhancing, in the process, the living
standards of the people of the region in a sustainable way.
IV. SOUTH ASIAN ASSOCIATION FOR REGIONAL

COOPERATION
The South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation
(SAARC) is more an economic than a political organisation of
eight nations of Southern Asia. In terms of population, it is the
largest of all the regional organisations with 150 crore people.
It was formed on December 8, 1985 by India, Pakistan,
Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Maldives and Bhutan.
Afghanistan joined it in April 2007 as its eighth member.
While the observers’ states are Australia, China, European
Union, Iran, Japan, Mauritius, Myanmar, South Korea and
United States. Fifteen summit meetings have been held till
August 2008.
The idea of regional cooperation in South Asia was first
raised in November 1980. After consultations, the foreign
secretaries of the seven founding countries—Bangladesh,
Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka—met
for the first time in Colombo in April 1981. This was followed a
few months later by a meeting of the Committee of the Whole,
which identified five broad areas for regional cooperation. The
foreign ministers, at their first meeting in New Delhi in August
1983, adopted the Declaration on South Asian Association for
Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and formally launched the
Integrated Programme of Action (IPA) in the five agreed
areas of cooperation: agriculture; rural development;
telecommunications; meteorology; and health and population
activities. Later, transport; postal services; scientific and
technological cooperation; and sports, arts, and culture were
added to the IPA.
The SAARC objectives seek:
(a) to promote the welfare of the people of the region
and improve their quality of life;
(b) to accelerate economic growth, social progress and
cultural development;
(c) to promote and strengthen collective self-reliance;
(d) to encourage mutual assistance in the economic,
social, cultural, technical and scientific fields;
(e) to cooperate with other developing countries, and
also. with other regional and _ international
organisations; and
(f) to strengthen cooperation among themselves in
international fora.
The principles of SAARC are:
(a) regional cooperation to be based on mutual respect
for the principles such as of sovereignty, equality,
territorial integrity and political independence;
(b) such a cooperation has not to be a substitute for
bilateral and multilateral cooperation, but has to
complement them; and
(c) such a cooperation has to be independent of
bilateral and multi-lateral obligations.
The SAARC machinery includes the following:
(a) Meetings of Heads of State or Government:
Meetings are held at the Summit level usually on an
annual basis. To date, 14 Summits have been
convened: Dhaka (1985), Bangalore (1986),
Kathmandu (1987), Islamabad (1988), Malé (1990),
Colombo (1991), Dhaka (1993), New Delhi (1995),
Malé (1997), Colombo (1998), Kathmandu (2002),
Islamabad (2004), Dhaka (2005), New Delhi
(2007), and Colombo (2008).
The Heads of State or Government during the Ninth
SAARC Summit agreed that a process of informal political
consultations would prove useful in promoting peace, stability,
amity, and accelerated socio-economic cooperation in the
region.
(b) Council of Ministers: The Council comprising the
Foreign Ministers of member-states generally
meets twice a year. The Council may also meet in
extraordinary circumstances by agreement of
member-states.
(c) Standing Committee of Foreign Secretaries: The
Committee provides overall monitoring and
coordination, determines priorities, mobilises
resources, and approves projects and financing. It
may meet as often as deemed necessary, but in
practice normally meets twice a year and submits
its reports to the Council of Ministers. The Standing
Committee may also set up Action Committees
comprising member-states concerned with
implementation of projects as per Article VII of the
Charter. The Standing Committee is assisted by a
Programming Committee, an ad hoc_ body,
comprising senior officials, to scrutinise the
Secretariat budget, finalise the Calendar of
activities, and take up any other matter assigned to
it by the Standing Committee. The Programming
Committee also has been entrusted to consider the
reports of the Technical Committees and the
SAARC Regional Centers, and to submit its
comments to the Standing Committee.
(d) Secretariat! The SAARC Secretariat was
established in Kathmandu on January 16, 1987. Its
role is to coordinate and monitor the
implementation of SAARC activities, service the
meetings of the association and serve as the
channel of communication between SAARC and
other international organisations.
The Secretariat comprises the secretary-general, seven
directors, and the general services staff. The secretary-
general is appointed by the Council of Ministers on the
principle of rotation, for a non-renewable tenure of three
years. The SAARC Summits give a fair idea of the
developments made by the organisation.
SAARC Summits
1985
The Heads of State or Government at their First SAARC
Summit held in Dhaka on 7—8 December adopted the
Charter formally establishing the South Asian Association for
Regional Cooperation (SAARC).
In the declaration of the First SAARC Summit the member-
states expressed concern at the deteriorating international
political situation and the unprecedented escalation of the
arms race, particularly in its nuclear aspect. They recognised
that mankind was confronted with the threat of self-extinction
arising from a massive accumulation of the most destructive
weapons ever produced and that the arms race intensified
international tension and violated the principles of the UN
Charter. The member-states called upon the Nuclear
Weapons State (NWS) to undertake negotiations on a
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) leading to the
complete cessation of testing, production, and deployment of
nuclear weapons. In this connection, they welcomed the
recent meeting between President Reagan and General
Secretary Gorbachev in Geneva and expressed the hope that
the meeting would have a positive effect on international
peace and security.
1986
In the declaration of the Second SAARC Summit. in
November in Bangalore, India, the member-states noted with
deep disappointment that the promise held out by the US-
Soviet Summit in Reykjavik could not be realised. They,
however, noted with satisfaction that the proposals made at
the Summit were still on the table and expressed the earnest
hope that the negotiations would be resumed without delay so
that a decisive step could be taken towards realising the
ultimate goal of eliminating nuclear weapons altogether.
1987
At the Third SAARC Summit in Kathmandu, Nepal, there was
disagreement over a proposal by Pakistan for a South Asian
treaty banning nuclear weapons; the final declaration simply
noted SAARC’s” resolve to ‘contribute’ to nuclear
disarmament. The states also called for the early conclusion
in the Geneva Convention on Disarmament (CD) of a CTBT
and a Convention to Ban Chemical Weapons, declared their
intention to continue their efforts to contribute to the
implementation of the objective of halting the nuclear arms
race and eliminating nuclear weapons, and declared their
resolve to support every effort to conclude a treaty prohibiting
vertical and horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons.
1988
In the declaration of the Fourth SAARC Summit in December
in Islamabad, Pakistan, the member-states called for the early
conclusion by the CD of a CTBT and a Convention to Ban
Chemical Weapons. They declared their intention to continue
their efforts to contribute to the realisation of the objective of
halting the nuclear arms race and eliminating nuclear
weapons, as well as declared their resolve to support every
effort to conclude a treaty prohibiting vertical and horizontal
proliferation of nuclear weapons.
1990
In the declaration of the Fifth SAARC Summit in November in
Malé, Maldives, the member-states expressed the hope that
the talks between the United States and USSR on arms
control would culminate in the conclusion of an agreement for
substantial reduction in their nuclear arsenals leading to the
total elimination of nuclear weapons. While welcoming the
measures being considered for arms reduction at the global
level, they were convinced that the objective could be best
achieved through the promotion of mutual trust and
confidence among the member-states. They underlined the
inherent relationship between disarmament and development
and called upon all countries, especially those possessing the
largest nuclear and conventional arsenals, to re-channel
additional financial resources, human energy, and creativity
into development.
1991
In the declaration of the Sixth SAARC Summit in December in
Colombo, Sri Lanka, the member-states assessed current
international developments in the political sphere, particularly
those that affected the lives of the people of South Asia. They
noted the changing power structures in international relations
and the reduction of confrontations and tensions, particularly
among the United States and USSR. These developments
have contributed to the receding of the threat of nuclear
confrontation and to agreements on disarmament measures.
The member-states hoped that these developments would
restrain the pursuit of military power in all areas of the world
and expressed hope that the peace dividend would be used
for promoting the further development of developing
countries. They welcomed the trend towards popularly based
democratic governments in different parts of the world,
including in South Asia.
1993
In the declaration of the Seventh SAARC Summit in April in
Dhaka, Bangladesh, the member-states noted a number of
recent positive developments in the area of nuclear, chemical,
and conventional disarmament, including the agreements on
bilateral arms reductions between the United States and
Russia. They expressed their hope that the implementation of
the far-reaching arms reduction agreed to in the Washington
Agreement of June 1992 and START II signed in Moscow in
January 1993 would be successfully carried out. The
member-states urged all the NWS to collectively endeavour to
attain the ultimate goal of complete elimination of nuclear
arsenals in the shortest possible time.
1995
In the declaration of the Eighth SAARC Summit in May 1995,
in New Delhi, India, the member-states noted that while the
international community had successfully created a norm
against chemical and_ biological weapons, it had,
unfortunately, been unable to do the same with regard to
nuclear weapons. They expressed the conviction that more is
needed to be done and at a far greater pace. They reiterated
that the utmost priority was to be given to nuclear
disarmament, given the danger posed by nuclear weapons.
The member-states urged the Conference on Disarmament
(CD) to negotiate an international convention prohibiting the
use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.
1997
In the declaration of the Ninth SAARC Summit in May in
Malé, Maldives, the member-states recognised the need for
the international community to pursue nuclear disarmament
as a matter of highest priority. In this regard, they recognised
the need to start negotiations through the CD and to establish
a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear
weapons within a specified framework of time, including a
Nuclear Weapons Convention.
1998
In the declaration of the 10th SAARC Summit in July in
Colombo, Sri Lanka, the member-states were of the view that
stability, peace, and security in South Asia could not be
considered in isolation from global security environment. They
noted that the great power rivalry, which the Non-Aligned
Movement (NAM) had consistently opposed, no longer posed
a serious threat and the danger of a global nuclear
conflagration had abated. However, some states still sought
to maintain huge arsenals of nuclear weapons and the NPT
and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) had
neither led to any progress towards nuclear disarmament, nor
prevented proliferation. The member-states underscored their
commitment to the complete elimination of nuclear weapons
and the need for promoting nuclear disarmament on a
universal basis under effective international control.
2002
The 11th SAARC Summit was convened in Kathmandu on 4-6
January. In the Summit declaration, the Heads of State or
Government were of the view that stability, peace, and
security in South Asia should be promoted together with
efforts to improve the global security environment. They
underscored their commitment to general and complete
disarmament including nuclear disarmament on a universal
basis, under effective international control. They agreed that
global nonproliferation goals could not be achieved in the
absence of progress towards nuclear disarmament, and in
this context called upon all nuclear weapon states (NWS),
whether party or nonparty to the Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT), to engage constructively through a transparent and
credible process of negotiations at the Conference on
Disarmament (CD). The leaders also recognised the linkage
between disarmament and development.
At the Twenty-third session of the SAARC Council of
Ministers, it was felt that the suppression of terrorism was the
commitment of SAARC members.
2004
The 12th SAARC meeting was held in Islamabad from 4-6
January. At the Summit, the leaders sought increasing
regional cooperation in areas such as economics, poverty
alleviation, technology, development and_ environmental
issues, and terrorism prevention. They signed the Additional
Protocol to the SAARC Regional Convention on _ the
Suppression of Terrorism approved days earlier by the
Council of Ministers. It was to enter into force 30 days after
the final instrument of ratification was deposited.
2005
The 13th Annual SAARC Summit was held in Dhaka from 12-
13 November. The summit dealt specifically with areas such
as poverty alleviation, economic cooperation, counter-
terrorism, disaster management, and the implementation of
SAFTA. The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan was welcomed
as the eighth member of SAARC. China and Japan were
accorded observer status. Member countries adopted the 53-
point Dhaka declaration aimed at focusing regional
cooperation in South Asia to accelerate growth and progress.
They expressed their determination to unite in their efforts to
prevent and combat terrorism, noting United Nations Security
Council Resolution 1373 in this regard.
2007
The 14th Summit, held on 3-4 April, welcomed the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan as a full-fledged member of SAARC.
China, Japan, European Union, Republic of Korea, United
States of America, and Iran were welcomed as observers. At
the summit, the members also discussed implementation
strategies of the SAARC development fund, a SAARC food
bank and the South Asia University.
Fifteenth Summit and SAARC Problems
The 15th SAARC summit was held at Colombo on August 2-3,

2008. The leaders reaffirmed their commitment to the
principles and objectives of the SAARC Charter. The leaders
also emphasised regional cooperation. They noted that
increased access to energy was important for economic
development. They also felt worried about environmental
problems, especially global warming. They emphasised their
commitment to SAFTA and urged the steady progress
towards the SAARC social Charter.
SAARC has its own regional problems because of the
conflicts among the SAARC nations themselves. This is one
reason that the region is experiencing obstacles with regard
to trade agreements. Over the years, SAARC members have
expressed their unwillingness on signing a free trade
agreement. Though India has several trade pacts with
Maldives, Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka, similar trade
agreements with Pakistan and Bangladesh have been stalled
due to political and economic concerns on both sides. India
has been constructing a barrier across its borders with
Bangladesh and Pakistan. In 1993, in Dhaka, SAARC
countries signed an agreement to gradually lower tariffs within
the region. Eleven years later, at the 12th SAARC Summit at
Islamabad, SAARC countries devised the South Asia Free
Trade Agreement (SAFTA) which created a framework for the
establishment of a free trade area covering 1.5 billion people.
This agreement went into force on January 1, 2006. Under
this agreement, SAARC members would bring their duties
down to 20 per cent by 2007.
The agreement on SAARC Preferential Trading Agreement
(SAPTA) was signed in 1993 and which came into force in
1995, with the SAARC members desiring to promote and
sustain mutual trade and economic cooperation through the
exchange of concessions.
The establishment of an Inter-Governmental Group (IGG)
to formulate an agreement to establish a SAPTA by 1997 was
approved in the Sixth Summit of SAARC held in Colombo in
December 1991.
The basic principles underlying SAPTA are:
1. overall reciprocity and mutuality of advantages so as
to benefit equitably all contracting states, taking into
account their respective level of economic and industrial
development, the pattern of their external trade, and
trade and tariff policies and systems;
2. negotiation of tariff reforms step by step, improved
and extended in successive stages through periodic
reviews;
3. recognition of the special needs of the Least Developed
Contracting States and agreement on_ concrete
preferential measures in their favour; and
4. inclusion of all products, manufactures and commodities
in their raw, semi-processed and processed forms.
So far, four rounds of trade negotiations have been
concluded under SAPTA covering over five thousand
commodities.
The SAFTA (Saarc Free Trade Agreement) requires India,
Pakistan and Sri Lanka to bring down their duties down to 20
per cent in the first two years pending their ending in 2007.
The other SAARC countries need another three years to
reduce their tariffs to zero.
More than two decades have passed since SAARC was
established. Fifteen summits and numerous meetings of the
SAARC executive bodies have been held—all leading to
results which can only be termed modest. SAARC has not yet
moved from its declaratory phase (”... a talking shop that
makes declarations, but achieves little of substance,” as the
Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh had very aptly
remarked). While in other parts of the world, regionalisation
has been accepted as an assured route to peace and
prosperity, intra-regional interdependence and economic
collaboration (examples EU and NAFTA / APEC), very little
progress has been made with regard to SAARC. The SAARC
inter-regional trade accounts for barely 5 per cent as
compared to over 60 per cent for EU and 55 per cent for
NAFTA. As a region, SAARC counts very little in the world;
less than 1 per cent of the share of global trades, just 1.5 per
cent of the World Gross Product, having about 45 crore of the
world’s poorest people and almost half of the world’s
illiterates within the SAARC nations.
There are reasons, plausible ones: intra-regional political
tensions exist; occasional conflicts occur here and there;
perennial lack of trust shrouds our conduct and the periodic
hiccups in relations between the neighbours in the region are
some factors responsible for the slow progress of SAARC. It
is well argued that SAARC was established without any
sincere, collective and definite vision; there was hardly any
strong political will among its members; the SAARC members
could hardly subsume short term narrow objectives for the
long term regional good: a top-down concept foisted from
above without any preparation. Not much of the value of
interdependence was properly realised; no solid basis for
creating peace and prosperity were voiced. The SAARC was
hurriedly formed, initially for bringing about cooperation of a
technical nature in a host of areas - agriculture, education,
meteorology, communication, and when social agenda
(poverty alleviation, free trade area etc.) was introduced later
SAARC had lost much of its credibility, being called a non-
performing entity. The summits are occasionally held and are
always declared successful, more concerned with issues
relating to the world rather to the regions. It took ten years for
SAARC to agree on a Preferential Trading Arrangement
(SAPTA) and another ten for a Framework Agreement of Free
Trade (SAFTA), although the ninth Male summit in 1997 had
mandated that a SAARC free trade area should be achieved
by 2001. The promises and high-sounding phrases are
coined and announced, but the SAARC leaders are quick to
move to other declarations.
Unless the internal problems and the key bilateral irritants
which pollute the environment are meaningfully addressed
SAARC would keeping running into trouble. There is a need
for the civil society of the region to step in and replace the
narrow vision adopted by the political elite. What is needed is
to move beyond governments and get civil society involved,
motivated and focused.
As the SAARC region suffers from numerous ailments:
deep-rooted mutual suspicion, nuclear proliferation, and
ethnic differences attempts would have to be made to see
that SAARC grows into a ‘community’. The whole region is
economically poor, socially backward, politically
inexperienced, and culturally differentiated. The region needs
a solid basis to start on its path of development and the
leadership, more of civil society than of the state, needs to
address itself to the objectives which can assure them a
bright future. What SAARC requires is to throw off its
shackles of history or at least recent history and move into a
future of ‘common living’, and ‘a community feeling’. The
whole region is poor and SAARC needs to build economic
cooperation among its members. SAARC needs the will,
motivation, direction, vision and common as well as mutual
benefits to move ahead.
SAARC’s role has not been dismal. It has not done what it
should have, but this does not mean that it has lost its utility
or that it has lost all its relevance. Its existence has enabled
the South Asian political leaders to meet occasionally and
carry on discussions to address their mutual problems. It has
given them a platform to sit, deliberate and discuss their
mutual issues which has helped them resolve some of their
differences. SAARC has developed understanding among the
leaders of the region and created a feeling of reconciliation
and friendship. India and Pakistan have come closer; India-
Sri Lanka talks have brought the Tamil problem close to some
understanding. The Indo-Bangladesh differences have been
resolved to some extent, as is also true for the Indo-Nepal
relations of mutual understanding. The SAARC social agenda
is showing good results. The Agreement on SAARC
Preferential Trading Arrangement (SAPTA) was signed in
1993 and four rounds of trade negotiations have been
concluded. With the objective of moving towards a South
Asian Economic Union (SAEU), the Agreement on South
Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) was signed during the
Twelfth Summit in Islamabad in January 2004. SAFTA may
enter into force soon. The Association has carried out
regional studies on trade, manufactures and_ services,
environment and poverty alleviation, SAFTA and customs
matters.
SAARC’s movement is indeed slow, but there is a
movement nonetheless. The attainment of regional peace
and economic integration of the region depend on the state
and the civil society and how quickly they resolve their
domestic and external differences.
V. NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
—NAFTA
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is one
of the important treaties of the world. It is a treaty between
Canada, Mexico and the United States that was concluded to
foster trade among the three countries. It governs the entire
spectrum of North American trade whose roots have
hemispheric cooperation at a scale never seen before.
The NAFTA as a trade bloc came into force on January 1,
1994; superseding the Canada-United States Free Trade
Agreement (CUFTA) between the United States and Canada.
NAFTA has been since updated with two major additions: the
North American Agreement for Economic Cooperation
(NAAEC) and the North American Agreement for Labour
Cooperation (NAALC). There has been another addition
designed to foster cooperation on issues of national security.
It is the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America
(SPPNA).
The NAFTA did away a large number of tariffs on goods
among the three countries; USA, Canada and Mexico. Earlier,
goods, mostly American, were being sold to Canada and
Mexico, carrying with them a high tariff. Canada and Mexico
used to pay the tariff which they would prefer to avoid by not
buying the American goods. As a result of NAFTA, all such
tariffs were eliminated and free trade on goods among these
three countries began on large scale. Like EU, NAFTA is an
economic union that fosters greater trade and cooperation
among USA, Canada and Mexico. However, unlike EU,
NAFTA is not a political union in so far as it does not institute
institutions like those of the EU.
NAFTA was formed with the following objectives:
(a) To grant the signatories the status of the most
favoured nation (MFN);
(b) to eliminate custom barriers and facilitate cross-
border trade in goods and services;
(c) to guarantee free, fair and equitable competition in
the free trade zone;
(d) to substantially increase investment opportunities in
the three member-states nations;
(e) to provide for the protection and adequate
application of intellectual property rights in each
country;
(f) to adopt efficient implementation, joint
administration and dispute settlement procedures;
(g) to improve trilateral cooperation so as to extend the
benefits of NAFTA; and
(h) to establish a framework for further trilateral,
regional and multilateral cooperation to expand
NAFTA’s benefits.
NAFTA has its own history. It is the world’s largest free
trade area in terms of GDP. As of January 1, 2008, all tariffs
among the three countries have been eliminated. Between
1993 and 2007, trade tripled from US$ 297 billion to US$ 930
billion.
NAFTA was signed by US President George H.W. Bush,
Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister
Brian Mulroney in 1992. It was ratified by the legislatures of
the three countries in 1993. The US House approved it by
234 to 200 votes on November 17 and the Senate by 60 to 38
votes on November 20. It was signed into law by President
Bill Clinton on December
8, 1993 and put into force on January 1,1994. Although it
was started by President Bush, it was a priority of President
Clinton’s, and its passage is considered one of his first
successes. The impetus for NAFTA actually began with
President Ronald Reagan, who campaigned on a North
American common market in 1984, when the Congress
passed the Trade and Tariff Act. This is important because it
gave the President “fast-track” authority to negotiate free
trade agreements, while only allowing Congress the power to
approve or disapprove, not change negotiating points. The
Canadian Prime Minister, Mulroney, agreed with Reagan to
begin negotiations for the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement,
which was signed in 1988, went into effect in 1989 and is now
suspended due to NAFTA. Meanwhile, the Mexican
President, Salinas, and President Bush began negotiations
for a liberalised trade between the two countries. Prior to
NAFTA, the Mexican tariffs on US imports were 250% higher
than US tariffs on Mexican imports. In 1991, Canada
requested a trilateral agreement, which then led to NAFTA. In
1993, concerns about liberalisation of labour and
environmental regulations led to the adoption of two
addendums to NAFTA.
Opinions are divided in the USA with regard to the NAFTA
factor. Those who favour NAFTA argue that:
i. the removal of costly and delaying trade barriers would

lead to easier and swifter trade (one estimate is an
increase in US income to the tune of about US$ 500
billion annually;
ii. the volume of the US sale would also increase;
iii. the manufacturing cost of goods would be lowered with
the use of less expensive materials acquired through
free trade; and
iv. the US free trade would benefit the poorer and non-
industrialised nations through increases in the
purchases of their materials and labour services by the
USA.
Those who are opposed to NAFTA argue:
i. free trade has caused more US job losses than gains. In

a book Take This Job and Ship it, Byran Dorgan says,
“,.. in this global economy no one is more profoundly
affected than the American workers . In the last five
years, we have lost over 3 million US jobs that have
been outsourced to other countries, and millions more
are poised to leave”;
ii. many free trade agreements have been bad deals for
the USA. In June 2007, the Boston Globe, for example,
reported about a pending new agreement, “Last year,
South Korea exported 7,00,000 cars to the United
States while the US car makers sold 6000 in South
Korea, attributing more than 80% of a $13 billion US
trade deficit with South Korea .”.
It is said that such lop-sided dealings are common in US

free trade agreements.
In practical terms, NAFTA has created the world’s largest
free trade, linking 439 million people and producing $15.3
million in goods and services annually. Estimates are that
NAFTA increases US GDP by as much as 5 per cent a year.
Trade among the NAFTA signatories tripled, from $297
billion in 1993 to $930 billion in 2007. Specifically,
e US goods exports to Canada and Mexico grew 157 per

cent, from $142 billion to $364.6 billion.
e Exports from Canada and Mexico to the US grew 231
per cent, from $151 billion to $501 billion.
(a) NAFTA is especially helpful for agricultural exports

because it reduces high Mexican tariffs. Mexico is
the top export destination for beef, rice, soybean
meal, corn sweeteners, apples and beans. It is the
second largest for corn, soybeans and oils. As a
result of NAFTA, the per cent of US agricultural
exports to Canada and Mexico has grown from 22
per cent in 1993 to 30 per cent in 2007.
(b) More than 40 per cent of US GDP is services,
including financial services and health care. These
are not as easily transported as are goods, so
being able to expand services to nearby countries
is important. Thanks to NAFTA, US services
exports to Canada and Mexico grew 125 per cent,
from $25 billion to $62 billion in 2006. Services
exports from Canada and Mexico grew to $37
billion.
(c) Since NAFTA was enacted, US foreign direct
investment (FDI) in Canada and Mexico tripled to
$331 billion (as of 2006). Canadian and Mexican
FDI in the US was $165 billion.
(d) From 1993 to 2000, the value in US dollars of
Canadian exports of goods to the US and Mexico
has increased by 109 per cent while its exports to
the rest of the world grew by 29 per cent.
(e) The total trade between the three NAFTA partners
increased by 128 per cent and now is over $US
676 billion a year. Every day the NAFTA parties
carry out about $US 1.8 billion worth of trilateral
business transactions.
(f) For Canada, the US represents 77 per cent of its
imports and 84 per cent of its exports.
(g) The exports of Mexican goods to its NAFTA
partners are 238 per cent higher than in 1993.
During this period, the growth of exports counted
for more than half the Mexican GDP growth rate in
real terms.
(h) Canada accounts for 23 per cent of total US
exports. The USA sells more to Canada than to all
the European Union countries put together.
(i) During the first seven years of implementing
NAFTA, production in North America has grown by
more than 30 per cent compared to a growth rate of
a little less than 20 per cent during the previous
seven years.
(j) More than 82 per cent of the Mexican exports go to
the United States.
The disadvantages of NAFTA are no less significant. Since
the cost of labour is cheaper in Mexico, many manufacturing
industries moved part of their production from high-cost US
states. Between 1994 and 2002, the US lost 1.7 million jobs,
but gained 794,000 jobs, for a net loss of 879,000 jobs of
which 78 per cent were in manufacturing. States hit
particularly hard include California, New York, Michigan and
Texas. These states have high concentrations of industries
(such as motor vehicles, textiles, computers, and electrical
appliances) which moved a large number of plants to Mexico.
Thanks to the 2002 Farm Bill, the US agribusiness is
heavily subsidised—as much as 40 per cent of net farm
income. As tariffs are removed, corn and other foods are
exported to Mexico below cost. This benefits consumers who
pay less for food, but makes it impossible for rural Mexican
farmers to compete. In contrast, between 1990 and 2001,
Mexico decreased its subsidies to farmers from 33.2 per cent
to 13.2 per cent of the total farm income. Most subsidies go to
Mexico’s large firms.
To sum up, one would like to highlight the NAFTA effects. It
is probably rightly said that never before has an agreement
(NAFTA) gone so far to integrate the economies of nations so
unequal. The gap between the average US and Mexican
wages has been about 8-to-1 which is twice as large as the
gap between the EU’s richest and poorest members. While
some argue that NAFTA has been beneficial to the business
owners in the three countries, it has had a negative impact on
the Mexican farmers. The critics also argue that NAFTA has
contributed to the rising levels of inequality in both the USA
and Mexico. Noam Chomsky (World Orders Old and New)
has argued that the only true words in the phrase “North
American Free Trade Agreement” seem to be “North
America’, as what is called trade is in reality mostly restricted
to intra-corporate transfers of products and_ services.
Agreement is lacking as NAFTA was passed with a lack of
democratic oversight protocols and widespread public
opposition.
Practice
Questions
1. What do you mean by regionalisation?

(200-250 words)
2. Write a detailed note on the European
Union. What is its nature? (700-800
words)
3. State briefly the confederative and
federative elements of the European
Union. (200-250 words)
4. Why was the Association of South East
Asian Nations formed? State briefly its
objectives and principles. (700-800
words)
5. What are the three pillars of ASEAN?
(200-250 words)
6. Why was the APEC formed? State
briefly its institutions. Is it an economic
union? Give reasons. (700-800 words)
or
Substantiate APEC as the regional

economic and trade arrangement.
(2013) (200-250 words)
7. “SAARC as a regional cooperation has
been a non-performing entity.” Do you
agree or not? Give reasons. (700-800
words)
8. What is the relevance of SAARC? (200-
250 words)
9. Why was NAFTA formed? State its
merits and demerits for the countries
which formed them. (700-800 words)
10. Write a brief critical note on NAFTA.
(200-250 words)
J
\
0
Contemporary Global
Concerns (Democracy, Human
Rights, Environment, Gender Justice,
Terrorism, Nuclear Proliferation)
— very age has its own global problems. The

contemporary world is no exception. It is difficult to list
the global concerns for every age. One can only hint
at the major ones. Individual abuse of humans by humans is
one such global concern: it is a slow death day by day, and
for decades; women are usually abused physically, mentally
and intellectually; men are also abused when exploited by
their employers; its forms vary from verbal to physical,
mental, sexual, financial and psychological. Genocide may
be described as another global concern. It is when people
begin killing their species en masse: European explorers
killed indigenous people in areas such as_ Western
hemisphere, Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and
elsewhere; Nazi death camps were notorious for killing the
Jews, the non-whites, the Gays; the Chinese dynastics killed
millions of Muslims during the nineteenth century; in the
twentieth and the twenty-first centuries, the Africans have
been continually killed, and their arms chopped off from their
shoulders, in Sudan. Overpopulation is another major
concern. The earth can support only a number of people. The
circumstances on earth are such that the continents are
becoming overpopulated in our century: we have outlived our
sustainability both as a people as well as a planet—over-
population means more conflicts, deadly wars, food
shortages, increased crimes. Misinformation is also a global
concern. With the popularisation of electronic and print media,
falsehood has reached alarming proportions: it is said that
during the 1950s and 1960s people used to lie, but fifty years
later they are talked into believing what some media people
want them to believe. Immigration is becoming a problem
globally: the Mexicans come into the USA _ through
inadequately controlled borders; the Bangladeshis enter India
through routes illegally framed. Large numbers of people are
moving from one nation to another all over the world, in
search of better opportunities. Terrorism is real; it is a global
curse: the USA and India have suffered terroristic attacks. So
has Pakistan, while the Middle East is almost explosive.
Terrorism is rampant everywhere: no country is safe.
The contemporary global concerns are numerous. Some of
the major concerns need our attention.
I. DEMOCRACY
Democracy is the most fascinating form of government, and
the most sought-after one. The modern age, being the
democratic age, has witnessed ever-growing and ever-
evolving aspects of its never-ending essence. We all claim to
be democratic, and yet we all are always short of it. We hold
free and fair elections, the only characteristic of democratic
system not found in other forms of government, and yet we
find that the government we constitute is not ruled by the will
of the people. We grant liberties and rights to citizens, not
bestowed in any other form of government, and yet we find
that the freedom we enjoy is hardly exercised to influence our
rulers: we speak but we are not heard. We are made equal
through law and the constitution, having been assured of non-
discrimination, a quality not found in any other form of
government, and yet the system we evolve makes some are
more privileged than others. Democracy is never a perfect
system of government, and yet it is the best of all systems
known to the mankind.
As compared to other forms of government, democracy is
more educative, more representative, more participatory,
more liberal, more libertarian, more equalitarian, more
responsive, more responsible, more transparent, 62 per cent
democratic nations (Freedom House an _ American
autonomous body claims so, i.e., 120 of the world’s 192
states), no one nation is as democratic as the other:
democracies differ in degrees and no one can claim to be a
complete democracy. In fact, there is none so. Democracy is
one of our global concerns.
Democracy in the sense that an individual is his/her own
ruler is neither practicable nor feasible and not even is
desirable, especially when the states are vastly populated
and are geographically large. The only form of democracy,
which prevails in the world today, is indirect democracy or
what is termed as_ the’ representative democracy.
Representative democracy works through a mechanism:
structurally, the government is to be decentralised both
vertically and horizontally; the system of universal adult
franchise; free and fair elections through full-proof electoral
laws; rule of law; free and fair media; impartial judiciary;
democratic traditions such as judicious majority and
responsible minority, deliberations at mass scale, tolerance,
majoritarianism, well-organised sound party system and the
like; foundation-wise, there has to be social and economic
equality; social and economic security; socio-economic
justice; socially well-versed educated citizenry; those who
elect representatives have to be people with sense of duty,
commonsense, honest while those who rule on behalf of the
people should be justice-loving, above-board, people with
faith in democratic values and political experience. Procedural
democracy and substantive democracy have to go together.
Democracy, in its basic form, as we know it today,
possesses in Abraham Lincoln’s celebrated definition,
elements such as the people’s participation in the formation
of government, their consent (“government of the people”),
control over the rulers, seeking their accountability
(“government by the people”) and welfare of the people, their
well-being (“government for the people”). Democracy in the
West evolved first as government by the people (people
gaining rights and liberties, controlling the powers of the
rulers), thereafter as government of the people (franchise in
the West was introduced slowly and gradually, starting with
the early nineteenth century) and finally became _ the
government for the people, in the form of the welfare state,
following John Maynard Keynes’s argument of such a state.
Along with the evolution of democracy, which evolution took
almost three centuries (eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth),
there came to be _ introduced institutionalisation of the
democratic machinery in one form or another in numerous
states of the West. In our efforts to make the government
more democratic, we are making experiments of
democratising the polity and the society. This is so because
democracy as a form of government is different than
democracy as a way Of life. To fill the gap between the two is
our major goal.
A democratic government everywhere is a_ party
government, whether of one majority party or of coalitional
parties. Political parties everywhere are centralised parties
and are seldom democratically constituted. Such centralising
and_ discipline-oriented political parties run democratic
governments. Are not such political parties, whether in the
name of ideology or in the name of party discipline, a curse
for democracy? Do they not vitiate the democratic system
both during and after elections, inside and _ outside
legislatures?
The electoral system and the election procedure make
mockery of democracy. Political parties place before the
people candidates whom the voters do not select. The voters
elect the representative, who is always loyal to the political
party, which allots him/her the party ticket, and not the
electorate whom he/she is supposed to represent. Citizens
are usually apathetic in casting their votes, and it is seldom
that the turnout is above fifty perc ent. The candidate
declared elected (out of the total valid votes) is invariably the
one who is chosen by the minority. Indeed, the US
Presidential candidate has to attain the majority (more than
per cent) of the total votes polled by members of the electoral
college, but the members of the electoral college themselves
are those whom the electorate’s turnout elects them, which
turnout percentage is hardly 50 per cent. The French
President, when elected, has to have a clear majority but how
many French citizens come forward to vote? Here too, the
turnout is seldom 50 per cent of all electorate. What is this
democracy where the participation of the citizens in all types
of elections has a low turnout? What is this democracy where
the candidates elected are those whom the minority
practically supports? What is this democracy where the
representative of a constituency becomes the delegate of the
political party, which grants him/her the party ticket? What is
this democracy where the representative infrequently visits
his/her electorate and seldom seeks to know their views on
public matters? Under such circumstances, it cannot be
assumed that the government elected by the people really
governs on the will of the people.
Decentralisation is a key feature of any domestic polity.
Federalisation ensures vertical decentralisation—giving the
federal government functions of national importance, to the
provincial government functions of regional importance and to
the local government functions of local importance. Such a
division of power is an essential element of the democratic
system. Horizontally, the functions, at every level of
government, are exercised by legislature (which makes laws),
executive (which enforces laws) and judiciary (which
interprets laws ). This is what is usually referred to as the
separation of powers. To avoid centralisation, which eats
away the vitality of democracy, decentralisation is usually
resorted to. Decentralisation ensures democracy but it is only
one factor and not the only factor. And then the existence or
absence of the separation of powers is no guarantee that
there exists democracy. There is the separation of powers
along with the checks of balance in the United States but
does that make the USA more democratic than the United
Kingdom. There is fusion of power in the United Kingdom, but
does that make the United Kingdom less democratic than the
United States. A vast nation with a federal form and
presidential system (like the USA) is as democratic as is
Switzerland, a small mountainous state with the federal form
together with a semi-presidential and semi-parliamentary
system. The People’s Republic of China, with the largest
population of the world and unitary system, claims to be
peoples’ democracy as much as the United Kingdom does
with a small population. The liberal-democratic nations of the
West with the banner of liberty describe themselves as
democratic as do the socialist nations with their passion for
equality. Democracy has a host of varying characteristics:
there are a few of them in some states and other few in some
other states. The introduction of institutional and procedural
mechanism supporting the democratic polity has its utility, if it
strengthens the elements constituting the essence of
democracy, i.e., helps generate a well-awakened citizen-
body, induce mass and meaningful participation at all levels
of administration, make the rulers responsive, and
accountable to concerned bodies, ensure rights and liberties
of the people, create a responsible media, judiciary and
sound public opinion, together with an alert and assertive civil
society, prepare an atmosphere of peace, law and order and
cooperation.
Most countries claim to be democratic though they vary in
degree. Democracy does suffer deficiencies of one or another
kind. This is what makes democracy a global concern.
Elections which constitute a key tenet of democracy, are not
conducted freely and openly in most countries; the rule of law
is seldom respected in others; some states, such as Pakistan,
toss between democratic regime and military regime while in
others, especially the African nations, governments are run
under military dictatorships; turn-out, where elections are
held, is invariably low while in some others, rights and
liberties appear better on paper than in practice. Voters’
apathy is quite frequent, while at other places, they are
usually intimidated or bribed. Political parties act most
irresponsibly and in most cases in authoritarian manner.
Bureaucratic rule, under the’ pretext of ministerial
responsibility, is common. The so-called majoritary-formed
governments are, in fact , minoritary-formed ones. All so-
called democratic governments have been products of elitist
politics. Democracy has, in most cases and in most countries,
become the art of mobilising masses. Money, in lesser
socialising nations, professing democracies, matters more
than merit: those who have money have more legislators in
their pockets. Ideologies create autocratic regimes with
dictatorial tendencies. While direct democracies have been
impracticable, representative systems have hardly been
representative in the real sense of the term: manipulation
works more than influence.
ll. HUMAN RIGHTS

Human rights are those entitlements which human beings
have them as human beings. They are essential because
they help us develop our personality; they are universal
because they belong to all human beings everywhere; they
are fundamental to our genuine living. They are:
(a) civil and political: rights to life, liberty, security,
freedom from arbitrary arrest, a fair trial, freedom of
movement, of choosing our government and ruling
ourselves;
(b) economic and social: equality and non-
discrimination, access to opportunities, adequate
wages;
(c) minority rights: rights to the protection of one’s
ethnicity and _ culture; developmental and
environmental: healthy environment, sustainable
development.
Human rights have the sanction of numerous treaties. They
constitute the very strength of moral principles as well, though
it is difficult to enlist them universally valid moral truth for all
time to come. Culturally, also, human rights conflict with
numerous cultures and are described as Western-oriented—
the Iranian representative, in 1981, labelling the human rights
emanating from Judeo-Christian tradition, trespassing the
Muslim law. Singapore and Malaysia consider these rights
different from Asian values. These criticisms apart, the
significance of human rights can hardly be either denied or
ignored.
The human rights situation in the world is not what should
cheer anybody. Despite the fact that over a hundred
governments have agreed to outlaw some of human rights
violations, torture still exists; female genital mutilation is still
regarded a tradition in different parts of African societies;
terrorists, in any part of the world, violate human rights;
governments also curb rights in the name of security.
Amnesty International, in its report in 2004, noted some
setbacks to human rights values. It says: “Violence by armed
groups and increasing violations by governments have
combined to produce the most sustained attack on human
rights and international humanitarian law in 50 years. This
was leading to a world of growing mistrust, fear and division’.
Amnesty International strongly condemned armed groups
responsible for atrocities [representing] a significant new
threat to international justice.” But it is also frightening that the
principles of international law and the tools of multilateral
action which could protect us from these attacks are being
undermined, marginalised or destroyed by powerful
governments,” said Irene Khan [Secretary General of
Amnesty International]. “Governments are losing their moral
compass, sacrificing the global values of human rights in a
blind pursuit of security. This failure of leadership is a
dangerous concession to armed groups.” ...The “war on
terror’ and the war in lraq has encouraged a new wave of
human rights abuse and diverted attention from old ones ...
while many governments are openly pursuing repressive
agendas. “While governments have been obsessed with the
threat of weapons of mass destruction as in Iraq, they have
allowed the real weapons of mass destruction—injustice and
impunity, poverty, discrimination and racism, the uncontrolled
trade in small arms, violence against women and abuse of
children—to go unaddressed.”
Over the years, the assaults on political rights and the
fundamental right to life, either by the individuals, or by
governments, are on the increase. Some of the greatest
violations of the right to life are massacres, starvation of
populations, and genocide. Genocide is commonly referred to
as the intentional extermination of a single ethnic, racial, or
religious group. Killing group members, causing them serious
bodily or mental harm, imposing measures to prevent birth, or
forcibly transferring children are all other ways to bring about
the destruction of a group. Genocide is the most offensive
crime against humanity.
Sexual assaults which involve sexual mutilation, sexual
humiliation, are common; women and girls are often raped;
trafficking of women is a form of sexual slavery and is a part
of institutionalised sexual violence against women in both
wartimes and in peace-times.
Torture is another human rights violation used in many
countries. It is usually used as a method to extract
confessions or information. Today, it is increasingly used as
means of suppressing political and ideological dissent, or for
punishing political opponents who do not share the ideology
of the ruling group. In addition to torture, tens of thousands of
people detained in connection with conflicts “disappear” each
year, and are usually killed and buried in secret. Government
forces “take people into custody, hold them in_ secret
locations, and then refuse to acknowledge responsibility for
their whereabouts or fate.”
Various lesser forms of political oppression are often
enacted as well. Individuals who pose a threat to those in
power or do not share their political views may be arbitrarily
imprisoned, and either never brought to trial or subject to
grossly unfair trial procedures. Mass of people may be denied
the right to vote or excluded from all forms of political
participation. Or, measures restricting people’s freedom of
movement may be enforced. These include forcible
relocations, mass expulsions, and denials of the right to seek
asylum or return to one’s home. Capital punishment is a
legalised denial of human rights.
Political oppression, leading to discrimination, has been
violation of human rights in history in general and in South
Africa in particular. The system of apartheid has been the
gravest example of human rights violation. Accordingly,
certain individuals are held to be inferior and are not regarded
as full human beings. Though, such a racist regime no more
exists, examples of racial discrimination are oftenly brought to
light.
Human rights violations are too numerous and are of too
many types. These violations pollute the whole system and
create a world where inhumanity reigns. They prove beyond
doubt that we still live in sub-human societies. We need to
observe the international humanitarian law.
lll. ENVIRONMENT
Environmental issues are neither new nor insignificant.
Human interaction with environment has served people in
numerous ways while human beings have exploited the
environment to the fullest extent. Over much of human
history, the environmental impact of over-exploitation or
pollution has been quite noticeable.
As early as 1896, the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius
had predicted that human activities interfere with the way the
sun interacts with the earth, resulting in global warming and
climate change. His prediction has come true and climate
change is now disrupting global environmental stability. It was
only during the 1960s that international concerns about
pollution and preservation of natural environment began to
develop. Richard Carson (Silent Spring) not only stimulated
concern about the widespread use of DDT and other
pesticides, but also helped launch modern environmental
movement. Environmental problems, which caught the
concern of the people of this globe, were numerous and the
major among them which came to be identified are pollution
(water, air and land), ozone layer depletion, global warming
and loss of biodiversity.
The United Nations Conference on the Human
Environment (also known as the Stockholm Conference)
was convened under the United Nations auspices in
Stockholm, Sweden, from June 516,1972. It was the UN’s
first major conference on international environmental issues,
and marked a turning point in the development of
international environmental politics. The conference was
opened and addressed by the Swedish Prime Minister Olof
Palme and secretary-general Kurt Waldheim to discuss the
state of the global environment. Attended by representatives
of 113 countries, 19 inter-governmental agencies, and more
than 400 _ inter-governmental and nongovernmental
organisations, it was widely recognised as the beginning of
modern political and public awareness’ of _ global
environmental problems. The meeting agreed upon a
Declaration containing 26 principles concerning the
environment and development; an Action Plan with 109
recommendations, and a resolution. The Action Plan spanned
six broad areas (human settlements, natural resoruce
management, pollution, educational and social aspects of the
individual, development and the environment, and
international organisation). The resolution was related to
various institutional and financial arrangements, establishing
themes and practices which remained central to international
environmental politics in the following years. One of the key
issues addressed was the use of Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
(haloalkanes), which seemed to be responsible for the
depletion of the ozone layer. Global warming was mentioned,
but in this matter nothing substantial was achieved at this
conference. Apart from increasing awareness _ of
environmental issues among public and governments (for
example, many governments subsequently created ministries
for environment and/or national agencies for environmental
monitoring and regulation), the Stockholm Conference laid
framework for future environmental cooperation; led to the
creation of global and regional environmental monitoring
networks and the creation of a United Nations Environment
Programme.
Another conference was held in 1992 when 172
governments participated, with 108 sending their heads of
state or government. Some 2,400 representatives of non-
governmental organisations (NGOs) attended, with 17,000
people at the parallel NGO “Global Forum’, who had so-
called Consultative Status. This was the UN Conference on
Environment at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, (June 3 to 14), in 1992,
also called the Rio Summit, Earth Summit.
The issues addressed at this summit included:
e systematic scrutiny of patterns of production—

particularly the production of toxic components, such as
lead in gasoline, or poisonous waste including
radioactive chemicals;
e alternative sources of energy to replace the use of fossil
fuels which are linked to global climate change;
e new reliance on public transportation in order to reduce
vehicle emissions, congestion in cities and health
problems caused by polluted air and smog; and
® growing scarcity of water.
An important achievement was an agreement on the

Climate Change Convention which in turn led to Kyoto
Protocol. Another agreement was to “not carry out any
activities on the lands of indigenous peoples that would cause
environmental degradation or that would be culturally
inappropriate”.
The Earth Summit resulted in the following documents:
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development

Agenda 21
Convention on Biological Diversity
Forest Principles
Framework Convention on Climate Change
Both Convention on Biological Diversity and Framework

Convention on Climate Change were set as legally binding
agreements.
The Kyoto Protocol is a protocol of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or
FCCC), an international environmental treaty which was
produced with the goal of achieving “stabilisation of
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level
that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with
the climate system.” It establishes legally binding
commitments for the reduction of four greenhouse gases
(carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur
hexafluoride), and two groups of gases (hydrofluorocarbons
and perfluorocarbons) produced by industrialised nations, as
well as general commitments for all member countries. As of
January 2009, 183 states have ratified the protocol, which
was initially adopted for use on 11 December 1997 in Kyoto,
Japan and which entered into force on 16 February 2005.
Under Kyoto, industrialised countries agreed to reduce their
collective GHG emissions by 5.2 per cent compared to the
year 1990. National limitations range from 8 per cent
reductions for the European Union and some others to 7 per
cent for the United States, 6 per cent for Japan, and O per
cent for Russia. The treaty permitted GHG emission
increases of 8 per cent for Australia and 10 per cent for
Iceland.
The World Summit on Sustainable Development, WSSD
or Earth Summit 2002 took place in Johannesburg, South
Africa, from 26 August to 4 September 2002. It was convened
to discuss sustainable development by the United Nations.
The WSSD gathered a number of leaders from business and
non-governmental organisations, 10 years after the first Earth
Summit in Rio de Janeiro, also is referred to as “Rio+10”.
The Johannesburg Declaration is the result of this Summit.
It is an agreement to focus particularly on “the worldwide
conditions that pose severe threats to the sustainable
development of our people, which include: chronic hunger;
malnutrition; foreign occupation; armed conflict; illicit drug
problems; organised crime; corruption; natural disasters; illicit
arms trafficking; trafficking in persons; terrorism; intolerance
and incitement to racial, ethnic, religious and other hatreds;
xenophobia; and endemic, communicable and_ chronic
diseases, in particular HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.”
One of the most important characteristics of environmental
degradation is that it affects all mankind on a global scale
without any regard to any particular country, region or race.
The whole world is at stake, the vicitm of the environmental
wrath.
The ozone layer depletion is a grave environmental issue.
The ozone layer is an efficient filter for harmful solar
ultraviolet B (UV-B) rays. The ozone depletion process begins
when chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other ozone-depleting
substances (ODSs) are emitted into the atmosphere. As the
strong UV-B rays break apart the ODS molecules, CFCs,
carbon tetrachlordie and methyle chloro-form release chlorine
atoms and methylo bromide release bromide atoms and both
of these destroy ozone, leading to its deflecting with the
effects on the following:
Effects on Human and Animal Health : Increased
penetration of solar UV-B radiation is likely to have high
impact on human health with potential risks of eye diseases,
skin cancer and infectious diseases. Effects on Terrestrial
Plants: Forests and grasslands, increased radiation is likely
to change species composition thus altering the bio-diversity
in different ecosystems. It could also affect the plant
community indirectly resulting in changes in plant form,
secondary metabolism, etc. Effects on Aquatic Ecosystems
: High levels of radiation exposure in tropics and subtropics
may affect the distribution of phytoplanktons, which form the
foundation of aquatic food webs. It can also cause damage to
early development stages of fish, shrimp, crab, amphibians
and other animals, the most severe effects being decreased
reproductive capacity and impaired larval development.
Effects on Bio-geo-chemical Cycles : Increased solar UV
radiation could affect terrestrial and aquatic bio-geo-chemical
cycles thus altering both sources and sinks of greenhouse
and important trace gases, e.g. carbon dioxide (CO>), carbon
monoxide (CO), carbonyl sulfide (COS), etc. These changes
would contribute to biosphere-atmosphere feedbacks
responsible for the atmosphere build-up of these greenhouse
gases. Effects on Air Quality : Reduction of stratospheric
ozone and increased penetration of UV-B radiation result in
higher photo dissociation rates of key trace gases that control
the chemical reactivity of the troposphere. This can increase
both production and destruction of ozone and related oxidants
such as hydrogen peroxide, which are known to have adverse
effects on human health, terrestrial plants and outdoor
materials.
The ozone layer, therefore, is highly beneficial to plant and
animal life on earth filtering out the dangerous part of sun’s
radiation and allowing only the beneficial part to reach earth.
Any disturbance or depletion of this layer would result in an
increase of harmful radiation reaching the earth’s surface
leading to dangerous consequences.
Global warming is another environmental hazard. Before
the Industrial Revolution, human activities released very few
gases into the atmosphere and all climate changes happened
naturally. After the Industrial Revolution, through fossil fuel
combustion, changing agricultural practices and
deforestation, the natural composition of gases in the
atmosphere is getting affected and climate and environment
began to alter significantly.
Over the last 100 years, it was found out that the earth is
getting warmer and warmer, unlike previous 8,000 years
when temperatures had been relatively constant. The present
temperature is 0. 3-0.6 °C warmer than it was 100 years ago.
The key greenhouse gases (GHG) causing global warming
are carbon dioxide. CFCs, even though they exist in very
small quantities, are significant contributor to global warming.
Carbon dioxide, one of the most prevalent greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere, has two major anthropogenic (human-
caused) sources: the combustion of fossil fuels and changes
in land use. Net releases of carbon dioxide from these two
sources are believed to be contributing to a rapid rise in
atmospheric concentrations since industrial revolution.
The global warming implications are too dangerous.
These include:
Rise in global temperature: Observations show that
global temperatures have risen by about 0. 6 °C over the
twentieth century. There is strong evidence that most of the
observed warming over the last 50 years has been caused by
human activities. Climate models predict that the global
temperature will rise by about 6 °C by the year 2100. Rise in
sea level: In general, the faster the climate change, the
greater will be the risk of damage. The mean sea level is
expected to rise 9-88 cm by the year 2100, causing flooding
of low lying areas and other damages. Food shortages and
hunger: Water resources will be affected as precipitation and
evaporation patterns change around the world. This will affect
agricultural output. Food security is likely to be threatened
and some regions are likely to experience food shortages and
hunger. India could be more at risks than many other
countries: Estimates predict an average increase in
temperature in India of 2.3 to 4.8°C for the benchmark
doubling of Carbon-dioxide scenario. Temperature would rise
more in Northern India than in Southern India. It is estimated
that 7 million people would be displaced, 5,700 km of land
and 4,200 km of road would be lost, and wheat yields could
decrease significantly.
Pollution is another environmental problem. It is one of the
greatest dangers the world is facing. It is something that adds
to the ecosystem, and one that is detrimental to the
ecosystem. Air pollution is responsible for respiratory
diseases which, ultimately, cause a large number of death. It
pollutes gases essential for the survival of human beings.
Acid rain, as an effect of air pollution causes unimaginable
damage. Land pollution, caused through chemicals such as
herbicides and pesticides, threatens health. Water pollutants
are responsible for large quantities of harmful bacteria.
Biodiversity boosts ecosystem productivity where each
species, however, small, has an important role to play. It is
believed that human activity is changing biodiversity and
causing massive extinctions. The World Resource Institute
reports that there is a link between biodiversity and climate
change. Rapid global warming can affect ecosystems
chances to adapt naturally. Over the past 150 years,
deforestation has contributed an estimated 30 per cent of the
atmospheric build-up of CObd. It is also a significant driving
force behind the loss of genes, species, and critical
ecosystem services. Climate change is affecting species
already threatened by multiple threats across the globe.
Habitat fragmentation due to colonisation, logging, agriculture
and mining etc. are all contributing to further destruction of
terrestrial habitats. Individual species may not be able to
adapt. Species most threatened by climate change have
small ranges, low population densities, restricted habitat
requirements and patchy distribution. Ecosystems will
generally shift northward or upward in altitude, but in some
cases they will run out of space—as 1°C change in
temperature correspond to a 100 Km change in latitude,
hence, average shift in habitat conditions by the year 2100
will be on the order of 140 to 580 Km. Sea level may rise,
engulfing low-lying areas causing disappearance of many
islands, and extinctions of endemic island species. Droughts
and wildfires may increase. An increased risk of wildfires due
to warming and drying out of vegetation is likely.
IV. GENDER JUSTICE

Gender is a code word for women and gender justice refers to
justice to be assured to women-folk. That women constitute
52 per cent of the world’s population, outnumbering men,
does not ensure that they are considered equals to men,
though the equality feminist, largely the liberals, seek an end
to women’s exclusion from power and employment. That men
and women are born equally free and independent members
of the human race, and are equally endowed with intelligence
and ability does not ensure that they are equally entitled to
the free exercise of their rights, though the Marxist-socialist
feminists seek an end to the system of class society. The fact
of interdependence and cooperation of men and women is
furiously denied by the radical feminists who seek the radical
transformation of the role the both sexes have been playing
so far and redefinition of everything around.
Gender exploitation is still common. Women in many parts
of the world are still regarded as second-class citizens,
relegated to the four walls of the house, leading what is called
‘a private and personal life, away from the ‘public’. They are
not paid salaries and wages which men obtain for the same
type of work: their domestic work goes unpaid. Their work
environment has not improved but has regressed. They are
sold into slavery. According to an estimate in 2001-02 the
number of women and children trafficked out of South-East
Asia, was 225,000; South Asia, 150,000; Latin
American/Caribbean, 100,000; Eastern Europe, 75,000; and
Africa, 50,000. The global sex trade goes on between main
sending countries such as China, Indonesia, Malaysia, the
Philippines, Russia, South Korea, Thailand, Ukraine, Vietnam
while the main receiving countries are Germany, Japan,
Taiwan and the USA. It is important to refer to the global
disparity rate (source UNDP 2003), which for 70 countries, is
as under:
Table 40.1 Global Disparity Rate
Country GEM GDI HDIRank

Rank Rank
Iceland 1 2 2
Norway 2 1 1
Sweden 3 3 3
Denmark 4 9 11
Finland 5 10 14
Netherlands 6 7 5
Austria 7 14 16
Germany 8 15 18
Canada 9 6 8
United States 10 5 7
United Arab 65 49 48
Emirates
Turkey 66 81 96
Sri Lanka 67 80 99
The statistics reveal that women’s position in different fields

is not very encouraging. They possess roughly one per cent
of the land in the world. The World March of Women gives
significant information. It says:
(a) Today only six countries can boast the following:
close to complete sexual equality in the area of
secondary education, 30 per cent representation of
women in elected government positions, roughly 50
per cent of non-agricultural jobs occupied by
women.
(b) In nearly 100 years, only 24 women have been
elected as head of state.
(c) Around 80 per cent of 27 million refugees around
the planet are women.
(d) Two-thirds of 300 million children who have no
access to education are girls.
(e) Out of almost a billion people who are unable to
read and write, two-thirds are women.
(f) Over 200,000 women die every year as a result of
back-street abortions.
(g) Women produce 80 per cent of the food in the
poorest areas of the world; in some places, this
figure is as high as 95 per cent.
(h) Officially, 110 million girls worldwide between the
ages of 5 and 14 work, and this does not include
domestic tasks.
The women’s position at work reveals astonishing figures.
Such information (source: /nternational Labour Organisation)
is:
(a) Of the 192 countries in the world, around 12 have a
female head of state;
(b) Seventy per cent of the world’s billion poor are
women, living on less than US$ 1 per day;
(c) Women spend twice as much time as men on
unpaid work;
(d) Women on an average, worldwide, earn two-thirds
of what men earn;
(e) Women make up the majority of the world’s part-
time workers—between 60 per cent and 90 per
cent. In the European Union, 83 per cent of part-
time workers are women;
(f) In countries such as Australia, Canada, Thailand
and the United States, over 30 per cent of all
businesses are now owned or operated by women,
though the situation in other countries is widely
discouraging;
(g) Female labour force is common in certain sub-
Sahara Africa. For examples, 97 per cent in Benin,
95 per cent in Chad, 85 per cent in Guinea, and 83
per cent in Kenya; and
(h) In Europe, women are heads of the household in
nine out of ten single-parent family.
Gender violence, damaging the whole system itself, is, at
places, usual. Such activities destroy the society. The main
cause of violence is men’s constant hunger to assert power
and prove superiority. Men have also been encouraged to be
tough and have not been given enough skills to negotiate and
express their emotions. Because of this, they tend to resort to
violence whenever words fail them. Men who are not
aggressive and violent to their women, are ridiculed in some
cultures. Gender based violence is supported by the
patriarchal system which perpetuates the belief that women
are inferior and should be subordinate to men. Because of
their low economic status women are often forced to remain
in abusive relationships. The trafficking of women and
children has also become a global form of slavery and affects
rich and poor families. This issue makes women vulnerable to
HIV infection.
The women’s movements, over the world, have been
assertive. The United Nations has also awakened to the
problems which concern women. Women activism has had an
impact on the international conferences relating to them.
Some important conferences, under the United Nations
System, held were: International Women Year, 1975; UN
Decade for Women; 1976-85; UN Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women,
1979;
Copenhagen Women’s’ Conference, 1980; Nairobi
Women’s’ Conference, 1985; UN General Assembly
Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women,
1993, Cairo International Conference on Population and
Development, 1994, Beijing Women’s Conference, 1995;
Beijings, New York, 2000; and Durban World Conference
Against Racism, 2002.
V. TERRORISM
Definitions of terrorism vary widely, though all definitions are
characterised by the fact that terrorism involves acts of
violence. These include hostage-taking, hijacking, bombing
and other indiscriminate attacks, usually targeting civilians
(examples 9/11 attack on the US World Trade Centre in 2001,
December 13, 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament, terrorists
attack on Mumbai on November 26, 2008). It is an intentional
use or threat to use violence against civilians and non-
combatants “in order to achieve political goals”. This tactic of
political violence is intended to intimidate or cause terror for
the purpose of “exerting pressure on decision making by state
bodies.” The term “terror” is largely used to_ indicate
clandestine, low-intensity violence that targets civilians and
generates public fear. Thus “terror” is distinct from
asymmetric warfare, and violates the concept of a common
law of war in which civilian life is respected.
The word “terrorism” is politically and emotionally charged,
and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a
precise definition. A 2003 study by Jeffrey Record (Bounding
the Global War on Terrorism) for the US Army quoted a
source (Schmid and Jongman 1988) that counted 109
definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different
definitional elements. Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur also
has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the ‘only
general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism
involves violence and the threat of violence.’
The term ‘ terrorism’ comes from Latin Terrere which
means ‘to frighten’. The word ‘terror’ was first recorded in
English language dictionaries in 1789 as meaning “systematic
use of terror as a policy.” The meaning originated with
Russian radicals in the 1870s. Indian nationalists using
extremist activities against British rulers after the partition of
Bengal were also called terrorists.
The contemporary label of “terrorist” is highly pejorative; it
is a badge which denotes a lack of legitimacy and morality.
The application “terrorist” is therefore always deliberately
disputed. Attempts at defining the concept invariably arouse
debate because rival definitions may be employed with a view
to including the actions of certain parties, and excluding
others. Thus, “one man’s terror is another man’s freedom
fight” [The Economist, Vol. 273: 2 (1848)].
Some of the definitions of terrorism are:
(1) League of Nations Convention (1937): “All criminal
acts directed against a state and intended or calculated to
create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a
group of persons or the general public’.
(2) UN Resolution language (1999):” (i) Strongly
condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as
criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever
committed; (ii) Reiterates that criminal acts intended or
calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a
group of persons or particular persons for political purposes
are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the
considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial,
ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify
them”. (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international
terrorism)
(3) Academic Consensus Definition: “Terrorism is an
anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed
by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for
idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in
contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are
not the main targets. The immediate human victims of
violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of
opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets)
from a target population, and serve as message generators.
Threat-and violence-based communication processes
between terrorist (organisation), (imperiled) victims, and main
targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)),
turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a
target of attention, depending on whether intimidation,
coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought” (Schmid,
“Definition of Terrorism’).
(4) Resolution 1566 refers to it as: “criminal acts,
including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause
death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the
purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in
a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a
population or compel a government or an_ international
organisation to do or to abstain from doing any act.” (UN
Security Council Resolution 1566.
(5) On March 17, 2005, a UN panel described terrorism
as any act “intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to
civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a
population or compelling a government or an international
organisation to do or abstain from doing any act.”
Former Secretary-General Kofi Annan has stated that there
are several Conventions on Terrorism by non-state actors.
They
(a) define a particular type of terrorist violence as an
offence under the convention, such as bombing,
financing, etc.;
(b) require State Parties to penalise that activity in their
domestic law;
(c) identify certain bases upon which the Parties
responsible are required to establish jurisdiction
over the defined offence;
(d) create an obligation on the State in which a suspect
is found to establish jurisdiction over the convention
offence and to prosecute if the Party does not
extradite pursuant to other provisions of the
convention.
Andrew Byrnes suggested in 2002 that these conventions
—all of which are described by the United Nations as part of
anti-terrorist measures—share three principal characteristics:
(a) they all adopted an “operational definition” of a
specific type of terrorist act that was defined without
reference to the underlying political or ideological
purpose or motivation of the perpetrator of the act
—this reflected a consensus that there were some
acts that were such a serious threat to the interests
of all that they could not be justified by reference to
such motives;
(b) they all focussed on actions by non-state actors
(individuals and organisations) and the state was
seen as an active ally in the struggle against
terrorism - the question of the state itself as terrorist
actor was left largely to one side; and
(c) they all adopted a criminal law enforcement model
to address the problem, under which states would
cooperate in the apprehension and prosecution of
those alleged to have committed these crimes.
The European Union employs a definition of terrorism for
legal/official purposes which is set out in Art. 1 of the
Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism (2002). This
provides that terrorist offences are certain criminal offences
set out in a list comprised largely of serious offences against
persons and property which:
“given their nature or context, may seriously damage a
country or an international organisation where committed with
the aim of: seriously intimidating a population; or unduly
compelling a government or international organisation to
perform or abstain from performing any act; or seriously
destabilising or destroying the fundamental _ political,
constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an
international organisation.”
The United States Law Code defines the term “terrorism”
to mean a “premeditated, politically motivated violence
perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational
groups or clandestine agents”. At another place, it is defined
as “.activities that involve violent. or life-threatening acts. that
are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of
any state and. appear to be intended
i. to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

ii. to influence the policy of a government by intimidation
or coercion; or
iii. to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping..”
Some scholars have defined terrorism as follows:

Tamar Meisels (The Trouble with Terror) advocates a
consistent and strict definition of terrorism, which she defines
as “the intentional random murder of defenseless non-
combatants, with the intent of instilling fear of mortal danger
amidst a civilian population as a strategy designed to
advance political ends.”
Carsten Bockstette (Jihadist Terrorist Use of Strategic
Communication Management Techniques) “Terrorism is
defined as a political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that
is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes
indiscriminate) through the violent victimisation and
destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic
symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an
illicit clandestine organisation. The purpose of terrorism is to
exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable
publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence
the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short and midterm
political goals and/or desired long-term end states.”
David Rodin (Ethics, 114, 2004): “Terrorism is the
deliberate, negligent, or reckless use of force against
noncombatants, by state or nonstate actors for ideological
ends and in the absence of a substantively just legal
process.”
Walter Laqueur (Terrorism and Justice): “Terrorism
constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political
objective when innocent people are targeted.”
From the above definitions, the key criteria relating to the
concept of terrorism include
i. violence and the threat of violence;

ii. Create psychological fear;
iii. political tactics to attain a political goal;
iv. deliberate targeting the non-combatants;
V. usually illegitimate.
The six categories of terrorism are:
Civil Disorders—A form of collective violence

interfering with the peace, security and normal
functioning of the community.
Political terrorism—Violent criminal behaviour
designed primarily to generate fear in the community, or
substantial segment of it, for political purposes.
Non-political Terrorism— Terrorism that is not aimed
at political purposes but which exhibits “conscious
design to create and maintain high degree of fear for
coercive purposes, but the end is individual or collective
gain rather than the achievement of a political
objective.”
Quasi-Terrorism— Activities incidental to the
commission of crimes of violence that are similar in form
and method to terrorism but which nevertheless lack its
essential integredients. Unlike terrorism, quasi-terrorism
does not induce terror in the immediate victim.
Limited Political Terrorism—lt refers to “acts of
terrorism which are committed for ideological or political
motives but which are not part of a concerted campaign
to capture or control of the state.
Official or State Terrorism—lt may be called
structural terrorism defined broadly as terrorist acts
carried out by governments in pursuit of political
objectives often as part of their foreign policy.
Types of Terrorist Groups

Audrey Kurth Cronin has outlined different types of terrorist
groups and their historical importance in the following way:
“There are four types of terrorist organizations currently
operating around the world, categorized mainly by their
source of motivation: left-wing terrorists, right-wring
terrorists, ethno nationalist/separatist terrorists, and
religious or “sacred” terrorists. All four types have enjoyed
periods of relative prominence in the modern era, with left-
wing terrorism intertwined with the Communist movement,
right-wing terrorism drawing its inspiration from fascism,
and the bulk of separatist/ separatist terrorism
accompanying the wave of decolonization especially in the
immediate post-World War Il years. Currently, ‘sacred”
terrorism is becoming more significant. Although groups in
all categories continue to exist today, left-wing and right-
wing terrorist groups were more numerous in earlier
decades. Of course, these categories are not perfect, as
many groups have a mix of motivating ideologies—some
ethno-nationalist groups, for example, have _ religious
characteristics or agenda—but usually one ideology or
motivation dominates.”
\ J
Terrorism is predominantly planned and _ intentionally

action-oriented. It is always aimed at targeting a particular
group, authority, civilians or public property. It is also
unlawful, unethical, barbaric and undemocratic whose
objective is to pressurise the legally elected government to
bow before the demands of terrorists.
The root causes of terrorism include numerous factors. One
such factor is psychological/socio-psychological one.
Certain analysts are of the opinion that one who is engaged in
terrorism may be mentally disturbed, having imbalanced
brain. Not all terrorists are mentally ill, there may be others
who may choose to join a terrorist organisation for the thrill of
life in the underground or may become a terrorist to earn
money or to become the “defender” of his community or
religion. Young Muslims who travel to Western countries for
schooling and employment get alienated of their surroundings
and soon find comfort in mosques and then turn to terrorism.
This was true about Mohammed Atta, head of the 9/11
hijacking. There are ideological factors , which constitute a
cause for terrorism. Terrorists usually claim themselves to be
“true believers” possessed by a will to better the society
through radical and revolutionary techniques. For Marxist-
Leninist-Maoists, targets are always the upper rich classes,
for nationalists, the targets are always the colonialists, for the
religious extremists, the targets are always the people
belonging to other religions. There are environmental factors
responsible for terrorism. Grievances such as social, political
or economic, with their nature of being real, or imagined, just
or unjust, motivate people to resort to terrorism against those
who hold power. The culture of violence constitutes another
factor. Opposing cultures, being in conflict over a period,
result in terroristic activities. Chechnya and Iraq are examples
of cultures of violence, the former fighting against the
Russians, the latter against the Westerners.
Terrorism has no easy solution. It requires both national
and international support. State institutions, the civil society,
and international organisation—all would need to wage an
unrelenting war against terrorism. A strong public opinion and
a serious attempt would have to be made to create
awareness of r problems like terrorism. No compromise would
have to be made against lawlessness. Stern laws against
terrorism would have to be framed and implemented.
Coercive and exemplary punishments would have to be
awarded to terrorists. In the case of crosscountry terrorism,
assistance would have to be sought from other countries
/nations who extend their hands for prevention of terrorism.
World public opinion needs to be geared against those
countries that are assisting such barbaric acts; such countries
need to be isolated and if necessary, strong pressure to be
built by other peace loving countries by breaking off the
relations with them and also by putting financial barriers
against them. Economic and regional imbalances would have
to be minimised with constructive assistance of world bodies,
whose intervention may play an important role in this regard.
Citizens need to come forward to stop providing assistance to
outfits, and instead, extend their full cooperation to the
administration to curb such a menace. Communal harmony is
another essential requirement to counter the threat of
terrorism.
VI. NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

Concern about the proliferation of nuclear capabilities has,
indeed, increased in significance on the global agenda since
the end of the Cold War. Why this has gained importance is
not difficult to understand. The fact that there are enormous
destructive effects of nuclear weapons on the people is
known to everyone. The world knows the bombings of the
Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, at the end of World
War Il. The fire that destroyed the civil nuclear power plant at
Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union in 1986 revealed the
devastating effects of radiation and its potential long term
damage to the world.
Nuclear proliferation is a term which is used to describe the
spread of nuclear weapons, fissile material and weapons-
applicable nuclear technology and information to nations
which are not recognised as “Nuclear Weapon States” by the
Treaty of Non-proliferation, of Nuclear Weapons also known
as Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty or NPT.
The history of international efforts to promote nuclear
non-proliferation began soon after World War II, when the
Truman Administration proposed the Baruch Plan of 1946,
named after Bernard Baruch, America’s first representative to
the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission (UNAEC).
The Baruch Plan, which drew heavily from the Acheson-
Lilienthal Report of 1946, proposed verifiable dismantlement
and destruction of the U.S. nuclear arsenal (which, at that
time, was the only nuclear arsenal in the world) after all
governments had cooperated successfully to accomplish two
things:
(1) the establishment of an “international atomic
development authority,” which would actually own and control
all military-applicable nuclear materials and activities, and
(2) the creation of a system of automatic sanctions, which
not even the U.N. Security Council could veto, and which
would proportionately punish states attempting to acquire the
capability to make nuclear weapons or fissile material.
Although the Baruch Plan enjoyed wide_ international
support, it failed to emerge from the UNAEC because the
Soviet Union planned to veto it in the Security Council. Still, it
remained official American policy until 1953, when President
Eisenhower made his “Atoms for Peace” proposal before the
U.N. General Assembly. Eisenhower's proposal led
eventually to the creation of the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) in 1957. Under the “Atoms for Peace”
programme thousands of scientists from around the world
were educated in nuclear science and then dispatched home,
where many later pursued secret weapons programmes in
their home countries.
Efforts to conclude an international agreement to limit the
spread of nuclear weapons did not begin until the early
1960s, after four nations (the United States, the Soviet Union,
Britain and France) had acquired nuclear weapons. Although
these efforts stalled in the early 1960s, they were renewed
once again in 1964, after the People’s Republic of China
detonated a nuclear weapon and became the fifth nation to
have acquired nuclear weapons. In 1968, governments
represented at the Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee
(ENDC) finished negotiations on the text of the NPT. In June
1968, the U.N. General Assembly endorsed the NPT with
General Assembly Resolution 2373 (XXII), and in July 1968,
the NPT opened for signature in Washington, DC, London
and Moscow. The NPT entered into force in March 1970.
Since the mid-1970s, the primary focus of nonproliferation
efforts has been to maintain, and even increase, international
control over the fissile material and specialised technologies
necessary to build such devices because these are the most
difficult and expensive parts of a nuclear weapons
programme. The main materials whose generation and
distribution is controlled are highly enriched uranium and
plutonium. Other than the acquisition of these special
materials, scientific and technical means for weapons
construction to develop rudimentary, but working, nuclear
explosive devices are considered to be within the reach of
industrialised nations.
Since its founding by the United Nations in 1957, the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has promoted
two, sometimes contradictory, missions: on one hand, the
Agency seeks to promote and spread internationally the use
of civilian nuclear energy; on the other hand, it seeks to
prevent, or at least detect, the diversion of civilian nuclear
energy to nuclear weapons, nuclear explosive devices or
purposes unknown. The IAEA now operates a safeguards
system as specified under Article Ill of the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968, which aims to ensure that
civil stocks of uranium, plutonium, as well as facilities and
technologies associated with these nuclear materials, are
used only for peaceful purposes and do not contribute in any
way to proliferation or nuclear weapons programmes.
f )
The Main Arguments of the Waltz thesis
1. Nuclear weapons have spread rather than proliferated

because these weapons have _ proliferated only
vertically as the Nuclear Weapon States have
increased their arsenals.
2. Nuclear weapons have spread horizontally to other
states only slowly. However, this slowness of pace is
fortunate as rapid changes in international conditions
can be unsetting.
3. The gradual spread of nuclear weapons is better than
either no spread or rapid spread.
4. New nuclear states will feel the constraints that
nuclear weapons impose and this will induce a sense
of responsibility on the part of their possessors and a
strong element of caution on their use.
5. The likelihood of war decreases as deterrent and
defensive capabilities increase; nuclear weapons,
responsibly used, make wars hard to start.
\ J
At present, there are 189 countries which are signatories to

the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and these also include
the five Nuclear Weapons States (China, France, Russian,
the United Kingdom and the United States).
Notable non-signatories to the NPT are Israel, Pakistan,
and India (the latter two have since tested nuclear weapons,
while Israel is considered by most to be an unacknowledged
nuclear weapons state). North Korea was once a signatory
but withdrew in January 2003. The legality of North Korea’s
withdrawal is debatable but as of 9 October 2006, North
Korea clearly possesses the capability to make a nuclear
explosive device.
There are arguments for and against nuclear
proliferation. Those who favour proliferation hold the view
that the spread of nuclear weapons would increase
international stability, as General Pierre Marie Gallois (The
Balance of Terror: Strategy for the Nuclear Age) thinks.
Kenneth Waltz (The Spread of Nuclear Weapons) and John
Mearsheimer (The Tragedy of Great Power Politics) also
advocate some forms of nuclear proliferation, while Waltz
argues for total proliferation, Mearsheimer, for selective
proliferation. Those who are opposed to nuclear proliferation
argue that war is disastrous economically and that the
economic cooperation, as is evident in the European Union
has made war unthinkable. Another argument against nuclear
proliferation offered is that most states do not feel safely
guarded in the event of the use of nuclear devices and hence
express the uselessness of nuclear weapons. There is also
an argument that nuclear war, if it occurs, would bring
unimaginable havoc.
The facts show otherwise. Proliferation, history and military
experts argue, can be slowed but never stopped and has not
stopped so far. The fact of the matter is that proliferation
begets proliferation. Scott Sagan in his article “Why do States
Build Nuclear Weapons?” describes proliferation as a result of
a Strategic reaction. If one state produces a nuclear weapon,
it creates a domino effect within the region. States in the
region begin to acquire nuclear weapons so as to balance or
eliminate the security threat.
Sagan says, “Every time one state develops nuclear
weapons to balance its main rival, it also creates a nuclear
threat to another region, which then has to initiate its own
nuclear weapons programme to maintain its national
security”. History clearly shows that nuclear proliferation has
been the result of a chain of actions and reactions. The story
of action-reaction about nonproliferation and proliferation can
be stated in the following chronological order (Source:
Howlett’s article “Nuclear Proliferation”, as summarised).
1945 | The United States detonates the world’s first

nuclear weapon.
1949 | The Soviet Union tests its first nuclear weapon.

1952 The United Kingdom tests its first nuclear weapon.
1957 The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is

inaugurated.
1960 France becomes the fourth state to test a nuclear

weapon.
1961 The United Nations Generally Assembly adopts

the “Irish Resolution” calling for measures to limit
the spread of nuclear weapons.
1963 The Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT) enteres into

force.
1964 China becomes the fifth state to test a nuclear

weapon.
1967 The Treaty for Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in

Latin America (the Tlatelolco Treaty) opens for
signature.
1968 The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) opens for

signature.
1970 The NPT enteres into force.
1974 India detonates a nuclear explosive device

declared to be for peaceful purposes and the
Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) is formed.
1975 The First Review Conference of the NPT is held in
Geneva, and by the end of the year 97 states
become party to the Treaty.
1978 The First United Nations Special Session on

Disarmament (UNSSOD-1) provides forum for the
five Nuclear Weapon States to issue unilateral
statements on negative security assurances.
1980 Second NPT Review Conference is held in

Geneva.
1983 The United States announces its Strategic

Defence Initiative (SDI).
1985 Third NPT Review Conference is held in Geneva.
1987 The Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR)

is established.
1990 Fourth NPT Review Conference is held in Geneva.
1991 A United Nations Special Committee (UNSCOM)

is established to oversee the dismantling of Iraq’s
undeclared nuclear weapons programme. The
United States announces its Safety, Security,
Dismantlement (SSD) Programme following the
dissolution of the Soviet Union.
1993 South Africa announces that it had produced six

nuclear devices until 1989 and then dismantled
them prior to signing the NPT. The Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea announces its
intention to withdraw from the NPT following
allegations concerning its nuclear programme.
1996 | The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)

opens for signature.
1998 | India and Pakistan conduct a series of nuclear and

missile tests.
1999 | The United States announces its National Missile

Defence (NMD) Act).
2000 | Another NPT Review Conference is held in New

York for the now 188 parties to the Treaty. The
five NWS reiterate undertaking ‘to accomplish total
elimination of their nuclear arsenals.’
2002 | Cuba becomes the 189th party to the NPT and the
Hague Code of Conduct for missile technology
transfers is initiated.
2004 | A transnational non-state nuclear supply network

is discovered and Libya agrees unconditionally to
dismantle its WMD infrastructure in compliance
with international agreements.
Nuclear weapons make the cost of war frighteningly high

and thus discourage states from starting a war that might lead
to the use of such weapons. These weapons have helped
maintain peace between the great powers and have
discouraged other possessors from undertaking military
adventures. Their further spread, however, would cause
widespread fear.
The effects of nuclear weapons are numerous. It is
because of this that the United Nations Commission for
Conventional Armaments in 1948 introduced a new category
of “weapons of mass destruction” (WMD) to distinguish
nuclear weapons from conventional ones. The WMD included
atomic explosive weapons, radioactive material weapons,
lethal chemical and biological weapons and any other
capable of destructive effects. Such weapons produce their
energy in (a) blast; (b) heat or thermal radiation; (c) nuclear
radiation. Nuclear testing has revealed a fourth effect , i.e.
electro-magnetic pulse (EMP), one that causes acute
disruption to electronic equipment. These weapons cause
extensive damage to human population as in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki and another at Chernobyl power Plant. Nuclear
explosion is never anything less than genocide: people die
instantly and those who survive are no better than dead. The
extent of such explosion does not recognise international
borders, nor even the continents. Train tracks would also
carry the charge, as well as telephone wiring. All these things
would have a nearly simultaneous surge of energy sent
through them, igniting gas containers such as fuel storage
tanks, propane tanks, and so on. Whatever doesn’t blow up
would at least stop working. Other electronic devices and
electrical systems may be destroyed by the EMP effect.
Practice
Questions
1. How is democracy a global concern in

the contemporary world? Explain. (700-
800 words)
2. Why is democracy a fascinating form of
government? Compare it with other
forms of government. (200-250 words)
3. Why it is said that democracy is always
an evolving type of system? (200-250
words)
4. Write a detailed note on the status of
the Human Rights violations. (700-800
words)
5. Spell out the major environmental
problems and their effects. (700-800
words)
6. Write a brief note on global warming or
Kyoto Protocol. (200-250 words)
7. What do you mean by Gender Justice?
Explain it fully.(700-800 words)
8. Define terrorism and give its major
causes. (700-800 words)
9. How do you classify terrorism? Explain.
(200-250 words)
10. Write a detailed note on nuclear
proliferation. (700-800 words)
11. Is India’s nuclear doctrine a viable
one? (2013) (200-250 words)
12. Identify the role and place of gender in
the global economy. (2013) (200-250
words)
13. State the place of gender justice in
global political agenda. (2013) (200-250
words)
0
India’s Foreign Policy
And Its Role in NAM
: ndia’s foreign policy seeks to promote an atmosphere of

peace and stability in the region as well as in the world so
as to enable her to attain security and socio-economic
development of her people. With the objective of protecting
and promoting our national interest, our foreign policy is
characterised by the autonomy of making our own decisions
ourselves, commitment to the Panchsheel, and equity in the
conduct of international relations.
The foreign policy, in general, is the policy of a country
towards other countries and towards the world as a whole. It
is a relationship of conducting ourselves as a nation towards
other nations. International relations constitute a web of
relationships among nations expressed through the
instrument of foreign policy.
|. WHAT IS A FOREIGN POLICY?

Foreign policy, as George Modelski (The Theory of Foreign
Policy) says, is the “system of activities evolved by
communities for changing the behaviour of other States and
for adjusting their own activities to the international
environment”. It is “a systematic system of deliberately
selected national interests” (F.H. Hartmann, The Relations of
Nations). It involves the formulation and implementation of a
group of principles, which shape, according to Rodee
(Introduction to Political Science), the behaviour pattern of a
State while negotiating with other States to protect and further
its vital interests. According to Padelford and Lincoln (The
Dynamics of International Politics), the States decide through
foreign policy as to “what course they would pursue in world
affairs within the limits of their strength and the realities of the
external environment. Foreign policy gives a direction to the
States, thereby creating a sense of purpose that the States
seek to pursue. Its main object is to translate the theory of
national interest into practice. It has a positive dimension in
so far as it aims at adjusting the behaviour of other States by
changing it. It has a negative dimension in so far as it
endeavours at adjusting by not altering behaviour. On the
basis of what constitutes foreign policy one may include:
(a) policy makers,
(b) interests and objectives,
(c) principles of foreign policy,
(d) means of foreign policy.
Professor Mahendra Kumar (Theoretical Aspects of
International Politics) defines foreign policy as a thought-out
course of action for achieving objectives in foreign relations
as dictated by the ideology of national interest.”
The foreign policy of a State has a number of determinants.
They are usually stated as:
(a) general determinants,
(b) internal determinants, and
(c) external determinants.
Among the general determining factors of a State’s foreign
policy, one may refer to:
1. State’s sovereignty and integrity: Every foreign policy is
formulated with a view that a country’s sovereign
existence is not threatened;
2. Interdependence: It is another general factor through
which a State’s foreign policy seeks mutual benefits;
3. Protection and promotion of national interest: This is also
an important factor of the formulation of a State’s foreign
policy;
4. Compulsions: These can be both internal and external.
The internal determining factors are:
i. the geographical location of the State;

ii. the size of population which dictates the nature of the
foreign policy;
iii. the historical roots that help formulate the contours of a
State’s objectives;
iv. availability or paucity of natural resources which shape
a country’s foreign policy; and
v. ideological, economic, developmental and militarily
factors that also help direct a country’s foreign relations.
The external determining factors influencing the

formulation of a nation’s foreign policy include:
(a) a particular international situation at a specific time;
(b) the involvement of international organisations;
(c) general world conditions; and
(d) world public opinion.
It may, therefore, be concluded that foreign policy involves
the interplay of a wide variety of determinants. It is necessary
here to state that foreign policy determinants are never fixed
and permanent. As and when there occur changes, so occur
the determinants and so also are determined the goals and
objectives of foreign policy.
ll. INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY AND ITS

DETERMINANTS
Though foreign policy formulation is a dynamic process, a
change of government may not change the basic principles of
the foreign policy. However, once formulated, the foreign
policy is not the same for all time. As changes occur with time
in the life of nations, there also occur changes in the nature of
the foreign policy. Foreign policy, it may be noted, is an
amalgamation of a variety of objectives, some more important
and some less; some latent and some apparent; some urgent
and some remote; some explicit and some implicit. Hence,
with the change in situations, there may be a change of
emphasis with regard to these objectives. Decolonisation, for
example, was an objective of India’s foreign policy in the
years following 1947, but the emphasis on the new
international economic order became an important objective
of our foreign policy during 1970s, while strengthening an
international campaign against terrorism is one of the
paramount objectives of India’s foreign policy at present.
During much of the Cold War period, India had professed a
non-aligned foreign policy, though such an emphasis seems
to have vanished after the cold war ended with the
disintegration of the Soviet Union. Foreign policy is never
static, and does not remain the same for all times to come; it
is necessarily modified when changes occur.
Considering foreign policy as the interaction between
forces originating outside the country’s borders and those
working within them, Professor Appadorai (Domestic Roots of
India’s Foreign Policy) outlines two broad determinants of
foreign policy: the domestic and the international. Indian
foreign policy has also been shaped by such _ broad
determinants. For example, the situation of the country and
the world in 1947 dictated the foreign policy as it emerged
then.
Among the domestic factors, geography provided one
important component on which India’s foreign policy came to
be built. India’s size, location and topography have played
a vital role in shaping our foreign policy. We have common
land frontiers with Pakistan and Afghanistan in the northwest;
Nepal, China and Bhutan in the north; the former USSR (now
Russia) borders our northwestern states of Jammu and
Kashmir; Bangladesh (after 1972) and Myanmar (earlier
Burma) in the east; and Sri Lanka in the south. This makes
our geographical position vulnerable. This is evident from the
fact that we are generally protected along our northern border
because of the Himalayas (Ye santari hamara, ye pasbaan
hamara’ as the poet Iqbal once said), which has now become
vulnerable after the 1962 Chinese attack. Our vast coastal
areas (along the east, west and the south) are all open,
adding to our vulnerability.
The Western penetration into India during the seventeenth
to nineteenth centuries by the British, the French, the Dutch,
and the Portuguese indicates how insecure we are. The vast
Indian Ocean with British and American presence at Diego
Garcia makes the country unsafe. If that was what India was
in 1947, the security of the country would have certainly been
our paramount plank in the formulation of our policy, and that
was and is our primary objective of foreign policy. All our
neighbours, then, had differences with us on one ground or
the other and if we sought good neighbourly relations with all
as another objective of foreign policy, we were certainly not
wrong.
Devastated and partitioned in 1947, we were not militarily
strong enough to have taken a position, and if under those
circumstanceswe advocated world peace and world security,
we did what was in our national interest. The world in 1947
after the World War II, was moving towards a bipolar system,
one bloc headed by the USA and the other, by the USSR.
The ensuing cold war was found to threaten our hard-won
independence. Under these circumstances if we then
declared ourselves non-aligned to such mutually hostile
camps, we were perfectly justified in choosing a path that
assured us of our future survival.
History and tradition too contributed to the objectives of
our foreign policy. Nehru had himself said in the Lok Sabha
as late as 1958, “I have not originated it (India’s foreign policy
of peace). It is a policy inherent in the circumstances of India,
inherent in the past thinking of India, inherent in the whole
mental outlook of India, inherent in the conditioning of the
Indian mind during our struggle for freedom, and inherent in
the circumstances of the world today.” “Love towards all and
malice towards none”, “non-violence”, “tolerance” and the like
are the traditional values which India has cherished from the
ancient scriptures like the Veda, the Dharmasastras as also
from the policies of Akbar’s Sulh-e-ku/—all these have
contributed to the objectives of our foreign policy.
Professor Appaadorai refers to a three-fold impact of British
rule on our foreign policy: first, it gave a stimulus to the
national movement for freedom which in turn led to India’s
support for the freedom of dependent peoples; second, racial
inequality that existed during the British rule made India
realise the evils of racial discrimination, and in turn led to
India’s emphasis on racial equality in our foreign policy; and
third, India voluntarily chose to remain a member of the
Commonwealth even after becoming a Republic. Our
advocacy of anti-imperialism, anticolonialism and opposition
to racial discrimination as the salient features of our foreign
policy have their roots in our liberation struggle.
Economic and military factors have also contributed to
the formulation of India’s foreign policy. India emerged, after
independence, as a nation economically backward and
militarily weak. The British left India after exploiting her
natural resources for their imperialistic designs. Rural India
had a weak agricultural base with outmoded techniques,
economic backwardness, indebtedness, while urban India
was sparsely industrialised; with illiteracy, ill-health, lumpen
infrastructure being our lot at the time when we gained
independence. Militarily, India was not only weak, she was
defenseless. India, in her foreign policy, would have sought
cooperation in her path towards modernisation and economic
development; she did so and advocated a policy of mutual
cooperation. In matters relating to defence, she attempted to
attain self-reliance with assistance from the developed
nations. Her foreign policy, therefore, was not so much of
equidistance as of inter-dependence.
Ideological factors also determine foreign policy. In India’s
context, liberalism as the philosophy of the West, and
Marxismas the philosophy of the socialist nations in general
and of the USSR in particular, helped influence the ideas of
Jawaharlal Nehru, the principal architect of our policy of
peaceful coexistence. Nehru was a passionate follower of the
Soviet model of development, but was also equally impressed
by the liberal ideology which valued individual initiative. The
liberal as well as the Marxist elements in Nehru developed
through Professor Laski under whose influence Nehru grew
during his political adolescence. India’s foreign policy has the
Laskian elementsto some extent in the form of the policy of
non-alignment, which had in it the synthesis of liberalism and
Marxism.
The international or external factors determining the
nature of India’s foreign policy include the world situation at
the time of India’s emergence as an independent nation.
When India became independent, the world was being
partitioned into two hostile blocs; it was on the threshold of
the cold war, attempting to arm itself. India rightly chose the
path of not aligning herself with either military bloc and
adopting her independent foreign policy. In an age of
imperialism and colonisation, India preferred to support the
freedom struggle being waged in any part of the world.
In the context of the above determinants, the then
objectives of the Indian foreign policy as it came to be
formulated had the following features:
1. Non-alignment stands for, as Professor M.S. Rajan
(Studies in India’s Foreign Policy) says, “absentation
from power politics, love for peaceful coexistence and for
active international cooperation with all states—aligned
and non-aligned.” It is an assertion of autonomy in the
international system dominated by a bipolar world.
2. Panchsheel or peaceful coexistence is another objective
of the foreign policy of the Nehruvian times. This involves
five principles that include:
i. mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and

sovereignty;
ii. mutual non-aggression;
iii. mutual non-interference in each other's internal affairs;
iv. equality and mutual benefits; and
v. peaceful coexistence
3. Anti-imperialism has been a matter of faith with India’s

foreign policy makers. India fought against the British
imperialism during the freedom struggle and ever since
her independence; she advocated freedom for the
dependent people in the enslaved parts of the world.
4. Opposition to racial discrimination constitutes an
important objective of our foreign policy. Nehru sought an
end to the apartheid policy which prevailed in Africa in
general, and South Africa in particular.
5. Support to the United Nations was Nehru’s faith in so
far as he thought of the United Nations as a means for
establishing peace and security in the world. Nehru’s
foreign policy was closely linked to its objectives of
international peaceful order.
6. The foreign policy of independent India seeking
promotion of world peace was aimed so as to help
devote her time and energy for socio economic
development which Nehru had thought of as an important
obligation of the leadership. This peace implied peace in
the neighbourhood and friendly relations with all the
nations of the world, as also disarmament.
In a nutshell, the then Indian foreign policy spoke for non-
alignment, decolonised world, promotion of global
disarmament, peaceful settlement of disputes and economic
development.
lll. PHASES OF INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY

Of all the objectives of India’s foreign policy, non-alignment
was its core objective, though India did not pursue it in
complete good faith. In practice, India rarely pursued an
independent foreign policy. Nehru was generally more
opposed to the United States than to the USSR. He had
profound misgivings about American capitalism and thought
of the Soviet planned economic development as being
relatively appropriate to the Indian situation. His successors,
especially his daughter, Indira Gandhi, who professed non-
alignment, nonetheless collaborated openly with the Soviet
Union. She criticised the USSR, though reluctantly, when the
latter interfered in Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan. Rajiv
Gandhi, while following his mother in India’s association with
the USSR, sought to champion the cause of the poor and the
dispossessed nations on the one hand and opened doors for
talks with China and Pakistan on the other, though the Janata
Party rule between 1977 and 1980 had a foreign policy
slightly tilted towards the West.
The situation radically changed with the failure of the
socialist model in Eastern Europe, the end of cold war and
the disintegration of the USSR. Sumit Ganguly, in his article
“India’s Foreign Policy Grows Up’ writes, “Ironically, it was not
until the Cold War was over that India’s foreign policy became
genuinely non-aligned. India was now able to devise a foreign
policy free from the “mind-forged manacles” (in poet William
Blake’s memorable phrase) of Cold War thinking. Free of the
Soviet embrace, Indian policymakers realised that some fresh
thinking was in order, and they soon concluded that
continuing to berate the United States and the Western
alliance over a range of real and imagined grievances would
do little to advance India’s national interest. They also
abandoned their mostly futile efforts to organise the uplift of
the world’s poor and dispossessed. No longer would India
champion the cause of global regimes designed to
redistribute the world’s resources. Instead, New Delhi would
focus on domestic economic development, the augmentation
of India’s already substantial military capabilities, and the
pursuit of great power status in the international system.”
The numerous phases of India’s foreign policy can be
briefly stated here:
(i) 1947-62: It was a period when our policy of non-
alignment was put to test. John Foster Dulles
described it as immoral while Stalin had strong words
for it: “Those who are not our friends are our
enemies.” It was a period when India was seeking to
consolidate its identity as a free and independent
nation with the aspiration’s to become a developed
modern state. Externally, India’s neighbours had
begun enrolling themselves in the competitive
system: Pakistan with the USA, and China, with the
USSR, CENTO and SEATO on the one hand, and the
Warsaw Pact, on the other. On her part, India sought
to enlarge her area of peace, concentrating on the
Asian Relations Conference (1947) in New Delhi, the
Bandung Afro-Asian Conference (1955) in Bandung,
and the nonalignment movement (first summit in
1961) in Belgrade. Menon (/ndia’s Foreign Policy)
says, “throughout this period, our means were limited;
our goals were primarily domestic and our aspirations
were local. Throughout this period, our
preoccupations were with the consequences of the
partition, though at the UN level we supported a
normative and humanistic approach to global
disarmament, advocated decolonisation, and a non-
alignment stance towards the big powers.
(ii) 1962-77: Our policy of non-alignment had its jolt when
People’s Republic of China, our declared friend
across the border, invaded us on the border issue.
We, then, realised the folly of ignoring the security
aspect of our country under the pretext of
“nonalignment”. We faced the Chinese attack with
many tools other than diplomacy. Menon writes, “Our
primary focus was domestic and at no stage in this
period, we spent more than 3% of our GDP on
defence.” The 1962 humiliation broke Nehru and he
died in 1964. His successors, Shastri and Indira
Gandhi, kept up the non-alignment mantra, though
India faced Pakistan’s attacks in 1965 and 1971, the
latter leading to the birth of Bangladesh and the
Shimla Pact with Pakistan in 1972. Our estrangement
with the USA and Pakistan continued while the USSR
proved, on more than one occasion, her friendship
with India offering her major supply of military
inventory.
(iii) 1971-91: The early seventies witnessed our steady
development and created capacities and relative
strengths in us. This came to be revealed first in the
1971 war with Pakistan and thereafter, in our nuclear
explosive test in 1974, much to the annoyance of the
Nuclear Weapons States. Though India described the
test as a peaceful nuclear explosion (NPE), the
Nuclear Suppliers Group, a recently formed nuclear
cartel, cut off nuclear operations with India. India, as a
result, had to suffer the consequences of the
technology denials, but she kept up her options open
as a sovereign state. The Janata Party government
followed what it called the policy of genuine non-
alignment. The period between 1980 and 1990,
especially during the period of Rajiv Gandhi as the
Prime Minister, was one of further consolidation in
matters relating to foreign policy initiatives: the
relations between India on the one hand, and
Pakistan, China and the USA on the other improved.
This was also a period of considerable internal
turbulence when India witnessed a quick succession
of Prime Ministers and_ short-lived central
government, the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi and
the deterioration of economic situation. On the
international scene, this was also the period of
Gorbachev's glasnost — perestroika, the Soviet
rapprochement with the USA, the end of cold war and
eventually the disintegration of the USSR.
(iv) 1991-2014: India’s major foreign policy transformation
came about in the period of Narsimha Rao (1991-96),
following the beginning of privatisation and
liberalisation. The | subsequent governments
witnessed socialist planning give way to a more
liberalised and privatised economy. The improved
economy gave to India new opportunities worldwide.
The post-cold war external environment of a
globalised world, without rival political alliances,
provided India the opportunity to improve relations
with all States, including major powers as well as
neighbouring countries. Globalisation had not only
diminished the chances of conflicts among the States,
but had led to the flow of goods, capital and trade,
benefittingin the process, the emerging economies
such as India. The period, since 1991, was a period
of our active involvement in world affairs in general,
and in affairs in the neighbourhood in particular. We,
thus, improved relations with Pakistan, China, Sri
Lanka and Bangladesh. The period also witnessed
development of our relationships with the major
powers as well. Equally important was another
necessary phenomena, i.e., India’s rapid economic
and _ social transformation. Menon says, “Our
engagement with the global economy is growing
rapidly, with trade in goods and services now
exceeding US $330 billion’. “Our needs from the
world”, he continues, “have changed, as has our
capability. India can do and consider things that we
could not do or consider twenty years ago. This is
reflected in how India perceives its own future, its ties
with its neighbourhood and its approach to the larger
international order.” We must remember the reaction
of the world to our nuclear tests of 1974 and 1998.
The world accepts our power, we have broken our
nuclear isolation; the Nuclear Supplies Group
decision enables international civil nuclear
cooperation with India.
(v) 2014 and onwards: With the collapse of the UPA

government led by Manmohan Singh, there arose the
NDA government led by Narendra Modi in 2014. The
world, inlcuding India then, witnessed more of
continuity than of change. It was natural that India’s
foreign policy should have pursued, as usual, an
active interaction with the international community,
following substantial economic changes in_ its
economy undergoing in the last two decades. We
have kept meeting our key goals which included the
economic transformation, ensuring national security,
sovereignty and territorial integrity. It addresses key
global and regional concerns. We have deepened our
engagements with all our neighbours and the
SAARC. The economic and political foundation of
strategic partnership with the USA, Russia, China,
Japan, European Union (especially France, United
Kingdom and Germany) have not only strengthened
but have expanded. We have successfully sustained
our engagements with our extended neighbourhood,
both in the east as well as west, particularly, ASEAN,
West Asia and the Gulf states. We have strengthened
our ties through development partnership
programmes with every country which had any
meaning to us, especially the countries of Asia and
Africa. We have helped build a powerful movement
against terrorism, both international and in our
neighbourhood. Our active voice in_ international
organisations is being heard and understood. Modi’s
foreign policy is focussed on improving relations with
all, especially the neighbouring countries of South
Asia and the global powers. In pursuit of this, he
made official visits to Bhutan, Nepal, Japan, USA,
Mynmaar, Australia, Fiji and has invited a large
number of heads of the state/government from other
countries — USA, UK, France, China and met
numerous leaders of the world at World Forums.
From the time he assumed power as Prime Minister,
till February 2016 sessions Modi has visited 37
foreign countries/state visits on five continents,
including UN General Assembly, BRICS Summit,
East Asia Summit, G20 Summit, SAARC Summit,
ASEAN-India Summit and a private visit to Pakistan.
In 2016, he proposes to visit Vietnam, Tashkent,
Pakistan; in 1917 Brazil and Africa visits - states and
Officials have been to Australia, Afghanistan,
Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brazil, Canada, China, Figi,
Germany, Thailand, Japan, Kazakhistan, Kyrgyzstan,
Malaysia, Mauritius, Mongolia, Mynmaar, Pakistan,
Sychelles, Sri Lanka, South Korea, Tazikistan,
Turkey, Turkmanistan, France, Japan, Russia,
Singapore, US.
IV. INDIA’S PRIME MINISTERS AND THEIR

FOREIGN POLICY VISIONS
The foreign policy of India as pursued by her Prime Ministers
puts in practice India’s vision and puts its foreign policy in
perspective. The architect of India’s foreign policy was
Jawaharlal Nehru. Though temperamentally, a Western
liberal, he had always nurtured skepticism about the US. Out
of necessity, he was impressed by the Marxian ideas as he
was aware of the appalling poverty of the country; yet he was
well aware of Stalin’s collectivistic and autocratic regime.
Of the numerous factors determining India’s foreign policy,
especially the policy of non-alignment, the two major factors
were:
i. Nehru’s inability to indulge in heavy defence spending

which would have diverted all resources from economic
development;
ii. his intention to maintain India’s independence.
Becoming a member of any one bloc of any superpower

would have meant compromising India’s freedom of taking
decision on any global matter herself. Nehru’s foreign policy
commitments, therefore, revolved around the following main
concerns:
(a) The security of the country and its territorial
integrity;
(b) following a non-aligned foreign policy and
supporting non-alignment globally;
(c) maintaining friendly relations with all countries,
including the superpowers and the countries
making up their blocs;
(d) expressing faith in the UN Charter’s objectives,
principles and values, and contributing to world’s
peace and security;
(e) protecting country’s national interest so as to seek
socio economic development.
At the global level, India, during the Nehru era, sought to
diffuse cold war that was building up in 1950s and 1960s It
advocated a global ban on nuclear test, worked to bring about
disarmament, prevent the use of force in international affairs,
play a meaningful role in the activities of the United Nations,
seek an end of decolonisation, to remain associated with the
Commonwealth, establish peace in Korea. At the regional
level, India sought to refer Kashmir invasion by Pakistan to
the United Nations, to oust the Portuguese from Goa, to
accept the Chinese suzerainty over Tibet, leading to framing
of the ‘Panchsheel’ principles of peaceful coexistence first;
and the Chinese attack on India later. At the national level,
Nehru did not pay much attention to India’s defence needs
and consequently, when the Chinese attacked India in
October, 1962, with force, India was grossly unprepared and
suffered defeat. Within a year and half, Nehru died as a
broken man.
During the period, when Lal Bahadur Shastri (he died in
1966) was the Prime Minister, commitment to the policy of
non-alignment was reaffirmed, though the foreign policy’s
idealism became tempered with the realities of the times. At
the global level, the USA together with the other Western
powers, offered military aid to India while the USSR remained
silent over the Chinese attack on India. The American
assistance to India was withdrawn after Indo-Pak war in 1965.
At the regional level, Shastri faced the Pakistan attack with all
boldness, with Indian forces entering into Pakistan territory.
The war ended with Tashkent agreement of 1966 when India
gave back to Pakistan what she had captured. Prime Minister
Shastri died soon after having signed the agreement at
Tashkent. At the national level, Shastri sought to make
friendship with all the neighbours and evolve a strategy of
peaceful co-existence through consensus.
Indira Gandhi succeeded Shastri in 1966 and remained
Prime Minister till the withdrawal of emergency in 1977. She
became Prime Minister in 1980 again after the Janata Party’s
government and remained in office in 1984 when she was
assassinated. During her period as Prime Minister, Indira
Gandhi realised the weaknesses in India’s security and laid
emphasis on defence preparedness. At the global level, Indira
Gandhi supported the cause of decolonisation and advocated
freedom for the people of Africa. She committed herself to
fight for the economically poorer states, demanding in the
process a new international economic order. She championed
for an active non-alignment movement; and spearheaded the
Group of 77 after the 1973 oil crisis. At the regional level,
Indira Gandhi's major achievement was her efforts to help
liberate East Pakistan and make Bangladesh an independent
nation in 1971. At the national level, it was during Indira
Gandhi's tenure that India conducted a successful nuclear
test in 1974 describing it as a peaceful nuclear explosion.
Though Indira Gandhi remained loyal to the non-alignment
principle, India, during both her tenure in government (1966-
77, and 1980-84) was closer to the Soviet Union. Towards
her neighbours, India attempted to improve her relations. she
withdrew all forces from Bangladesh, gave back to Pakistan
all territory India had attained in 1971, helped in Bangladesh’s
recovery, and assured Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan
and Myanmar (Burma) that India nurtured no imperialistic
designs. The Indo-Soviet relations improved considerably.
The Russian food grains were dispatched during 1972-73; the
trade between the two countries increased from about Rs.
400 crore in 1973 to Rs.1000 crore in 1980; the Indo-Soviet
Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation was signed in
1971; the Soviet interference in Afghanistan in 1979 went
almost unnoticed by India when Indira Gandhi came to power
in 1980. India’s relations with the West in general and the US
in particular were at best lukewarm. India regarded with
suspicion Washington-Beijing-Islamabad nexus; condemned
the West’s presence in Diego Garcia and sought, in the
process, a free zone in the Indian Ocean. India criticised the
American military aid given to Pakistan. During the closing
years of her govrnment, there appeared positive signs in the
Sino-Indian relations — the two nations exchanged cordial
visits to each other’s capitals in 1981 and in 1983. While the
US hesitated to provide India nuclear fuel for Tarapur, France
agreed to give India uranium in an agreement signed in June
1982.
During the Janata Party Government (1977-80), India’s
foreign policy at the global level, witnessed a gradual shift in
the name of ‘genuine’ non-alignment. India moved towards
the US as is evident from President Carter’s visit to India.
Though the “special” relationship with the USSR (India’s 1971
treaty with the Soviet Union) still stayed, it lost its earlier zeal.
India’s relations with Beijing and Moscow did not deteriorate,
though they did not improve either. The Asian focus of India’s
foreign policy came to be emphasised by attempts made to
further improve relations with neighbouring countries,
especially Pakistan. India sought greater independent role in
international affairs and took up all international issues on
own merit.
After the assassination of Indira Gandhi in October 1984,
Rajiv Gandhi became Prime Minister and held the office till
December 1989. He followed the foreign policy of Nehru and
Indira Gandhi and reaffirmed his faith in non-alignment
movement and the United Nations. He promised to work for
narrowing international economic disparities, further improve
relations with the neighbouring nations, pursue policy of non-
alignment, peaceful coexistence and_ noninterference,
strengthen relations with Pakistan and China, USSR and the
US, advocate global disarmament, bring about South-South
cooperation and North-South dialogue. To work towards
these objectives, Rajiv Gandhi held a Six-Nation Summit
(Argentina, Greece, Sweden, Mexico, Tanzania and India on
January 28, 1985 at New Delhi) where an appeal was made
to the nuclear power states to halt and reverse the nuclear
arms race and conclude a treaty to ban nuclear tests. His
visits to China (1988) and Pakistan (1989) aimed at furthering
amicable relations with these nations. He dispatched the
Indian Peacekeeping Force (IPKF) to Sri Lanka to help
resolve the Tamil problem, though the whole exercise proved
a failure in the long run. He sought to improve relations with
the US and the USSR (Delhi Declaration, 1988).
The National Front government had two Prime Ministers
(V.P. Singh between December 1989 and November 1990;
and Chandrashekhar between November 1990 and June
1991) in whose times nothing substantive happened with
regards to the foreign policy except that attempts were made
to improve relations with countries. The trade ties with Nepal,
which had suffered during the times of Rajiv Gandhi were
restored. The relations with Afghanistan were strengthened
as was evident by the Afghan President’s visit to India in
August 1990. The V.P. Singh Government won Sri Lanka’s
goodwill by withdrawing all its forces and thereby improved its
ties with Sri Lanka. As the prospects of a settlement of the
river water issue brightened, it indicated India’s growing
cordial relations with Bangladesh. The process of dialogue
with China was kept on through negotiations by the National
Front Government. As the USSR was busy resolving her
domestic problems, her role became increasingly less world-
oriented except that Gorbachev and V.P. Singh both
reaffirmed the close ties between the two countries. The US
welcomed India’s condemnation of Iraq’s invasion on Kuwait
(1990) and India won the US favour of advocating larger
World Bank and IMF assistance to India.
P.V. Narsimha Rao became India’s Prime Minister in June
1991 and remained in office till May 1996. At the global level,
the end of cold war and the collapse of the Soviet Union had
an impact on India’s foreign and security policies. The policy
of non-alignment ceased to be of any meaning. Inder Kumar
Gujral, the former Foreign Minister who became the Prime
Minister later on, had said that “non-alignment is a mantra we
have to keep repeating, but who are you going to be
nonaligned against?” At the national level, the country faced
unprecedented fiscal crises: the hike in oil prices, increased
expenditure on petroleum, loss of eastern Europe market
owing to the fall of the USSR were all responsible for financial
problems; while at home, the losses in public sector
undertakings had made the country’s economic position
vulnerable. Regulations, licences, permits, and quotas had
already made economic growth suffer. The Prime Minister
with his Finance Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh sought a new
vision for the country and opted for privatisation and
liberalisation of the economy. The new course charted was
also followed by the National Democratic Alliance government
led by Atal Behari Vajpayee (1999-2004) and later the United
Progressive Alliance government led by Dr. Manmohan
Singh. The economic results thus yielded were favourably
astonishing and changed the whole face of India’s foreign
policy. At the regional level, India, under Rao’s regime,
endeavoured to improve relations with neighbouring nations.
Two important confidence-building measures in 1993 and
1996 with China helped reduce tension between the two
countries. However, the rise of insurgency in Kashmir and
Pakistan’s lukewarm attitude towards peace with India did not
improve relations with her to any extent. One significant
accomplishment of Rao’s government was to focus on South-
East Asia and embark upon what is called the “Look-East
Policy”.
After about two weeks of Vajpayee’s government, H.D.
Deve Gowda assumed the office of the Prime Minister on
June 1, 1996 and remained in office till April 21, 1997.
Thereafter, Inder Kumar Gujral became the Prime Minister
and held office between April 21, 1997 and March 19, 1998.
Deve Gowda’s foreign policy laid emphasis on India’s
sovereign rights to take decision on nuclear issues.
Condemning the provisions of the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty (CTBT) of 1996, he described it as discriminatory. He
also maintained that India always favoured and sought good
relations with neighbouring nations including Pakistan.
Inder Kumar Gujral’s greatest contribution to India’s
foreign policy was what is called the Gujral Doctrine.
Admitting the fact that security and independent right to take
its own decisions on international matters as non-negotiable
features of India’s foreign affairs, he emphasised on the
unilateral concessions to be offered by India to her
neighbours, especially Pakistan, as gestures from a “big
brother” in the region. He was convinced that the diplomacy
of people-to-people relationships would yield better results
than any other form of diplomacy.
Atal Behari Vajpayee as Prime Minister remained in office
between 1998 and 2004. The May 1998 nuclear test made
India a nuclear power, much to the annoyance of the nuclear
weapons states. Pakistan too followed India, and earned the
wrath of the West as well as sanctions against herself. At the
global level, India resisted the pressure of the Western
nations successfully, thanks to her accomplishments
achieved through the growing economic strength as a result
of liberalisation of her economy. The US moved from an initial
posture of opposition to acceptance towards India. This was
evident from the American position with regard to the Kargil
War (1999) when she backed India and pressurised Pakistan
to withdraw her troops, which event facilitated Musharraf's
military coup. The US soon accepted the nuclearisation of
India and welcomed strategic partnership with her. At the
regional level, the Vajpayee government sought to improve
relations with the neighbouring states. Musharraf's second
visit to India with a changed heart coupled with the start of the
Delhi-Lahore bus link and the resumption of rail, air, trade and
cultural links were sufficient proofs of the two countries
coming closer, though the occasional insurgency and terrorist
activities across the border did dampen cordial relations. The
trade relations with Sri Lanka and India’s efforts to assist
development in that country show our concerns for the island
country. India’s “Look-East” policy, (now Act-East Policy)
mostly related to the South-East Asian nations, received a
boost under Vajpayee. India sought to improve her relations
with Israel together with furthering ties with the Middle-East.
At the national level, the Vajpayee government waged a war
against terrorism and thus befriended US by aligning herself
with the American’s resolve to root out terrorism, following the
9/11 events.
India’s foreign policy, under Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan
Singh, commits itself to seek the promotion of an
environment of peace and security not only in the region but
also in the world so as to help attain socio-economic
development on the one hand, and safeguard its national
interest on the other. At the global level, India, with its firm
belief in multilateral diplomacy, is eager to play its role in the
United Nations, its specialised agencies, and _ regional
organisations such as SAARC, ASEAN, BIMSTEC (Bay of
Bengal Initiative for Mult-Sectoral Technical and Economic
Cooperation), G-15, G-8, APEC and so on, so as to foster
political, social and economic cooperation among the related
nations. India and US have never been as close as they are
today. The bilateral engagements between the two countries
extend to strategic and security issues, defence, counter-
terrorism, promotion of science, technology, trade, and space
technology. The India-US bilateral agreement on civil nuclear
cooperation to implement the discussions of July 2005 and
March 2006 is a significant landmark in Indo-US relations.
India’s strategic partnership with Russia has __ further
developed in fields such as trade, science, technology,
energy and space. The leaders of the two countries keep
meeting to exchange their views on matters relating to the
world. Such relations are being fostered with countries like
the UK, France, China, and Japan. At the regional level, the
present government has maintained bilateral relations and
has further enhanced them by strengthening trade ties and
projects of mutual interest. Our relations with the
neighbouring nations are guided by objectives of mutual
cooperation and peaceful coexistence. India-China relations
remain a high priority of our foreign policy. Trade between the
two countries has kept increasing steadily, while the two
nations, with confidence-building measures, hope to resolve
their differences (including the border dispute) amicably. The
pace of progress in the Indo-Pakistan relations has been
affected due to activities engineered by terrorists across the
border.
The change of government in 2014 (with NDA government
led by Bharatiya Janata Party replacing the UPA government
led by the Indian National Congress) was a change of degree
than of kind in matters related to foreign relations. With
Narendra Modi as India’s Prime Minister, we do not see any
changes in our foreign policy, though emphasis on India’s
commercial diplomacy is seen clearly. India has strengthened
and is, in fact, strengthening economic and trade ties with
every country, small and big. We have invited the countries of
the world to invest in India and help us promote ‘Make in
India’ campaign. Our strategic economic relations with the
US, China, Japan, France, Russia have developed and
expanded through bilateral and multilateral treaties. Prime
Minister Modi has exchanged visits from far-off America to
near-of Singapore. We have our stakes in every country that
has some meaning to us. With regard to other aspects of our
foreign policy, the Modi government is well aware of. India is
more assertive in response to Pakistan backed border
terrorism and, is therefore, bent upon maintaining friendly
relations with Pakistan, though with a strong policy against
terrorism. India, though maintaining good neighbourly
relations with China, is serious in protecting her borders. Modi
sees a bigger role of the military in shaping India’s national
security and formulating doctrines. War, not being any option
any more, Modi’s foreign policy against Pakistan-backed
terrorism is expected to be as tough as possible.
India is now a nuclear power, though its nuclear
programme is peaceful. It is emerging as a strong economy,
though it cannot claim to be one of the developed nations. It
has closer cooperation with the US and has defence
collaboration with Israel and Russia, and yet it advocates a
North-South dialogue and South-South cooperation. It has
some problems with China and Pakistan, but it does want to
continue dialogue with them. It has its own reservations about
the World Trade Organisation, but it does not regard
globalisation efforts totally worthless. It does regard the
international economic system faulty, and yet it wants to build
an equitable order instead.
India’s foreign policy at present stands for objectives such
as:
1. protection of India’s core national interests in a rapidly
changing international environment;
2. preservation of the autonomy of the decision-making
process so as to play a vital role in the world;
3. creation of international campaign against terrorism;
4. formation of an international environment which supports
India’s economic growth in all possible fields;
5. establishment of strategic ties with powers such as the
US, the EU, Japan, Russia and China;
6. intensification and strengthening of ties with all the
countries, far or near;
7. realisation of the objectives of SAARC;
8. elimination of terrorism;
9. maximisation of gains from regional economic
organisations associated with India;
10. cooperation with the Gulf countries which have become
home to about four million Indians;
11. furtherance of gains from India’s ‘Look-East policy’ to
‘Act-East Policy’;
12. implementation of global disarmament;
13. projection of a reformed United Nations so as to enable
it to become a truly representative, responsive,
responsible, and transparent international organisation;
14. development of the Indian diaspora on a continuing
basis; and
15.equitable relations between the developing and
developed countries.
Under Prime Minister Modi, some policy initiatives are
indicated as under:
e Look East policy becomes Act East policy

e Neighbourhood first policy - SAARC friendly relations
e Project Mausam - cultural relations among the countries
of the region
e Cooperation with Pacific Islands - bilateral and
multilateral relations in the region
e Fast Track diplomacy - Proactive, strong and sensitive
relations with all
e Para diplomacy - cities to forge special relationships
with cities of other countries, Mumbai and Shanghai,
etc.
V. FOREIGN POLICY: OLD AND NEW

Foreign policy does not exist in vacuum. This is true about
India’s foreign policy as well. The foreign policy of any
country, India included, develops under certain
considerations. Conventional security is one such
consideration. The strength of the armed forces and
armaments in the neighbouring nations creates relative
security problems. Economic considerations also shape the
nature of the foreign policy of a country. The “Hindu” growth
rate, as described by Professor Raj Krishna, tripled before
1991, reaching 8 per cent in 2004, which was an important
reason for opening up of the Indian foreign policy. In the
Indian context, energy insecurity (i.e. paucity of oil and gas)
forced the country to have cordial relations with the Gulf
nations so as to have unhindered supply of oil. India’s
population, her geographical size, her stable democratic
polity, her emergence as a responsible nuclear power state
and the like are other considerations which help seek a
“rightful” place for her at the global level.
The foreign policy that India pursued after independence
was that of non-alignment, though it was not as precise as it
should have been, a mantra that we kept repeating till 1991.
With nonalignment, we had some other related policy features
as well, which included, among others, our advocacy of anti-
imperialism, anti-colonisation or anti-racism — stance,
opposition to racial discrimination, third world solidarity, global
disarmament, and faith in the United Nations’s Charter.
Though some of these features still constitute the bulk of our
foreign policy, we have either deleted some or have regarded
some as insignificant. Instead, we have added certain others
such as autonomy in taking our own decisions, elimination of
terrorism, emphasis on_ strategic relationship with the
developed and neighbouring nations, our rightful role in the
world, realisation of economic growth through economic
growth, advocacy of the cause of the developing countries,
democratisation of the United Nations, and reforms in the
international organisation.
Indeed, there have been significant changes in our country,
in the region we are a part of, and in the world we live in.
These changes became factors which brought about change
in the foreign policy. The objective conditions of the cold war
do not exist now; there are no rival military blocs now,
confronting each other; the socialist model has either failed or
has disappeared; the USSR has disintegrated as a single
state; the privatised-capitalist system exists everywhere and
the market rules the economy today.
Soon the old structures and the new imperatives, in the
wake of changes since 1991, came to confront each other.
The old structures could not be dismantled, for this nation had
deep love and regard for Nehru. But the new changes could
not have been withheld for long. The first was the emerging
transition from the socialist model of economy to the one that
may be described as the “modern capitalist”. The Nehruvian
socialist pattern of society had not delivered goods; the public
sector enterprises were earning losses; the private sector was
working under pressures of rules and regulations, restrictions
and restraints. The post-1991 years brought substantial
changes in the economy: privatisation and liberalisation
together with the positive impact of globalisation opened
doors for growth and prosperity, and, following these, India
was now placed in a much more comfortable situation.
Adapting to the new challenges of globalisation became our
national objective and the favourable privatised economy
provided newer options on the foreign policy front. The
second transition was from the earlier emphasis on politics to
a new stress on economics. By 1990s, we came to realise
that we are far behind other nations in matters relating to
economic growth: our trade was dismal; our production
capacity was low; our economy was staggering; we would
rather live on foreign aid for our developmental needs. With
substantial changes in our economy, we found turning to
economics to be more beneficial rather than depending on
the hollow concepts of imperialism and colonialism, which
had already lost their significance. The third transition was
one when we had begun nurturing the idea of a great power
in our own right as against the one that we were the leader of
the third world and of the nonalignment movement. We did
realise that independent India is a great country but the idea
gained realism only after we began to grow rapidly in the
1990s. The so-called third world countries of which we
thought we are a leader began fading when many of such
nations started following pragmatic economic policies and
sought to integrate themselves with the international market.
The fourth transition was from our “anti-Westernism” stance
to a West worth making friends with. As the largest
democracy in the world, we had been close to the Western
political value but we disowned it because of our opposition to
imperialism. With the changed economic scenario, it would
have been suicidal to ignore the West now. The
disappearance of the Soviet Union and the rise of China as a
super power with close relations with the West required of us
to also have a more realistic approach in our foreign policy.
The fifth transition was from our earlier idealism to our
current realism. We soon realised, especially after the 1990s,
that the world moves on facts of realism rather than on values
of idealism; even the communists (Deng Xiaoping, for
example) have become great pragmatics.
That the foreign policy of India has climbed newer heights
is evident from some of the following developments, among
others.
The nuclearisation of India in 1998 was initially opposed by
many nations. But with the selfconfidence that India had
gained through the rapid economic growth, India rode through
the international reaction, rather easily. The US not only
accepted our position as a nuclear power but also signed the
historic nuclear deal with us within seven years, i.e. in 2005.
India, now with the new vision of her foreign policy, was
able to have relations with great powers as an equal partner.
She had entered into what is called strategic relations with
powers such as the US, Russia, the EU, China, and Japan.
China, now, is India’s largest trading partner while Japan, for
example, has expanded cooperation with India.
India’s new foreign policy is not all about her “big power
diplomacy”; it is also about reconciliation with all our
neighbouring nations, Pakistan and China in particular. The
nuclearisation of India and Pakistan has brought the two
countries closer, at least in their economic and cultural ties,
though occasional terroristic activities vitiate relations. India
and China, in addition to the normalisation of relations on
other fronts, are involved in purposeful negotiations to resolve
their disputes.
India’s unilateralism in the region is being replaced by her
mutlilateral approach. She has supported the participation of
China, Japan, and the US as observers in the organisations
of the region, in particular SAARC. She is working closely
with the great powers in resolving the crisis in the region,
particularly in Sri Lanka.
The reality of a large Islamic population—nearly 150 million
today—had always been an important factor in India’s foreign
policy. In the past, it merely meant supporting various Islamic
causes. But today, the relationship with the Islamic world is
being deepened on the basis of economic and commercial
cooperation, energy, security and cooperation in combating
religious extremism and terrorism.
The Indian foreign policy is now on newer ground. From
mere words such as “nonalignment”, “peace”, etc., it moves
on to deeds, i.e., what it actually does. This is a move from
‘power of argument’ to “argument of power”. It is now a
stakeholder, rather a free rider in the international system. It
seeks an “independent” foreign policy rather than a “non-
alignment” policy. It, now, demands the position of a “balance
of power” in its immediate and extended neighbourhood
rather than a non-involved peace-loving ally.
VI. INDIA AND THE NON-ALIGNMENT MOVEMENT

India’s role in the origin and functioning of the Non-Alignment
Movement (NAM) can hardly be denied. Though NAM’s
Official origin goes back to its first summit held at Belgrade in
1961, but its seeds were said to be sown by countries like
India through its first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru.
Nehru, a week before the formation of the provisional
government in September 1946, had said: “We propose, as
far as possible, to keep away from the power politics of
groups aligned against one another, which have led in the
past to two world wars and which may again lead to disasters
on an even larger scale. We seek no domination over others
and we claim no privileged position over other people. But we
do claim equal and honourable treatment for our people
wherever they may go, and we cannot accept any
discrimination against them. We believe that peace and
freedom are indivisible and the denial of freedom anywhere
must endanger freedom elsewhere and lead to conflict and
war”. What Nehru was saying was not the idea of forming any
non-aligned group but was articulating a cluster of ideas
which meant eradication of colonisation and _ racialism
together with an atmosphere of peaceful co-existence, non-
bloc politics, and liberation for the enslaved colonial world. It
was at his initiative that the Asian Relations Conference was
held in New Delhi in March, 1947 attended by 28 countries in
which the Sri Lankan President Bandaranaika had, under
Nehru’s influence, declared: “l am convinced, and we all
hope, that this conference will lay the foundation of a broader
cooperation between the free and equal states of Asia,
lighting not only their nations’ future, but also the name of
humanity, peace and progress.” The Asian Relations
Conference was the first step towards the formation of NAM.
The next step in this direction was the Bandung Conference,
also called as the
Afro-Asian Nations Conference, held at Bandung
(Indonesia) and attended by 23 Asian and 6 African states, in
April 1955. This conference was held on the initiative of
President Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia, President Gamel
Abdul Nasser of Egypt, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru of
India, President Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, and President
Ahmed Sukarno of Indonesia. Together with Nehru they
evolved a coherent outlook and position on Non-Alignment.
These leaders were largely instrumental in channeling the
emerging changes towards the liberation of the people of the
world and towards evolving a new vision of the world order.
One of the most important achievements of the Bandung
Conference was the Declaration on World Peace and
Cooperation. This declaration embodied the principles of
Panchsheel, which were first stated in the Preamble to the
agreement between India and China in April 1954. These five
principles were: mutual respect for territorial integrity and
sovereignty, non-belligerence, non-interference in internal
affairs, equality and mutual advantage, and _ peaceful
coexistence. Nehru was the first to coin the word “non-
alignment” in his speech made in Colombo in 1954.
The Bandung Conference was followed by a tripartite
meeting in July 1956 between Nehru, Tito, and Nasser at
Brioni. In the Brioni meetings, the three leaders affirmed the
Bandung principles (not resorting to military pacts, opposition
to racialism, imperialism, colonisation, seeking global
disarmament peaceful coexistence, and the like). The
leaders, in a joint statement, rejected the division of the world
into rival power blocs, which had the effect of perpetuating
confrontation. They also asserted their conviction that the
policy of Non-Alignment pursued by them had, to a certain
extent, contributed to the lessening of international tension
and to the development of equal relations between nations.
They reiterated their resolve to carry forward that policy and
to evolve a collective framework for that purpose. The Brioni
meeting was a landmark in the ongoing process of
consultations, which eventually led to the convening of the
first Non-Aligned Summit at Belgrade in 1961, heralding the
formal launching of the NonAligned Movement.
It is clear that India played an active role in the founding of
the non-aligned movement. Nonalignment was _ already
adopted by India as a foreign policy. By giving it the shape of
a movement in 1961, India was only giving the concept of
non-alignment a world perspective for maximising the national
interest of the newly-independent nations. So important was
the vision of nonalignment that it became a movement of
solidarity, cooperation, and understanding amongst the
newly-independent countries; these countries came to be
called as developing countries. The non-aligned movement,
thus, emerged from India’s initiative of formulating an
independent foreign policy. This independent foreign policy
was based on a solid moral and sound political foundation. It
was a non-partisan foreign policy.
Jawaharlal Nehru’s concept of non-alignment brought India
considerable international prestige among newly independent
states that shared India’s concerns about the military
confrontation between the superpowers and the influence of
the former colonial powers. India used non-alignment to
establish a significant role for itself as a leader of the third
world in such multilateral organisations as the United Nations
(UN) and the Non-Aligned Movement.
The first Summit Conference of non-aligned countries in
1961 at Belgrade was the culmination of the process of
evolution from an impulse to an idea, from an idea to a policy,
and from a policy to a movement. India was passionately
attached to the movement that it thought of it as its own child.
In all subsequent summits, India not only defended the
movement, but also gave it the required direction.
Though NAM’s purpose was declared at its Havana
Summit in 1979 (which purpose included the protection of
national independence of the newly-liberated nations,
territorial sovereignty, struggle against colonialism, racism,
imperialism, Zionism and all forms of aggression, influence,
hegemony, and power bloc and the like), India had advocated
such objectives from the very beginning, and, in fact, from our
days of freedom struggle, and at all platforms, including that
of the United Nations.
Though the United Nations had committed itself to
disarmament, there was no real development made in this
regard. The permanent members of the Security Council, on
whose shoulders there was the responsibility of bringing
about disarmament, were themselves pursuing nuclear
power. India had been seeking global disarmament during the
early days of 1960s; at Cairo Summit in 1964 India sought
disarmament as a necessary condition for economic
development. The 1970-80 decade was a period of economic
issues. India stood up against the economic disparities
amongst nations and sought the establishment of a new
international economic order (NIEO) advocating them in
NAM’s Lusaka Summit (1970) and the Algiers Summit in
1973. The demand for NIEO was subsequently raised in the
General Assembly in 1974. It was at the initiative of India and
other countries that NAM and G-77 together worked for the
equable economic order. The Delhi NAM Summit of 1983 not
only sought ban on nuclear weapons, but also demanded
equitable and universal international monetary system.
With the significant developments leading to the failure of
the socialist model in the Eastern Europe countries, the world
came to be divided between the industrially developed
nations of the Northern Hemisphere on the one hand and the
industrially less-developed nations of the Southern
Hemisphere in late 1980s and early 1990s. The issues, which
concerned India and its leadership, were more of economic
nature than of political dimensions. So, India sought South-
South cooperation and North-South dialogue at all
international forums, NAM’s Belgrade and Jakarta Summits of
1989 and 1992 in particular.
Right from the beginning, India had been fighting against
racism. At the Harare NAM Summit in 1986, the Indian Prime
Minister Rajiv Gandhi proposed and successfully persuaded
the member-states to create Action and Resisting Invasion,
Colonialism and Apartheid Fund (popularly known as the
Africa Fund). The main objectives of the Fund were to
strengthen the economic and financial capabilities of the
frontline states to fight the apartheid regime of South Africa.
The Harare Summit created the Fund and India was
appointed the chairman of the nine-member AFRICA Fund
Committee whose responsibility was to raise the fund. India
herself contributed Rs.500 million by January 1987. It was
primarily the efforts of NAM, with a very effective role of India
in it, that finally led to the end of apartheid in South Africa in
1994.
Ever since the 1990s, India has always taken a moderating
role in the non-alignment movement. During the 1992 Jakarta
Summit, India, for example, took a middle position between
countries favouring confrontation with the developed nations
on international economic issues, such as Malaysia, and
those that favoured a more cooperative approach, such as
Indonesia. Although New Delhi played a minor role compared
with Kuala Lumpur and Jakarta on most issues facing the
summit, India formulated the Non-Aligned Movement position,
opposing developed countries’ linkage of foreign aid to
human rights issues. Likewise, at the XIV Havana Summit in
2006, the Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh sought
NAM to serve as the voice of “moderation, harmony, and
reason”. The Indian effort at the Summit had been to steer
clear of two new tendencies that would have taken the
movement away from its moorings. The first was Malaysia’s
promotion of the Islamic agenda. The second was the radical
tendency of Cuba with unnecessarily strong language and
rhetoric that would have made engagement with the rest of
the world difficult. India was for a serious and firm approach
to issues, shorn of all rhetoric.
Thus, it is clear that India has always been a pillar of
strength for both NAM and its members. Today, after the end
of the Cold War, and the beginning of the process of
globalisation, when doubts on the very existence of NAM are
being raised, there is need that NAM be strengthened. India’s
stakes in this task are of considerable importance. India as a
developed nation among the developing non-aligned
countries has to concentrate on retaining the independent
character of the Movement, working for evolution of a just
international order. Though there is no cold war, and no rival
blocs but there are religious rivalries. Some superpowers are
imposing themselves, some small powers are demonstrating
their nuclear weapons. Inequality and injustice are still
around, small and developing nations are _ suffering
humiliations. Neo-colonialism is emerging with cleverer
aspects. The NAM needs to assert itself in these adverse
circumstances. India, under Modi needs to stand for the
changing objectives of the NAM. The day is not far-off when
India, under Modi, would want NAM to uphold the integrity
and sovereignty of the developing and poor nations, their
independent say in the world affairs, their freedom of
judgement and action, so to eliminate exploitation, and make
international organisations, especially United Nations, truly
world bodies. Modi can not afford to ignore the interests of
around 120 nations, strong group, though his closeness with
US is well known.
Perhaps it is not an exaggeration to say that we are living,
today, in an altogether new world post the end of communist
regimes in Eastern Europe, with 15 new republics coming to
replace the erstwhile Soviet Union. Moreover, we now have a
united Germany and a new Europe as modern socio-
economic and political entities.
Some argue that the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was
the product of cold war and bipolarism; and that since the
cold war has ended and the Soviet Union is no more, NAM
has lost its relevance. It is true that NAM was a child of the
cold war but during the three decades of its existence, it
gradually came to acquire a life of its own and should no
longer be defined and discussed solely in terms of cold war
politics. It assumed a dynamism of its own and became
preoccupied with issues related to the Third World in ways
other than purely super power rivalry and confrontation
amongst power blocs.
According to some other analysts, NAM’s task has, by and
large, been accomplished. For instance, colonies have gained
independence, apartheid is being dismantled and the cold
war has ended. Foreign bases are losing relevance and
alliances are disintegrating, making non-alignment largely
unnecessary and irrelevant.
However, it should be understood that the primary concern
of NAM, both as a national policy of a large number of new
states and as an international movement, has been the
liquidation of economic imperialism to secure economic
growth and development for the developing nations.
Besides, there are a number of issues which NAM has to
take up in the coming years, including, but not limited to, the
democratisation of international bodies, especially like that of
the UN Security Council; security for small and weak nations;
nuclear disarmament; collective measures for achieving
economic progress; lightening the debt burden of the
developing world; halting the deteriorating terms of trade; the
North-South dialogue; human rights; environmental issues;
drug trafficking; international terrorism; ethnic and religious
conflicts and the heralding of a new international economic,
information and technological order.
Moreover, the skeptics who think there is no need for Non-
Aligned Movement since alliances are losing their importance
should bear in mind that, despite numerous changes in the
350-years-old sovereign-state-system, including the most
recent ones, it has consistently maintained two standing
features: great power hegemony and the opposition of the
overwhelming majority of other states to that hegemony.
Hence, in other words, the stance of Non-alignment has to be
continually renewed against whom the present hegemonies
or whoever is/are dominating the world.
There are thinkers who are of the opinion that NAM should
be disbanded because its present performance is not as
dynamic as it was before, and this inertia is characterised by
its slow response to today’s deep and rapid changes on the
international scene. As an example, they cite the instance of
NAM’s poor response to the recent Gulf crisis. However, it
should be borne in mind that organisations do not become
irrelevant simply because they have defects. The decisions
about the relevance and rationale of institutions should not be
taken in haste and careful analysis about the relevance of
NAM is needed before dismissing it completely.
While delivering the Indira Gandhi Memorial Lecture to the
Association of Indian Diplomats, former President R.
Venkararaman rightly remarked in this context that “Non-
alignment is not an Ism. It cannot become outdated any more
than common sense can become outdated. The cold war has
ended. That does not make the UNO charter irrelevant. Non-
aligned countries represent the will and voices of three-fourth
of mankind. No nation, no group of nations, can disregard the
NAM. There must be something to it to [lead] China to seek
membership and Germany to get observer status of NAM....
From the fifties through to the eighties NAM spearheaded the
struggle against colonialism and racialism. It must today raise
its voice against the injustices and inequities of the emerging
21st century.”
The Non-Aligned Movement is the largest peace movement
in the world. But while dealing with NAM, we should make a
distinction between non-alignment as an_ international
movement and non-alignment as a foreign policy choice.
As an international movement, it may have its shortcomings
or it may not be performing the role assigned to it but NAM as
a Foreign Policy choice—an assertion of independence in
foreign affairs—has always remained, still remains and will
always remain, valid and relevant.
However, both its roles are supremely important and there
cannot be any water-tight compartmentalisation between the
two since the success of one is contingent upon the support
of the other.
Practice
Questions
1. What is foreign policy? Explain. (200-

250 words)
2. Describe the internal determinants of
India’s foreign policy.(700-800 words)
3. Explain the international factors
responsible for India’s foreign policy.
(200-250 words)
4. Identify the elements of change in
India’s Foreign Policy. (2013) (200-250
words)
5. In what phases would you classify
India’s foreign policy? State and explain
each phase. (700-800 words)
6. Describe the contribution of Nehru in
India’s foreign policy. (700-800 words)
7. Give the contribution of any two Prime
Ministers in India’s foreign policy. (700-
800 words)
8. Why do you describe the post-1991
foreign policy as the ‘new’ foreign
policy? (700-800 words)
9. India’s role in the NAM. (700-800
words)
10. Write a short note on Bandung
Conference. (200-250 words)
India And South Asia
INTRODUCTION
outh Asia, also known as Southern Asia, is the southern region of Asia.
It is surrounded from West to East, Western Asia, Central Asia, Eastern
Asia, South Eastern Asia and the Indian Ocean. It is home to well over
one-fifth of the world’s population and accordingly is the most densely
populated geographical region in the world. The core countries of South Asia
include Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka covering about
10 per cent of the Asian continent, and about 40 per cent of Asia’s population.
The extended territories encompassing the farthest boundary of South Asia
include countries such as Afghanistan, the British Indian Ocean territory, Iran,
the Maldives, Myanmar, and Tibet. If one takes the SAARC nations, which
include the core countries, Afghanistan and the Maldives as stated earlier, the
total area comprising Southern Asia would be about 3,989,969 km, inhabited by
a population of around 154 crore people.
The South Asia region is ethnically diverse inhabited by people from more
than 2,000 different ethnic groups speaking diverse languages such as Hindi,
Bengali, Urdu and Dravidian. Such diversity led to the development of Indo-
Aryan, Indo-European, Indo-Iranian languages with numerous sub-branches of
these languages. The region has people professing religions such as Hinduism,
Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and their numerous branches and sub-branches.
Sri Lanka has the highest GDP per capita in the region, while Nepal,
Afghanistan, and Myanmar have the lowest. India is the largest economy in the
region; it is the world’s twelfth largest or fourth largest by purchasing power
adjusted exchange rates. Pakistan has the next largest economy and the
second highest GDP per capita in the region, followed by Bangladesh. If Iran is
counted, it is the richest economy and the second largest in region. According
to a World Bank report of 2007, South Asia is the least integrated region in the
world; trade between South Asian states accounts for only two per cent of the
region’s combined GDP, compared to 20 per cent in East Asia.
According to the World Bank, 70 per cent of the South Asian population and
about 75 per cent of South Asia’s poor live in rural areas and most rely on
agriculture for their livelinood. According to the Global Hunger Index, South Asia
has the highest child malnutrition rate among the world’s regions. India
contributes to about 5.6 million child deaths every year, more than half the
world’s total. The 2006 report mentioned that “the low status of women in South
Asian countries and their lack of nutritional knowledge are important
determinants of high prevalence of underweight children in the region” and that
South Asia has “inadequate feeding and caring practices for young children’.
India is the dominant political power in the region. It is the largest country in
the region, covering around three-fourths of the land area of the subcontinent. It
also has the largest population of around three times the combined population
of the six other countries in the subcontinent. India is the most populous
democracy in the world and is a nuclear power. The second largest country in
the subcontinent area-wise and population-wise is Pakistan and has traditionally
maintained the balance of power in the region due to its strategic relationships
with the Arab States and neighbouring China. Pakistan is the sixth most
populous country in the world and is also a nuclear power.
|. SOUTH ASIA: INDIA AND ITS NEIGHBOURS

India has two great characteristics in relation to its neighbours: one, that it is
central to all the nations of the region which means that all the other countries of
the region move around its axis. Second feature is that, India is vaster in area
and larger in population than any other nation of the South Asian, region. This
unique position of India is often viewed with suspicion by other countries that
feel India is likely to have hegemony and supremacy over other countries in the
region. There is, thus, a feeling of disharmony and suspicion among these
countries towards India. This is the reason that there are occasional differences
leading to conflicts with India. This is also the reason that non-alignment as
professed by India has played a very limited role in the region. The cold war
period had already divided the region into two blocs: Pakistan on one side,
aligned with the United States; and India, though following non-alignment, had
been close to the USSR, formed the other bloc. The whole region was
characterised by hostilities: India and Pakistan faced each other quite often over
Kashmir issue; Nepal had its trade differences with India; China had invaded
India, claiming a vast area of India’s land by disowning the Macmohan line;
Bangladesh, which had liberated herself with the help of India, was infiltrating
illegal migrants into India; Sri Lanka had its differences with India over ethnic
issue relating to Tamils of the Indian origin. All efforts to bring about harmony
and friendship in the region have been short-lived. That is one reason that the
South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC) could attain slow
progress. Using the word “Indo-centricity” from Sisson and Rose (War and
Secession) Upreti (/ndia’s Policy Towards its South Asian Neighbour) describes
the Indian situation, saying, “Indo-centricity, along with asymmetry in size,
resources and capabilities, have given rise to feelings of insecurity among the
smaller size of the region. They feel themselves overshadowed by India.
Because of its vastness India has a natural sphere of influence, which has often
caused suspicion among the smaller states. India’s initiatives are not only
misunderstood but often characterised as ‘hegemonic’ meant to serve its own
vested interests. The smaller states, therefore, tend to develop their own distinct
identities, and, in this process, affinities with India are often ignored, and points
of diversity are stressed repeatedly.”
As the inherent threat perception against India exists in the minds of the small
nations of the region, their foreign policies accord more importance to extra-
regional aspects. Upreti refers to three-dimensional approach of the foreign
policies of these small nations:
(a) they interact closely with the extra-regional powers at bilateral and
multilateral levels so as to reduce their economic, political and
security dependence on India (Pakistan’s dependence on USA and
China during 1970s and 1980s, for example);
(b) they use the extra-regional powers as a counter-weight against India;
(c) they internationalise the contentious bilateral issues, be it a border
dispute (Kashmir issue by Pakistan) or the question of sharing natural
resources (river-water distribute problem with Bangladesh) or the
trade issues (with Nepal).
Except for Bhutan and the Maldives or Afghanistan, India had some major or
minor border issues with these countries. With China, the major border dispute
escalated into a military conflict. The SAARC has to work in the wake of these
complexities and can do little to integrate the countries for effective economic
cooperation.
The last decade of the twentieth century has been marked by changes of
enduring significance in international relations, affecting the course of events in
South Asia. The cold war has ended; the socialist model has already
demonstrated its decline; the socialist countries of eastern Europe have
disowned the communist regime; the USSR has disintegrated; liberalisation,
privatisation and globalisation have dawned; India has introduced an open and
privatised market economy which has already shown encouraging results.
Upreti writes: “The break-up of the Soviet Union was followed by the weakening
of communism as an ideological force. The collapse of the Soviet Union led to
the redrawing of the map of Europe without a war. The East European countries
began to look towards the West and democratise their politics and liberalise
their economies.”
Under such circumstances, India’s foreign policy responded with changes,
especially towards its neighbours, including China. India not only improved its
relations by addressing itself to the major issues confronting with each of the
countries in the region, but it also sought to extend its cooperation through
economic collaboration with them. Trade relations with China were
strengthened; confidence building measures were undertaken and attempts
were made to resolve the border issue in a sustained and steady manner.
Relations with Pakistan improved substantially: contentious issues were
addressed; trade links were strengthened; Gujral doctrine was implemented.
However, insurgency and issues related to extemism stand as obstacles even
today. With Nepal, especially after it has been declared as a republic, relations
with India have improved. India and Bangladesh have moved towards a better
understanding. With Sri Lanka, India has extended economic cooperation. India
is helping its neighbouring nations in numerous projects. Referring to the
shifting regional scenario, Upreti says: “In the 1990s, India began to take
initiatives to improve relations with its neighbouring countries. With Bhutan,
India’s relations had been cordial and continued to be the same despite the
emergence of ethnic conflict in Bhutan. With Nepal, a process of normalisation
of relations started with the signing of the accord in June 1990, the revision of
trade and transit treaties, further strengthened their relationship. India agreed to
provide economic concessions to Nepal. For Sri Lanka, India’s withdrawal of the
IPKF in 1990 was of a great relief. India’s relations with Bangladesh remained
unstable,... except in resolving the Tin Bigha issues”. With Pakistan, India’s
attempt towards economic and cultural cooperation continue to suffer a setback
owing to the insurgency activities from across the border.
The twenty-first century is opening up newer vistas with regard to the inter-
state relations, owing largely to the changed conditions in international geo-
political reality. What is required is a changed outlook among the countries of
the region so as to enable them to identity their common problems and resolve
them in the spirit of reconciliation and to discover their common aspirations so
to make attempts to attain them. The South Asian States have unique problems
of their own, some historically created, some politically devised, some
ethnically-culturally born. They would do better if they do not look to what had
happened in the past but look ahead to build their future.
ll. REGIONAL COOPERATION: SAARC

(a) Problems and Prospects
The regional cooperation in South Asia either in terms of movement of human
beings or of goods has been minimal. What is called South Asian Association of
Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is a region, which was, until 1947, without any
formal borders but now has become so border conscious that each member-
state of SAARC has some border problem with her neighbour. There are
conflicts and there are problems, and SAARC presents no achievement worth
admiration. If there had been cooperation of any sort, it was certainly not
because of SAARC, but despite it.
Against other regional organisations of the world, SAARC has a very
disappointing record. The European Union is more than a mere forum for
economic cooperation: it is a union of 27 European nations with institutions
such as the European Parliament, Council of Ministers, Court of Justice, a
central bank, a common currency and above all a constitution. Latin America
had set up the Latin American Free Trade Association with a Southern
American Market in 1985, the year when SAARC was established. The
Caribbeans had the CARICOM in 1973 and the North American Free Trade
Area —NAFTA—came into force in 1994 so to have a free trade among
countries such as the United States, Canada and Mexico. In Africa too there are
the Southern African Development Community (SADC) since 1980, the
Central African Customs and Economic Union and the Economic
Community of West African States (ECOWAS) since 1975. In July 2002 was
established the African Union replacing the earlier Organisation for African
Unity. South Pacific too has come together with the forming of the South
Pacific Forum since 1971, and ASEAN in 1967. All these regional
organisations had economic integration; some even had legal, social and
cultural cooperation. All these had diversities, like the countries of SAARC.
These attained achievement, which SAARC could not. The reasons for SAARC
not having attained the progress which other regional organisations have are
not difficult to identify. The countries of South Asia are unevenly placed: India’s
position, indeed, is dominant. It is India, which shares borders with all the
SAARC members, either by land or by sea, either directly or indirectly. Its
population is enormously large, about 50 times that of Sri Lanka and Nepal. It
has between 75 or 80 per cent of the economic potential of the entire region.
The history or the recent history of the region shows that there have been
tensions, and sporadic conflicts, some major others minor in nature. There are
diversities of culture, ethnicity, religion, language and the like among the
countries. Politically, the countries in the region vary between democracy and
military dictatorship; emotionally, the people of these countries are apart. There
are more differences than there are commonalities. Poverty afflicts most of the
countries and social isolation outside reign. the region. The idea of SAARC
originated with neither any solid basis nor any urge to build a common future. It
came about without much reason. The summits are supposed to be held
annually but are not held because of the dissonance within the SAARC
nations. There had been fifteen summits in 23 years, until 2008. Years missed
were when the heads of the states or government could not agree on issues
between them.
f ‘
Report of GEP
The report of the Group of Persons as constituted at the ninth Male Summit
1997 had given its report in 1999. Though the report did mention
achievements of SAARC: people to people contact, social concern for active
cooperation in technical matters. But the report stated failures such as: lack of
political will affected by the prevailing political climate, hindered cooperation,
apathy towards aspirations and objectives underlying its formation. The report
gave A Vision for SAARC Beyond 2000 and some of its major features
were: establishment of a South Asian Economic Union by 2020; identification
of all non-tariff barriers and reduction of tariffs gradually, substantial trade
facilitation, effective in troduction of services, development of transport and
communication of infrastructure, improvement in SAARC institutions.
\ J
SAARC agenda, however, included all those matters which were of concern
to the region; formation of regional centres for fostering people to people
contacts, economic and social issues, poverty alleviation, environment,
communications information and media, people to people contacts, human
resource development, SAARC funds and the like, but the effects of the
organisation faulted here and there. Social agenda has featured in SAARC
meetings. Poverty alleviation programmes, establishing regional food security
and reserves, women and child welfare issues, environment conservation
issues, prevention of drug trafficking and countering terrorism have featured in
most summit declarations apart from economic cooperation. The Second
Summit at Bangalore in 1986 paid greater attention to international issues such
as adherence to the Non-Aligned Movement, disarmament, respect for
international laws and concern for the United Nations as well as cooperation to
fight terrorism. The Third Summit at Kathmandu in 1987 unequivocally
condemned all acts of terrorism. A decision was reached on easing travel in the
region at the fifth Summit at Male, Maldives in 1990. At the seventh Summit
meeting at Dhaka in 1993, SAARC Preferential Trading Arrangement (SAPTA)
was signed, and the eighth Summit (1995) saw the substantial progress in this
regard. This meeting also endorsed the decision to establish a three window
South Asian Development Fund. The ninth Summit at Male in 1997 constituted
a Group of Eminent Persons—GEP (10 in number) to report on the activities of
the SAARC and conceive of a vision and a concrete plan of action. However, it
was thought that the agenda of the SAARC had become too large and hence no
longer practically feasible. This Summit laid emphasis on literacy, development,
environment, tourism, science and technology while the eleventh Summit at
Kathmandu was held in the background of nuclear tests conducted by India and
Pakistan, the Kargil war, tension between India and Pakistan and the worsening
situation in Nepal. The twelfth Summit at Islamabad brought in focus Indo-
Pakistan relations. A framework agreement on the South Asian Free Trade
Agreement (SAFTA) was signed to be implemented within two years, by 2006.
The last thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth Summits held at Dnaka, New Delhi
and Colombo sought to bring about economic collaboration among the SAARC
nations and resolve the contentious issues. The eighth member, Afghanistan,
joined the SAARC, and a SAARC university was visualised.
The future promises great potential provided the area of cooperation is
extended in the South Asia region.
Energy sector relating to water, gas and oil can be harnessed and routed;
Bhutan and Nepal can emerge as major sources of hydro energy; Bangladesh’s
natural gas reserves can be exploited; the oil can be transported from Central
Asian nations to South Asia. Energy cooperation can become more than just
selling and buying energy power. If the countries feel there is a need to develop
the region as a single energy grid, where demand and supply will be met
through normal commercial transactions; such an energy grid if developed
would have the potential to attract enormous international resources.
Transport and communication integration is another area, which can provide
basis to trade and commerce in the region. Connectivity between India and
Pakistan has developed a bit, but pathetic conditions of numerous roads have
to be improved. Economic cooperation is yet another area where impediments
have to be removed and tariff barriers will have to be reduced with the aim of
finally removing them completely.
For water resources cooperation, the Indus Water Treaty and the Ganges
Water Treaty would have to be expanded.
Environmental concerns will have to be addressed so to enable the region to
control disasters such as Tsunami (as in 2005) and earthquakes (as in
Kashmir). Services such as tourism and information technology are other areas
where the South Asian nations can effectively cooperate. A market of about 150
crores people holds out enormous prospects for investment in the region while
the civil society cooperation in the region can bring people together in areas
such as cultural and social exchange programmes.
(b) Towards a Free Trade Area

One of the most important objectives of SAARC had been economic
cooperation in South Asia. A two-way process had been envisioned:
i. to set up a preferential trading area, and

ii. to provide a free trade area.
The Agreement on SAARC Preferential Trading Agreement (SAPTA) was

signed in April 1993 and was implemented in December 1995. Its principles,
among others, included: enhancing reciprocity to benefit all equitably, reduce
and carry out tariff reforms step by step, recognise the special needs of the
least developed states of the region, and the like.
The proposal was initially met with enthusiasm. India agreed to reduce tariffs
in 106 of the 226 fields recommended by SAARC and Pakistan agreed to
concessions in 35 fields. Only three per cent of all South Asian trade was being
conducted in the region by 1995. Six years later, improvements seen in regional
trade were found to be very marginal. India’s trade within South Asia accounts
for only four per cent of its total global trade and Pakistan’s trade in the region
accounts for merely three per cent of its overall trade. Compared to other
countries with similar proximities and income levels, intra regional trade among
SAARC states has been remarkably small. Much of the trade conducted in
South Asia has been considered mostly symbolic. Tariffs are still high in some
states. The spirit of free trade in the region is largely absent. The SAPTA has
been a failure. The major reasons were:
e Removal of non-tariff barriers was not addressed by SAARC nations.

e Numerous items, listed were not traded at all. Of the 106 items offered for
concessions by India, only 22 were imported, while for Pakistan only 6
were actually imported though the concessions were offered for 35 items.
e Sub-regional and bilateral trade arrangements unrelated to SAPTA began
to be enforced and these made SAPTA irrelevant.
The South Asia Free Trade Arrangement (SAFTA) was signed in January
2004 by the foreign ministers two days after the Twelfth Summit at Islamabad
and came into operation in January 2006, but its Tariff Liberalisation
Programme (TLP) came into effect only in July 2006. Under this agreement all
member-countries were expected to conduct trade with each other on all items,
except those in the negative list on which duties may not be reduced. Pakistan
ratified SAFTA in February 15, 2006. This raised hopes that the trade barriers
between Pakistan and India might soon end. With SAFTA making the Most
Favoured Nation (MFN) treatment automatic, there were also hopes that
Pakistan’s refusal to give India MFN status would cease to matter. India had
already accorded Pakistan the MFN status in 1995. These hopes were soon to
be dashed. In an interview to a newspaper soon after February 15, 2006
ratification, Pakistan’s commerce minister Humayun Khan said that the full-
fledged commercial relations between the two countries would have to wait for
the resolution of the Kashmir issue. This killed SAFTA effectively.
It is, thus, clear from the above example that what lacks in making SAFTA
effective and successful is the political will among the SAARC leaders to
resolve their issues, by delinking trade with other problems. Pakistan links trade
with Kashmir while India with cross-border terrorism.
Even while the SAPTA and SAFTA were being negotiated some countries
moved ahead with bilateral free trade agreements both within the region and
outside. India in particular negotiated a free trade agreement with Sri Lanka that
was signed on December 28, 1999 at New Delhi. By 2005, this had led to a
manifold increase in Sri Lanka’s exports to India. It also changed fairly
dramatically political relations between the two countries. The massive trade
deficit that Sri Lanka suffered has been reduced considerably. Economic
confidence has grown and with it have come investments, particularly from India
to Sri Lanka and also the other way around. Both countries are now moving
forward actively towards a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement
that will take this process several steps further. A similar agreement with
Bangladesh was also proposed by India and is being examined by Dhaka. In
view of the demonstrated advantage to Sri Lanka, whose exports to India rose
by 137 per cent in a short period as a consequence, it will be interesting to see
what arguments Dhaka will put up to oppose the initiative. In the latest round of
discussions in March 2006, Dhaka promised to examine the proposals.
(c) India’s Role in SAARC

India’s position in SAARC family is really unique. Area-wise, population-wise,
resources-wise, India is the largest of all the SAARC countries. Accordingly, it
has the potential to contribute the most and provide leadership to the
organisation. Due to these unique features, apprehensions abound about its
dominant role in SAARC as well as in the region. India, accordingly, moves very
cautiously, and keeps the developmental and political issues separate.
India has contributed significantly in the formation and functioning activities of
SAARC. Though the idea of SAARC was mooted by Bangladesh, India made
no mistake in giving it a practical shape. In all the activities of SAARC, India’s
participation and contribution has been significant. Certain aspects of India’s
relations within the subcontinent are conducted through SAARC. India
developed many international treaties along with SAARC, and was the source
of many of those ideas, some of which are: Antarctic Treaty, Biodiversity Treaty,
Climate Change Treaty, Endangered Species Treaty, Environmental
Modification Treaty, Hazardous Wastes Treaty, Law of the Sea, Nuclear Test
Ban Treaty, Ozone Layer Protection, Ship Pollution, Tropical Timber, Wetlands,
Desertification, etc. These treaties were implemented by other nations as well,
on the guidelines as proposed by India. The Indian contribution to SAARC was
significant when its representatives were chosen as the chairpersons for two big
events in SAARC, one of which was agricultural programme (including forestry),
and the other one being the Science and Technology (Energy Development)
Programme. New Delhi hosted meetings for various programmes like
Environment (1992 and 1997) and commerce (1996).
At its Bangalore Summit, the important decisions, at the initiative of India
were: people-to-people contact, facilitation of tourism, a South Asian
Broadcasting programme, scholarships and fellowships for the students. At the
New Delhi Summit in 1995, India sought the members to evolve SAARC vision
for the second decade, its commitment to eradicate poverty in the region, to
emphasise on trade negotiation so to make the trade free in South Asia. The
SAPTA and later SAFTA measures were taken at India’s initiative. The Delhi
summit took up the literacy issue. India has always committed itself to the cause
of SAARC’s economic and social charter. Stressing on transforming South Asia
into a region of progress and prosperity, the former Prime Minister Vajpayee
had said: “Our common agenda is rich and diverse — to work closely to
maximise economic cooperation, to promote equitable development in our
countries to jointly fight poverty, disease, hunger and illiteracy.” India has
raised, at various SAARC Summits, issues concerning global and
environmental matters such as elimination of nuclear weapons and terrorism
and to confront these issues by building consensus among the nations. The
foreign minister S.M. Krishna (2009) had said: “We will engage more closely
with the global community and all our partners to deal with international
terrorism, and to find a path of sustainable development with energy security.”
SAARC, with Prime Minister Modi (2014) is a priority feature of India’s foreign
policy. According to Modi, poverty is the common enemy of the SAARC nations.
That is why we advocated a common bank for SAARC. In his speech in
Kathmandu, he had spoken on greater people to people contacts, better
connectivity, commercial linkages within the region (November 2014).
(d) Relevance of SAARC

Our discussion about SAARC, especially its slow progress on almost all fronts,
raises an important question. Is SAARC relevant? The answer is that the
SAARC is relevant. That it has existed for more than two decades is the fact
that the SAARC is not useless.
The structure of SAARC shows that South Asia is Indo-centric. Among all the
countries, India is the most powerful of all. The region is characterised by
asymmetry with scales tilted heavily in favour of India. Inequalities exist in
several areas: geographical dimension, demographic magnitude, economic
resources, production structures, growth potentials, armaments and armed
forces. All these inequalities lead to suspicion among the countries of SAARC
about India’s hegemony. The SAARC has made it possible to remove this India-
phobia. Being members of
SAARC whereby the principle of consensus and unanimity works, there is a
sense of growing equality, which these countries have now about India: the
sense of asymmetry is reducing, though gradually.
In a scenario where India’s relations with its neighbours are strained and
there is a tendency for bilateral relations to affect the overall relations, it has
been observed that the regional association has had a very useful role to play.
The SAARC forum and especially the summit meetings provide an opportunity
to all the nations to maintain continuity in their bilateral dialogue. There is a
silent acknowledgement by many that while the official bilateral meetings may
face rough weather, the member-countries have been regularly meeting at the
various SAARC forums. Though, the bilateral differences would remain the
meetings of the heads of the state provide useful links. At times of crisis, it has
helped to defuse the short-term misunderstandings, which are only possible
when the heads of the countries meet to instill confidence among the people.
Similarly, the meetings have helped to restart and give direction to the often-
deadlocked official bilateral dialogue. Such examples suggest that the meetings
of the heads of the states/governments have helped leaders meet and discuss
their mutual differences and has often led to better understanding.
Similarly, other leaders also hold informal meetings on the sidelines of
SAARC. The informal meetings at the highest level on the sidelines have played
an important role with regard to relations between India and Sri Lanka during
the peak of the Tamil ethnic crisis. So was the case regarding India and
Bangladesh with regard to finding an amicable resolution to the Ganges water
treaty. There are reports that Nepal and Bhutan have also met on the sidelines
to discuss the issue of refugees. Numerous meetings between India and
Pakistan have led to bringing about some understanding with each other.
SAARC has from the beginning exchanged ideas on the various social issues
of concern with the member countries. In the very first summit, it was reaffirmed
that challenges of poverty, etc. could not be met only with regional cooperation.
Issues concerning children, maternal and child nutrition, provision of safe
drinking water, adequate shelter, subscribing the goals of universal
immunisation and primary education—all have been part of the SAARC social
agenda. At the fourth SAARC summit in Islamabad, a regional plan, “SAARC: A
Basic Need Perspective’, was adopted. This was to spell out developmental
targets of the member countries regarding basic needs like food, clothing,
shelter, education, primary health care, etc. At various times, particular years
were designated either to the girl child, disabled persons, year of shelter and so
on. In fact the Fifth SAARC Summit decided that the years 1991-2000 would be
observed as the “SAARC Decade of the Girl Child”. Such decisions bring the
member-states together and induce them to help one another during the time of
crises.
SAARC provides the forum whereby the eight member-countries can discuss
cooperation on various economic issues. It took ten years before SAARC
became effective with the SAPTA coming into effect in 1995. Since then
numerous rounds of tariff concessions have been exchanged. A common
complaint is the limited coverage of goods under SAPTA. Of late, the smaller
member-countries are convinced that tariff preferences for trade in itself will not
bring prosperity unless it is accompanied by investments in their countries to
improve their narrow industrial base. Though the experience on SAPTA and
SAFTA has not borne fruits, yet the negotiations keep on continuing and this, in
itself, is a good sign.
India’s exports to SAARC registered a 14.71% growth in 2013-14 at $17.3
billion. While South Asian countries account for 5.5% of India’s export, imports
from the region have a share of just 0.55%. India’s imports from the region have
declined 8.31% in last fiscal at $2.4 billion leaving a trade gap of $15 billion. The
government will have to focus on services, especially tourism and science and
technology. Modi had sought for a SAARC satellite to share the fruits of
technology.
While trying to write the report card of the regional association—SAARC
which was established three decades earlier—one should be very clear that the
answer cannot be either categorical “pass” or “fail”. That would be a very narrow
way of looking at things. For that matter any regional association in the world
has a mixed bag of results—certain areas in which they have achieved success,
in others they have failed to take off, and in still other issues some new
mechanisms of cooperation have had to be developed. In fact, international
organisations grow gradually. So is true about SAARC. One only hopes that
SAARC would prove beneficial to the countries of the region. Indeed much
depends on the mutual relations of the neighbouring relations, especially
between India and Pakistan which are clouded with the terrorists working from
Pakistan.
lil. IMPEDIMENTS OF REGIONAL COOPERATION
The SAARC developmental story has had numerous obstacles. South Asia as a
region has a similarity of having a colonial past. Almost all the states of the
region—India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka in particular
were under the British rule. While Myanmar (Burma earlier) was with the British,
Afghanistan acted as a buffer state between the British and the Czarist Russia.
Some of the present day countries of South Asia had constituted one country
under the Britishers—India. Pakistan and Bangladesh were parts of India. The
partition in 1947, following the liberation of Bangladesh, East Pakistan became
independent Bangladesh in 1971. Nepal, now a Republic, was a Hindu
Kingdom until recently. It had foreign relations with Britain during the colonial
period. The Republic of Maldives was placed under British protection with
internal self-government in 1887, but became a republic in 1953. Sri Lanka
(earlier Ceylon) also known as Taprobane to the ancient world and later
Serendip, was under the British rule. It became a republic in 1948.
After the British left the region in 1947, the countries of the region became
independent, and became conscious of differences. The whole region became
a conflict-prone area. Between India and Pakistan, there were the borders and
water distribution disputes; between India and Nepal, there were issues relating
to trade and transit. With Bangladesh, there were differences relating to water
distribution and illegal migration while there had been ethnic problems relating
to the Tamils of the Indian origin. These problems have created impediments in
the path of regional cooperation.
(a) Ethnic Conflicts

Ethnic conflicts constitute one major obstacle in forming regional cooperation
among the countries in the region. The question of Tamil minorities in Sri Lanka
is one such major problem. Ever since Sri Lanka obtained independence, the
people of Tamil ethnic origin living in the north and northeast Sri Lanka have
feelt alienated by the Sinhala-Buddhist majority, which virtually controls every
aspect of the country’s life. The Tamils form a minority ethnic group and seek a
place in Sri Lankan life. Having failed in their objective, the Tamil minority have
been seeking right to self-determination first and then voiced their demand for a
separate state for the Tamils. Their struggle has become increasingly
aggressive through their organisation, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
(LTTE) since mid-1980s. The ethnic conflict between the Sri Lankan
government and the LTTE led to the loss of lives, on the one hand; and the
refugees’ influx fleeing the island, on the other. India’s interest lies in
maintaining peace and stability in Sri Lanka. India’s position has been to regard
the Tamil problem as an internal affair of Sri Lanka. India seeks a political and
democratic solution to the problem, and in the process has readily offered even
military assistance by sending the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) to Sri
Lanka and offering to contribute to any effort, including third party Norwegian
initiatives in resolving the ethnic problem. The Tamil minority ethnic problem
brought to the forefront other similar issues such as, plight of the people of
Indian origin in Nepal who are being ill-treated there, and the aspirations of
people of Nepalese origin in India, seeking Gorkhaland as they once did under
Subash Gheisingh. The flow of the Chakma refugees from Bangladesh to the
northeastern states of India has continued to sour relations between India and
Bangladesh.
(b) Borders and Insurgency Issues

All international conflicts usually begin with borders. This is true of anywhere
and of anytime. In South Asia, India and Pakistan have border disputes, so
have nations such as India and Bangladesh and China. India and Pakistan have
not been able to draw mutually acceptable frontiers between themselves.
Kashmir poses such a problem. In 1947, when the British India was partitioned
into India and Pakistan, and the princely states, including Jammu and Kashmir,
were to opt either to join India or Pakistan or remain free. The Maharaja of
Kashmir, Hari Singh signed the accord with India on October 27, 1947, five
days after the Pathan-armed tribals, at Pakistan’s behest, invaded Kashmir.
These tribals had already occupied almost one-third of Kashmir before the
Indian forces were able to repel the raiders. Since then, the Kashmir border
problem remains a major dispute between the two countries, though the border
issue elsewhere has been, by and large, settled.
Kashmir, as an integral part of India, has strategic significance. It shares
common borders with states such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, China, and the
former Soviet Union. Its location is important in so far as it is a gateway to
south, southwest and central Asia. Pakistan’s perception of Kashmir is that
India has illegally occupied Kashmir and has not held plebiscite as Nehru had
promised at the United Nations in 1948. To garner support for Kashmir,
Pakistan sought the support of the United States during the greater part of the
cold war. She was also able to obtain China’s support after conceding some of
the areas of the occupied Kashmir to China. Additionally, Pakistan after
enjoying the growing support of the USA and China, exploited the discontent of
the people of Kashmir first by extending military support to arm the insurgents,
and has thereafter encouraged insurgency across the border. Pakistan
instigated the secessionist movements launched by Jammu and Kashmir
Liberation Front (JKLF). To pressurise India, Pakistan kept arming itself with
armaments, mostly from the USA and China and waging wars, in 1948, 1965,
1971 and 1999. Her support to the insurgency and to the extremist outfits
(hijacking of the Indian Airlines flight No. 814 in December, 1999, attack on the
Indian Parliament in December 2001, and the Mumbai attack in November
2008) are glaring examples of Pakistan’s initiatives against India.
India’s perception on Kashmir is both legalistic as well as democratic. The
Indian forces entered Kashmir only after the Maharaja’s accord with India was
finalised, and that too to repel the attack. Jammu and Kashmir became, legally,
a part of India through the provisions of the accord. India’s promise to hold
plebiscite was conditional only after the withdrawal of the Pakistan backed
forces from Kashmir, a withdrawal which never occurred. India granted Jammu
and Kashmir numerous concessions, not given to other states of India: Article
370, a separate constitution and facilities thereunder. The democratically
elected Jammu and Kashmir legislature passed numerous legislations to
approve the state’s accession with India.
Both India and Bangladesh did little to resolve the border problem, though the
Indo-Bangladesh agreement of 1975 had planned the fencing of the frontiers.
To fence such a border, in which Bangladesh is surrounded from three sides of
the Indian states—West Bengal, Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura — was indeed, a
difficult task. Fencing being a difficult job, the illegal crossborder migration from
Bangladesh to all the surrounding states of India is a major problem.
(c) River-water and Cross-border Migration

The river-water disputes relate to the Indo-Pakistan water dispute over the
Wulur Barrage (The Indus Waters Treaty), Indo-Bangladesh water dispute over
the Farakka Barrage (The Ganges Water Treaty) and the Indo-Nepal water
dispute over the Mahakali River Treaty.
The Indo-Pakistan dispute over the sharing of the Indus River System has
not been as contentious. Indeed, the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 between
India and Pakistan is cited as one of the few examples of successful resolution
of a major dispute over an international river basin. It is the largest, contiguous
irrigation system in the world, with a command area of about 20 million hectares
and annual irrigation capacity of over 12 million hectares. The partition of the
Indian sub-continent in 1947 put the headwater of the basin in India, while
Pakistan received the lower parts of the basin. A serious dispute over the river
waters occurred in 1948, when India halted water supplies to some Pakistani
canals at the start of the summer irrigation season. The ensuing negotiations
between the two countries did not resolve the problem. The water flow cut off by
India affected 5.5 per cent of Pakistan’s irrigated area and put tremendous
strains on the new country. After nine years of negotiations, the Indus Waters
Treaty was finally signed on September 19, 1960, with the cooperation of the
World Bank. The salient features of the Indus Waters Treaty are:
i. Three Eastern rivers namely Ravi, Sutlej and Beas were given to India.
ii. Three Western rivers, Indus, Jnelum and Chenab were given to Pakistan.
iii, Pakistan was to meet the requirements of its Eastern river canals from the
Western rivers by constructing replacement works.
iv. Safeguards incorporated in the treaty to ensure unrestricted flow of waters
in the Western rivers
v. Both parties were to regularly exchange flow-data of rivers, canals and
streams.
vi. A permanent Indus Waters Commission was constituted to resolve the
disputes between the parties.
The Treaty sets out the procedure for the settlement of differences and
disputes. It also provides for settlement of disputes through the International
Court of Arbitration.
Thus, future prospects persuaded the two countries to agree to a partition of
the Indus Basin waters. Both countries were expected to exploit their respective
water shares with the help of an Indus Basin Development Fund to be
administered by the World Bank. The Wular barrage issue is under negotiation
between India and Pakistan. It was on the agenda at the Lahore meeting in
1999, and at Agra Summit in July 2001.
India and Bangladesh are the co-receiption states sharing two large
Himalayan river systems, the Ganges and the Brahmaputra. The major issue of
dispute between the two countries has been the Ganges, as the Brahmaputra
has not yet been substantially tapped.
After the establishment of Bangladesh in 1971, various rounds of high-level
talks were held which led to the formation of the Indo-Bangladesh Joint River
Commission (JRC). Though, it was dealt with at the Summit level, India and
Bangladesh could not bring about a permanent solution and to date it impacts
deeply on the Indo-Bangladesh bilateral relations. The Farakka Barrage
became operational for a 40-day trial-period in 1975, following a short-term
agreement signed by both countries in 1975. From January 1976 onwards,
India began to divert water unilaterally at Farakka barrage, prompting
Bangladesh to raise the issue at international forums. In 1977, the two countries
signed a five-year agreement to share the water at Farakka during dry seasons
under a water sharing formula. It was followed by two short-term agreements
during dry season sharing in 1982 and 1985. After 1988, however, the two
countries could not reach agreement due to the decreasing availability of water
at Farakka, resulting from increased quantities of upstream withdrawals. After
years of unsuccessful bilateral negotiations, Bangladesh again raised the issue
in several international forums in 1993, which led to a further deterioration in
their bilateral relations. Ultimately, the Ganges River Water-sharing agreement
was signed in 1996 for a thirty-year period.
The salient features of the agreement are:
© At flow rates below 70,000 cusecs, India and Bangladesh will each
receive half of the available water.
e At flow rates above 75,000 cusecs, India is guaranteed a minimum share
of 40,000 cusecs, with the balance of flow going to Bangladesh.
Water sharing of the major rivers originating in Nepal and flowing into India
has strained the otherwise smooth relationship between the two countries. The
Nepalese rivers have a tremendous potential capacity to generate 83,000 MW
electricity through hydro-power generation projects. Nepal can export this
energy, but lacks the capital and technology required to develop such large
projects. Since all the power produced cannot be utilised in the country, it would
leave a large surplus available for exports and for which India has a need.
In the 1980s, development projects on the Mahakali River raised a serious
controversy between India and Nepal. The Mahakali, also is known as the Kali
(called Sarada in India), flows along the Nepal-India western border. The
Mahakali River was fixed as the western boundary between Nepal and British
India in 1861, by taking the mid-stream of the river as the boundary, which later
on became a source of conflict. In December 1991, India compelled Nepal to
sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), which allowed India the use of
577m of Nepalese territory required for the construction of the left afflux bund
for its Tanakpur Barrage in exchange for 10 million units of electricity, as well as
of 150 cusecs of water for irrigation. The Barrage was built by India, in 1988, on
Mahakali River, near the town of Tanakpur, in Uttar Pradesh.
The Treaty on Integrated Development of Mahakali River was signed by the
Prime Minister of His Majesty's Government of Nepal and the Prime Minister of
the Government of India in February 1996 and which came into effect in June
1997. It concerns with the Integrated Development of the Mahakali (Sarda in
India) River including Sarda Barrage (existing), Tanakpur Barrage (existing) and
Pancheshwar Project (Proposed — under Planning). Pancheshwar
Multipurpose Project (PMP) on the river Mahakali which is the centerpiece of
the Treaty. The Treaty has 12 Articles with a preamble. As per the Treaty
principles, both sides are committed to design and operate the project as a
single, integrated scheme to yield, “the maximum total net benefits accruing to
them”. The power benefit is to be assessed on the basis of saving in costs as
compared with the relevant alternatives available. As per the Treaty “equal
entitlement in the utilisation of the waters of the Mahakali River “without
prejudice to their respective existing consumptive uses” is also planned to be
ensured from the PMP.
The problem of cross-border immigration from Bangladesh to India is a
phenomenon ever since the formation of Bangladesh. It has, now, reached
alarming proportions and all efforts to persuade Bangladesh to act in the matter
has not produced tangible results. The immigrants cross over to the
neighbouring Indian states to find some employment opportunities. The
government awakened only when such immigrants posed security threat to the
country by eating up into our resources, health benefits and jobs. They manage
to obtain ration cards, voters’ identity cards, and eventually pollute social,
economic and political life in the state they enter in India. The estimates show
that there are about 54 million Bangladeshis in West Bengal, four million in
Assam, about half a million in Bihar, Delhi has about a million and a half
Bangladeshis, while in Tripura, Rajasthan and Maharashtra 0.8, 0.5 and 0.5
million respectively. The Bangladeshis migrants earn wealth through
employment and send it to their country, thus boosting the country’s GDP. To
that extent, they create unemployment for the local people. In addition, the
illegal migrants add crimes, helping the terrorists and posing grave threat to
India.
IV. INDIA’S “LOOK EAST” POLICY

The two major purposes of India’s “Look East” (now Act-East) Policy are:
(a) to cultivate extensive economic and strategic relations with the
nations of South East Asia so to bolster its position as a regional
power, and
(b) to counterweigh the strategic influence of People’s Republic of China
in that region.
Of late, India and China have been strategic competitors in South and East
Asia. In South Asia,
China has sought to cultivate relations with Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal.
In East Asia, China has begun strategic, economic and military cooperation with
Myanmar (earlier Burma), and with ASEAN nations. China is making her place
well entrenched. India, through the “Look East Policy” (LEP), is trying to
cultivate and strengthen its relations with the neighbours and the East Asian
nations, without adversely affecting its own relations with China.
Initiated in 1991, India’s Look East Policy marks a strategic shift in the
country’s perspective of the world, whose policy was to link India with more and
more Asian partners and the rest of the world. The policy was developed during
the period of Narsimha Rao and later pursued by Vajpayee and Dr. Manmohan
Singh. Dr. Manmohan Singh had once said: “India’s “Look East” Policy, is shift
in India’s vision of the world and India’s place in the evolving global economy.”
India’s “Look East” Policy was the product of numerous factors, such as fast-
changing international perceptions and the country’s expectations to make the
best use of the international environment. The cold war had ended; the socialist
model of economy had proved ineffective; the open-capitalist neo-liberal market
together with liberalisation and globalisation had been showing encouraging
results. India, with economic reforms of 1990s, had opened itself to the world
market, and demonstrated outstanding economic performance, with gross
domestic product growing at an average of six per cent a year and seven to
eight per cent in recent years. India’s international trade, which had grown by 13
per cent a year since 1991, has been a driver of its overall growth. Previously,
India had belonged to a global group of slow growers, averaging a low three per
cent a year ever since its independence in 1947 to 1990, the eve of reform.
Foreign trade was never perceived as important, and understandably
contributed little to overall growth.
A former foreign minister, Jaswant Singh, described India’s Look East Policy
in these words: “In the past, India’s engagement with much of Asia, including
South East and East Asia, was built on an idealistic conception of Asian
brotherhood, based on shared experiences of colonialism and of cultural ties.
The rhythm of the region today is determined, however, as much by trade,
investment and production as by history and culture.” That is what motivates our
decade-old ‘Look East’ policy. It is not difficult to see reasons for India’s Look
East Policy. East Asia is close to
India geographically. Most of the East Asian countries, Myanmar, Thailand,
Singapore, Malaysia share land or sea borders with India. Southeast has been
a destination of the Indian migrants for centuries, sharing with India, its
languages and faith. As a result of its association with the West, especially the
British, India had been neglecting the East Asian nations. Since the 1990s,
India began to rediscover the whole region. There is yet another important
reason which relates to trade with the West as per the dictates of WTO. India
has its own reservations about WTO. India feels that if the WTO trade
negotiations fail, it would be left alone to face growing protectionism in Europe
and North America. While India has sought to negotiate Free Trade Agreements
(FTAs) with as many countries as possible to keep its options open, it found that
East Asian countries were the most enthusiastic potential partners. The China
factor is another reason for pushing towards East Asia. India also needs to
counter China’s initiative in Asia. The BIMSTEC (Bay of Bengal Initiative for
Multi-sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation) and Mekong Ganga
Cooperation (MGC) are regional cooperation agreements initiated by India,
(excluding China’s participation), the latter being the regional cooperation
involving countries such as India, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam and Myanmar.
Taking advantage of East Asia’s growth, India’s Look East Policy has moved
ahead with four broad objectives: reform and liberalisation, sustained rapid
growth, regional economic integration and equity-based development. Closer
economic ties with East Asia require greater efforts on India’s part to liberalise
trade and investment. The Look East Policy objective of economic reform and
liberalisation supports India’s efforts to lower trade barriers and liberalise
investment regimes. This effort has gained further impetus when India and all
major East Asian economies began free trade negotiations in the early 2000s.
India’s has found renewed enthusiasm for FTA’s Look East Policy, which in turn
had an impact on India’s reform and liberalisation.
Tapping into East Asia’s growth is an important trigger for India’s engagement
with its economies. With the Indian economy taking off from the early 2000s,
India has increasingly turned its focus to sustaining its rapid growth. Strong
economic ties with East Asia would position India well for accessing growth
opportunities in Asia. India is also wooing East Asian investment as it tries to
build infrastructure in transport, communications and power sectors to keep
pace with its expanding economy. India believes East Asia holds a key to
India’s sustained economic growth.
The third objective of the Look East Policy, LEP, is to pursue economic
regionalism with East Asia. This is partly a reaction to the formation of trade
blocs in Europe and North America, and partly to serve as a platform from
which to promote India’s growing superpower status. In the face of an
increasingly fragmented world, India feels that its grouping with East Asian
countries would enhance its position relative to other regional partners. The
LEP is seen as instrumental in addressing internal disparity in India’s
development, and fostering more equity-based growth. The economic
development of India’s seven northeastern states in particular lag behind the
other states in development. They have felt neglected in terms of investment
and government spending for some time. Through the LEP, India hopes that
linking its north-eastern region with Southeast Asia will kickstart economic
development, and help the seven states to develop infrastructure, logistics,
agro-business, trade, investment and other commercial activities. Trade with
Southeast Asia also has the potential to turn the region from landlocked to
landlinked, providing India with land routes to Thailand, Myanmar and other
Southeast Asian nations. In pursuing its objectives, India’s Look East Policy is
heading towards its projected goals.
In the initial stages the focus of the Look East policy was much on ASEAN.
India’s conscious efforts to forge closer economic ties with ASEAN member
states has paid dividends; bilateral relations between India and ASEAN have
improved rapidly. India has became a regional dialogue partner in March 1993
in the three areas, namely, trade, investment and tourism, a full dialogue
partnership in 1995, member of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in July 1996
and finally to a Summit Level Partnership in 2002. The first phase of India’s
Look East policy was ASEAN-centred and focused primarily on trade and
investment partnerships. The second phase, which began in 2003, is more
comprehensive in its coverage, extending from Australia to East Asia, with
ASEAN as its core. The new phase marks a shift in focus from trade to wider
economic and security cooperation, political partnerships, physical connectivity
through road and rail links. India-ASEAN cooperation now covers a wider
spectrum, including trade and investment, science & technology, tourism,
human resource development, transportation and infrastructure, and health and
pharmaceuticals. India signed “Long Term Cooperative Partnership for Peace
and Prosperity” with ASEAN, which is the cornerstone of India’s Look East
policy. India prefers to use the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation
Agreement as a template for Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), because of its
comprehensive coverage of goods and services trade as well as investment.
When negotiating FTAs, India takes the position that service trade is as
important as trade in goods. India’s trade negotiators believe that the country’s
economic strength lies in its services sector. Trade between India and ASEAN
countries is expanding significantly.
As part of the endeavour to strengthen India’s partnership with the East and
Southeast Asian region and reinforce the Look East policy, a sub-regional
grouping, called BIST-EC, comprising Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka and
Thailand was established in 1997. With the addition of Myanmar and, in 2004,
of Bhutan and Nepal, the group came to be known as BIMSTEC or the Bay of
Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation. This
forum has identified six sectors for focused cooperation: trade and investment,
technology, transport and communications, energy, tourism, and fisheries.
When India initiated BIMSTEC in 1997, it received strong support from
Thailand, which also saw it as a political and economic forum to bridge
southeast Asia and South Asia. India promotes BIMSTEC to establish economic
links with peninsula member countries of ASEAN to boost the development of
its seven Northeastern states.
India is also part of the Mekong Ganga Cooperation (MCG) Project, which
also includes Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. It came into
being on November 10, 2000 where the representatives of the six member
states met at Vientiane and came up with a set of guidelines known as the
‘Vientiane Declaration’. The declaration outlined the areas for institutional
interaction based on assessment of the capabilities of its member states. In
order to give a well-structured outlook to the initiative, a concept paper was
worked out which delineated the agenda for cooperative efforts, where the
project is primarily aimed at the development of three main areas for
cooperation tourism and culture, infrastructure and Information Technology as
envisaged by the Vientiane Declaration. The MGC is an extension of India’s
Look East policy and also a reminder of its constant cultural interaction with the
mainland Southeast Asian countries. After nearly 15 years, the Look East policy
has yielded many benefits and supported India’s economic transformation and
growth, including closer and strategic contacts between India and Southeast
Asian countries, an impressive increase in the quantum of bilateral trade and
increased people-to-people interaction. With outward looking policies India’s
foreign trade, which was below $40 billion in the early 1990s, has risen
dramatically to US$ 140 billion by 2003. Foreign trade as a ratio of Indian GDP
has risen from 12 per cent in early 90s to more than 23 per cent by 2003,
pointing to increasing openness of the economy. There has also been
substantial progress in India’s trade with other developing countries and with
Asia, with the initiation of the ‘Look East’ policy. The share of developing
countries has doubled to about 30 per cent of India’s trade, while Asia’s share
has doubled to 24.2 per cent. In other words, about a quarter of India’s foreign
trade now comes from its Asian neighbours.
To achieve the LEP objectives, India is negotiating bilateral free trade
agreements (FTAs) with East Asian economic powers. India has entered into a
number of pacts, agreements and FTAs with Thailand and Singapore; there are
plans to create a free-trade area with Brunei, Indonesia, and Malaysia by 2011
and with the remaining ASEAN countries—the Philippines, Cambodia, Laos,
Myanmar and Vietnam—by 2016.
India’s trade with countries bordering the Northeast has seen the most
dramatic expansion, with the share going up more than five times from 1.7 per
cent in 1992-93 to 8 per cent in 2003-04. This dramatic expansion of trade with
India’s eastern neighbours has had little or no impact on the Northeast. Most of
this trade expansion has taken place through the seaports. It would not be
incorrect to argue that the Northeast has once again been marginalised. India is
looking east, but not through its contagious Northeastern borders. For the
Northeast to gain from FTAs with the economies of the east, the key variables
are transit arrangements, proliferation of trade routes and custom check post,
easy visa regime making it possible for traders, businessmen and transport
operators to move in and out of the region. For this to be possible requires
substantial investments in infrastructure, construction of highways and bridges,
reestablishment of rail links and communication facilities which is largely
absent. The Shukla Committee in its report, “Transforming the Northeast,”
estimated such investment to exceed Rs. 25,000 crores.
As a result of this initiative, India has concluded a number of bilateral and
multilateral projects, aimed at enhancing connectivity between the Northeast
and Southeast Asia. In this regard India built the 165-km long Indo-Myanmar
Friendship Road connecting Tamu and Kalaymyo-Kalewa. The other important
ongoing and potential infrastructure projects are India-Myanmar-Thailand
Trilateral Highway, Trans Asian Highway, India-Myanmar rail linkages, Kaladan
Multimodal project, the Stilwell road, Myanmar-India-Bangladesh gas and/or oil
pipeline, Tamanthi Hydroelectricity project and optical fiber network between
Northeast India and Southeast Asia. India and Myanmar recently agreed on the
Kaladan Multi-Modal Transit Transport Facility, which envisages connectivity
between Indian ports on the eastern seaboard and Sittwe Port in Myanmar and
then through riverine transport and by road to Mizoram, thereby providing an
alternate route for transport of goods to Northeast India.
The impact of Look East Policy has been favourable to India. International
trade of goods and services is now a strong driver of India’s growth, rising from
17 per cent of gross domestic product in 1991 to 42 per cent in 2004. East Asia
accounts for a significant part of the rise in India’s foreign trade. India’s trade
with East Asia had been less than 10 per cent of India’s international trade in
the early 1990s. It is now stands 25 per cent. In 2005, trade with China grew by
nearly 80 per cent, with South Korea by close to 50 per cent, with Japan by
nearly 20 per cent and with ASEAN by 13 per cent. East Asia is now India’s
major trading region, having overtaken the European Union and North America,
traditionally two of India’s largest trading regions. Happily, India’s possible
economic integration, which is now feasible with East Asia is likely to influence
the shape of an eventual Asian Economic Community.
The Look-East Policy is changing into Act East Policy while emphasising on a
proactive role of India in this region (November 2014). Mutual trade, more
export items, cultural exchanges, mutual visits and other diplomatic exchanges
are on their way in relations to one another.
V. INDIA-ASEAN RELATIONS
Since its beginning in 1992, the sectoral dialogue partnership between India
and ASEAN rose to full dialogue partnership in 1995 first and later at the
Summit-level interaction with the First ASEAN-India Summit in 2002—all within
a period of a decade. India also became a member of the ASEAN Regional
Forum (ARF) in 1996. The signing of the ASEAN-India Partnership for Peace,
Progress and Shared Prosperity in November 2004, further consolidated
cooperation between the two. The nature of cooperation between India-ASEAN
covers not only regional and bilateral level engagement through ASEAN but
also sub-regional initiatives such as Mekong Ganga Cooperation (MGC), Bay of
Bengal Initiative for Multi-sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation
(BIMSTEC).
The India-ASEAN relations cover areas
(a) politico-strategic and security relationship;
(b) economic engagements and trade relationships;
(c) scientific and technological relationship; and
(d) cultural relationship.
The security and strategic relationships, between India and ASEAN takes
place at two levels:
(i) at the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and (ii) at the ASEAN-India level
meetings. The ASEAN Regional Forum (formed in 1994) discusses
security issues through its ARF Senior Officers’ Meetings (ARF-SOM)
and Inter-sessional Support Group meetings on Confidence Building
Measures (ISG on CBMs) and its track-Il platforms—the Council for
Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP) and ASEAN Institute
of Strategic and International Studies (ASEAN-ISIS). Since 1996, India
has been taking part in both the wings of the Forum on issues related
mainly to trans-national organised crimes such as drug-trafficking,
terrorism and counter-terrorism, maritime piracy, illegal movement of
nuclear, chemical, biological, and other deadly materials.
Besides its participation in the ARF deliberations, India has also been
engaged with ASEAN in discussions on security issues through the summit
level meetings. India and ASEAN signed a Joint Declaration for Cooperation in
Combating International Terrorism in October 2003. The Joint Declaration
stipulates cooperation in
(a) exchange of information,
(b) legal and enforcement matters,
(c) institutional capacity augmentation and
(d) training.
During the meeting on Law Enforcement in Bali in August 2004, India
proposed sharing of intelligence and coordinated actions among the law
enforcement agencies in combating terrorism. In the second India-ASEAN
summit level meeting in October 2003, India also signed the ASEAN Treaty of
Amity and Cooperation (TAC), expressing its adherence to the ASEAN goal of
regional peace and stability. Apart from the summit meetings, which generally
outline the policy areas for cooperation and formalise agreements, there are
various official and business level meetings, which actually carry out the details
of the cooperative activities.
The economic cooperation between India-ASEAN is managed and overseen
through institutional arrangements such as
(a) ASEAN-India Business Summit;
(b) ASEAN-India Business Council;
(c) ASEAN-India Economic Ministers’ Meetings;
(d) ASEAN-India Trade negotiations Committee;
(e) ASEAN-India Working Group on Trade and Investment.
The meetings of these bodies are held from time to time to foster economic
cooperation between ASEAN nations and India.
India-ASEAN trade was almost minimal during the Cold War period. But as
the new century opened, the two-way trade flourished rapidly between India and
ASEAN. Table 42.1 gives India’s exports and Table 42.2 gives India’s imports to
East Asia.
Table 42.1: India’s Exports to East Asia, 2001-02 to 2006-07
Values in US$ million
2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
China 951.95 1,975.48 2,955.08 5,615.88 6,759.10 8,287.48

P.R
Japan 1,510.44 1,864.03 1,709.29 2,127.91 2,482.26 2,860.47
Korea 471.37 644.85 764.86 1,041.68 1,827.21 2,512.76

RP
ASEAN 3,457.02 4,618.54 5,821.71 8425.89 10,411.30 12,603.86
Table 42.2: India’s Imports from East Asia, 2001-02 to 2006-07
Values in US$ million
2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
China 2,036.39 2,792.04 4,053.21 7,097.98 10,868.05 17,447.01

P. RP
Japan 2,146.44 1,836.33 2,667.68 3,235.13 4,061.10 4,592.01
Korea 1,141.37 1,522.01 2,829.17 3,508.77 4,563.85 4,802.26

RP
ASEAN 4,387.22 5,150.17 7,433.11 9,114.66 10,883.68 18,089.64
Source: Directorate General of Foreign Trade, India

The growing partnership between India and ASEAN is further evident from
their multi-sectoral scientific and technological cooperation. A number of
agreements have been signed covering areas like space technology, info-tech,
biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, and tele-medicines. These cooperative
initiatives are managed by forums, such as the ASEAN-India Working Group on
Science and Technology and the ASEAN-India IT Ministerial and IT Industry
Forum. During the twelfth ASEAN-India Technology Summit and Technology
Platform (TSTP), held in New Delhi on November 2006, both sides agreed to
set up an Indo-ASEAN Science and Technology Fund “to undertake
collaborative work in Research and Development and technology development
in areas of common interest.” The two sides also agreed to set up India-ASEAN
Institute for Intellectual Property and inter-link India’s Tsunami Early Warning
System with the Malaysian network for quicker dissemination of information.
The Summit was jointly organised by the ASEAN Committee on Science and
Technology, India’s Department of
Science and Technology and the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII). India
and ASEAN have also decided to establish an India-ASEAN Institute of
Biotechnology in Jakarta and develop an ASEAN-India Digital Archive. The two
sides have also set up an ASEAN e-Network Project-Establishing a VSAT-
based Tele-Education and Tele-Medicine Network to connect Cambodia-Laos-
Myanmar-Vietnam (CLMV).
India and ASEAN countries share strong cultural relations. India is the
birthplace of Buddhism, which is practised by a large number of people in
mainland Southeast Asia and the Indian merchants and traders from Gujarat
are known to have brought Islam to the Southeast Asian coasts during their
trading visits. In order to revive historical cultural relations, Singapore has
proposed reviving Nalanda University in Bihar and India is engaged in
developing road and rail transport systems in the CLMV countries facilitating
greater movement of people from the region as tourists or as pilgrims visiting
religious places in India such as Sanchi, Sarnath, Bodhgaya, and Nalanda.
India and ASEAN have also been working on linking Indian higher educational
institutions with the ASEAN University Network. Indian educational institutions
such as Manipal Medical College and Delhi Public School have opened
branches in Malaysia and Singapore. The latter established an Institute of
South Asian Studies in 2004 while India is yet to reciprocate. Various software-
training centres have been opened up by enterprises such as NIIT and
APTECH in Vietnam, Malaysia, Cambodia and Indonesia. The Indian
government has been organising Indian Education Fairs in ASEAN countries
and has also offered to establish Centres for English Language Training.
India’s interest in ASEAN has gained a renewed momentum with Narendra
Modi in power. India-ASEAN have, at times, discussed the scope of extending
the existing free trade agreement on service sector as well as ways to increase
mutual trade which is expected to reach $100 billion. The Prime Minister Moodi
has stressed on commerce, connectivity of culture and links strengthen the
relations with ASEAN.
East Asia Summit (EAS) is an ASEAN led dialogue forum with 18 nations (10
ASEAN countries along with Japan, China, South Korea, India, Australia, New
Zealand, Russian and the US). Over the years EAS has become an important
multi-lateral body in Asia-pacific region for discussing security, trade,
commerce, environment and others. Describing the importance of EAS in
managing regional security, India needs to stand up against China especially in
South Asian water maritime disputes and war, to give opposition to her as
opposed to East Asian and ASEAN nations of the region. Hillary Clinton had
encouraged India ‘not just to look East but to engage East and Act East’). She
mentioned “No other forum brings together such a large collective against
global population, youth, security and military strength. Nor is any other forum
so critical for peace, stability and prosperity in Asia-pacific and the world.”
Act East Policy

The ASEAN region, stretching from Myanmar to the Philippines in the east and
up to Singapore and Indonesia in the south, is central to India’s Look East
(renamed Act East in 2014) policy and is located in New Delhi’s very front yard.
India shares a land border with Myanmar, an ASEAN member state, and
maritime boundaries with two other member states — Indonesia and Thailand.
The Andaman and Nicobar Islands, an archipelago of 572 islands in the Bay of
Bengal, is located close to the three eastern approaches to the Indian Ocean
comprising the three straits — Malacca, Lombok and Sunda—located in
Southeast Asia.
Two decades on, engagement with the Asia-Pacific has become an integral
component of Indian foreign policy with bipartisan support. The Look East and
Act East policies are the flowering of the Asian dream, and India’s burgeoning
relations with the 10-nation ASEAN group are at the heart of this unfolding
Asian resurgence’s. Look East policy has morphed into a proactive Act East
policy, which envisages accelerated across-the-board engagement between the
two growth poles of a vibrant Asia.
Modi’s early foreign policy decision-making pointed to a prioritisation of
relations within India’s own neighbourhood. For example, in an unprecedented
move, Modi invited the leaders of all member states of the South Asian
Association for Regional Cooperation, plus Mauritius, to his inauguration
ceremony. As a further indication of the region’s importance to the new
government, both Modi and External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj made their
first overseas trips to neighbouring countries, Bhutan and Bangladesh.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s maiden trip was to Myanmar from 11 to 14th
November, 2014, to attend his first India-ASEAN summit and the 18-nation East
Asia Summit.
Features
The three C’s: Commerce, Culture and Connectivity are the three pillars of
India’s robust engagement with ASEAN.
Economic Cooperation
The two sides are expected to sign an India-ASEAN FTA (Free Trade
Agreement) in services and investments soon. This will complement the FTA in
goods which was signed five years ago in 2009 and has led to a quantum jump
in bilateral trade, which is now hovering around $80 billion.
The two sides are now confident of scaling it up to $100 billion by 2016 and
double that volume by 2022.
Modi’s vision centres on making India a manufacturing hub through the “Make
in India” programme, and improving infrastructure and the overall quality of life
through the construction of smart cities.
India is boosting connectivity and economic integration with Cambodia, Laos,
Myanmar and Vietnam. The immense potential to boost India’s trade with the
CLMV countries has increased from $1.1 billion in 2004 to $11.9 billion in 2014,
according to government estimates.
Culture
India has close historical and cultural ties with many ASEAN members, with
thousands of non-resident Indians living in these countries. The shared heritage
ranges from Borobudor, the Mahayana Buddhist temple, in Indonesia to Angkor
Wat, the world’s largest religious monument, in Cambodia. The spread of
Buddhism to Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam through emperor
Ashoka’s emissaries, the spread of Indian mythology and folklore, the Thai epic
Ramakien based on the Ramayana and the many Indian emigrants to
Southeast Asia — all reflect these traditional ties.
Connectivity
India has been in the forefront of pushing a host of transnational projects that
seek to weave the region together in an intricate web of road, rail and maritime
links. The completion of the Tamu-Kalewa-Kalemyo sector of the India-
Myanmar-Thailand Trilateral Highway is poised to create a new dynamic in
India’s multi-faceted ties with the region.
India announced that it will soon extend electronic-visa facility to all ASEAN
countries — Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the
Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.
Setting new benchmarks for this blossoming relationship, India has set up an
Indian mission to the ASEAN in Jakarta, and has set up an ASEAN-India Centre
which is housed in New Delhi. Capacity-building, developmental cooperation,
and the burgeoning knowledge partnership are key facets of what experts are
calling India’s ‘Enhanced Look East’ policy. This is reflected in India sharing its
expertise in capacity building projects in Southeast Asian countries through the
three funds — the $50 million ASEAN-India Cooperation Fund; the $5 million
ASEAN-India Green Fund; and the ASEAN-India Science and Technology
Fund. India plans to set up four IT Centres in Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar
and Vietnam. India is also set to launch a Tracking and Data Reception Centre
in Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam, which would make remote sensing data
available from the RESOURCESAT and OCEANSAT for applications in disaster
management and mineral exploration for ASEAN countries.
Strategic Issues
The NDA (National Democratic Alliance) government’s ambition of pursuing a
larger global role for India, and the greater long-term economic and strategic
potential of engagement with East and Southeast Asia, will necessitate the
prioritisation of India’s relations with this region over its traditional emphasis on
West Asia. How will this affect India’s key relationships in Asia?
The important facet of India’s links with ASEAN are strategic issues, which do
not just concern the ASEAN countries but also United States, Japan and China
—all of whom are important players in ASEAN.
Against the backdrop of the churn in the South China Sea, India has
consistently pitched for freedom of navigation and has pressed for the
resolution of all maritime territorial disputes in accordance with the UN Law of
the Seas.
At the ASEAN-India Summit on November 21, Indian Premier Narendra Modi
said that, “India hopes that all parties to the disputes in the South China Sea will
abide by the guidelines on the implementation of the Declaration on the
Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, and redouble efforts for early
adoption of a Code of Conduct on the basis of consensus.”
Among the nine major bottlenecks that control entry to the Indian region are
the Malacca Strait and the Six Degree Channel. The Andaman and Nicobar
Islands lie in this strategically important zone, meaning that India with its
growing naval capabilities could play a significant role in controlling access.
Other countries—notably China—have expanded their presence in the
region. Naval vessels camouflaged as fishing boats have been sighted, while
other ships make port visits to Sri Lanka and Pakistan.
India is certainly wary of China’s growing presence in the Indian Ocean and
its relationships with India’s South Asian neighbours. In light of this, India’s Look
East Policy can be conceived as part of an external balancing strategy against
China. At the same time, Beijing is also displaying wariness towards India’s
growing relationships with key partners in East and Southeast Asia, particularly
with Vietnam and Japan. While it is not in India’s interests to engage in direct
rivalry with China, it can be expected that an element of competition will
continue to characterise the China-India bilateral relationship.
Exploring synergies with Thailand and Brunei

Brunei is a tiny oil-rich sultanate attained independence 32 years ago in 1984
and became the ASEAN Country Coordinator for India in 2013. Bandar Seri
Begawan, Brunei’s capital, has witnessed a series of conferences in 2013,
attended not only by ASEAN foreign ministers but also their partners and
interlocutors ranging from Canada to Mongolia. An assessment of deliberations
and decisions taken at these meetings by former ambassador of India to
Myanmar, Rajiv Bhatia, especially from India’s perspective, has identified
numerous meetings (July 1-2) that were of critical importance: the 11th India-
ASEAN Ministerial Meeting, the 3rd East Asia Summit Ministerial Meeting, and
the 20h ASEAN Regional Forum Meeting.
According to a joint statement, India and Brunei signed a defence
memorandum of understanding (MoU) that includes four major areas: exchange
of visits at different levels; exchange of experience, information, and training;
conduct of joint military exercises, seminars and discussions; and cooperation
between defence industries.
Maritime security is a key component of the bilateral defense relationship and
has been a particular focus of the India and Thailand over the past few years.
India’s Chief of Naval Staff Admiral R.K. Dnhowan’s July 2015 trip to Bangkok
saw a specific focus on strengthening maritime cooperation between the two
navies, including hydrography, developing comprehensive maritime domain
awareness through the exchange of white shipping information, and increasing
the scope of coordinated patrols.
Both sides did announce that India will participate in the upcoming iteration of
Cobra Gold, the Asia-Pacific’s largest annual multinational military exercise.
The two countries would also soon hold naval exercises in the Andaman Sea.
India and ASEAN will also mark the 25th anniversary of their dialogue
partnership in 2017.
India and Malaysia

The signing of the historic ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) declaration, an
EU-style regional economic bloc which aims to integrate Southeast Asia’s
diverse economies, is expected to have significant impact on India-ASEAN
relationships. The AEC envisages a single market with a free flow of goods,
capital and skilled labour across borders in the highly competitive economic
region, which has a combined gross domestic product of $2.4 trillion.
The two nations of India and Malaysia decided to continue sharing of
information and best practices to address the challenges posed by terrorism
and other “traditional and non-traditional threats’.
India signed two MoUs with Malaysia on Cooperation on Cyber Security and
Cooperation in Project Delivery and an agreement on Cultural Exchange
Programme for 2015-2020.
India and Singapore

Bilateral ties with Singapore also got a boost as India signed ten pacts,
including a joint declaration on elevating ties to a strategic partnership, besides
agreements for enhanced defence cooperation and in areas like cyber security,
shipping and civil aviation.
A number of Indian states are actively seeking to learn from the success of
ASEAN countries especially Singapore in urban planning and infrastructure.
Singapore is a partner in the development of Amaravati, the yet to be built
capital of Andhra Pradesh.
Key Options for India

India under Modi is likely to pursue a more ambitious role in East and Southeast
Asia. India’s partners in the region can expect greater Indian involvement in
multilateral maritime security initiatives, particularly in the areas of humanitarian
assistance and disaster relief, transnational crime, and joint bilateral naval
exercises.
In order to preclude further inertia, India will need to move quickly to outline a
clear agenda for deepening economic, institutional, and defence links with the
region that go beyond what has been pledged by previous governments. If the
Modi Government is able to achieve this, then India has the potential to assume
a role as a consequential strategic player across the wider Indo-Pacific.
The Indian Diaspora, living in Southeast Asia, has played a very important
role in transmitting Indian cultural values, cuisines and films, thus retaining and
strengthening the cultural relations between the two regions.
Practice
Questions
1. Give an account of South Asia as a sub-continent.

(200-250 words)
2. Discuss SAARC as _ an _ institution of regional
cooperation. (700-800 words)
3. Explain briefly the problems and prospects of SAARC.
(700-800 words)
4. Give an account of Free Trade Area with special
reference to SAPTA and SAFTA. (700-800 words)
5. Discuss India’s role in SAARC. (700-800 words)
6. Do you think that the SAARC is irrelevant? Give
arguments.(200-250 words)
7. Describe any two impediments in the path of regional
cooperation in South Asia. (700-800 words)
8. Evaluate India’s Look East Policy. (700-800 words)
9. Assess India-ASEAN relations in the present century.
(700-800 words)
10. Write a short note on cross-border illegal migration. at.
(200-250 words) eS)
India’s Relations With
Neighbouring States (Pakistan,
Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka)
ndia’s neighbours include, among others, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka with
whom her relations have been significant in more respects than one. With each of these
countries, India has one problem or the other. As a consequence, the environment of the region
is so affected that regionalisation which has been so successful elsewhere, could not work as
effectively as expected. The reasons are partly historical and partly political; historical that these
countries have some disputes as neighbours, and political in the sense that Cold War that prevailed
during the post-World War II period did affect their relationship. However, the situation in the post-
Cold War era is not altogether disappointing with economics taking over global politics.
I. INDIA-PAKISTAN RELATIONS
Pakistan, with 796,095 sq. km. area and a population of 162,419,446 (ref. The Manorama
Yearbook— 2006), is India’s most important neighbour in the north-west. Though the country has
close ethnic, cultura, and historical links with India, the latter suffered at the hands of Pakistan in
1948, 1965, 1971, and 1999, though each time it was Pakistan who had to bite the dust. Ever since
its birth, following the partition of the country in 1947 and during the whole period of the Cold War
(1949-90), Pakistan’s relations with India were far from normal. The reasons, then, were
(a) both the countries had a different approach to nation-building;
(b) their differences on Kashmir; and
(c) both differed on their role and the perception about the then two global superpowers—
the USA and the USSR.
Of all the issues between India and Pakistan, the Kashmir problem still remains unresolved. Part
of the Kashmir problem may be stated here. In August, 1947, India and Pakistan became
independent from the British rule but the status of Kashmir, a Muslim-majority princely state
(population: 8 million - 1988) situated at the northern-most extremity of India, was to be decided at
a future date. When in the same year an onslaught of Muslim tribesmen happened, the Hindu
Maharajah of Kashmir opted to join the Indian Union. When fighting stopped, Pakistan was
occupying a third of Kashmir and India two-thirds, with the two divided by a UN designated Line of
Control (LoC). India promised and Pakistan accepted that a UN-sponsored plebiscite would be held
to determine the future of Kashmir with two options: joining India or joining Kashmir, only after the
withdrawal of the Pakistan-backed tribal forces. The plebiscite has never been implemented
because the withdrawal of forces did not come into effect.
In 1965, a Pakistani force entered Kashmir in the expectation of sparking off a revolt by Muslim
residents against Indian rule, but the revolt did not take place, and India retaliated by sending its
armies into the Pakistani part of Punjab. This second war ended with India emerging the victor. In
1971, after the two countries fought yet another war, this time over Bangladesh, they signed a
peace treaty (the Simla Agreement) committing themselves to bilateral negotiations over Kashmir.
Intermittent talks held since then have not produced any lasting solution. The third Kashmir conflict
began in 1989 as a local revolt by Kashmiris against alleged Indian mismanagement and political
manipulation. It has since been fueled by the proliferation of Pakistani arms, military training, and
the infiltration of Islamic warriors from Afghanistan into India. India deployed several hundred
thousand soldiers, paramilitary, and police forces to subdue the insurgency. In a nutshell, for both
India and Pakistan, their claim to Kashmir validates their definition of nationhood— Pakistan as a
Muslim homeland, and India as a secular state. The Pakistanis contend that India is suppressing a
movement for national self-determination, while the Indians argue that Pakistan is aiding terrorism
in Kashmir. They agree on only one thing: that Kashmir cannot be allowed to become an
independent nation.
UN’s Peace-keeping Efforts (UNCIP, 1948-51 and UNMOGIP, 1951 to Date)

Currently, about 45 military observers, supported by international and local civilian staff, are on
duty. There are contributions by 9 countries, i.e., Belgium, Chile, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Italy,
Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Uruguay. During the period from 1947 to 1971, the UN Security
Council adopted a total of 13 resolutions on Kashmir, urging peaceful negotiations and respecting
the wishes of the Kashmiris in the final determination of the political status of the region.
Among themselves the two nations have built up their military strength strongly.
India’s nuclear weapons programme was initiated largely in response to China’s nuclear
explosion in 1964. India tested its own nuclear explosive device a decade later. Pakistan’s nuclear
weapons development was motivated by its defeat by India in the 1971 war and India’s nuclear
programme. Both countries:
e developed or otherwise acquired missiles that could potentially deliver nuclear weapons;
e resisted a number of non-proliferation initiatives by the US and UN;
© agreed, however, not to attack each other’s nuclear facilities and have exchanged lists of
nuclear facilities;
e have agreed to discuss several other nuclear pledges, such as no first-use, no testing, no
transfer to third countries, and a freeze on production of fissile materials as part of a global
agreement;
e strongly supported global nuclear disarmament; and
© are pondering the future of their civil and military nuclear policies. India, in particular, has long
debated the wisdom of going nuclear full scale, and similar discussions.
India has successfully test fired a short-range missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead amid
a massive military buildup along the shared border of Kashmir. While India claims that the test was
a part of its ongoing nuclear programme and not related to the Kashmir confrontation, Pakistan
termed the launch as destabilising amid a massive military buildup along the Kashmir border. The
test is also seen as an ominous indication that all is not well with the agreement between the two
countries on transparency of their nuclear development. The two nations became nuclear powers in
1998.
The relations, cordial or otherwise, between the two nations, depend on the activities of terroristic
outfits. As these activities surface, the composite dialogue, as a positive means for the
normalisation of relations, gets defeated. Tensions, for example, between the two nuclear-armed
rivals rose sharply after terrorist attacks on the Kashmir Assembly in October 2001, the Indian
Parliament in December 2001, and the Mumbai attack in 2008. India blamed terrorists based in
Pakistan for these attacks. By January 2002, nearly one million troops from both countries had
gathered along their 1,800 mile common border, and many feared that any minor cross-border
skirmish could spark off a major conflict.
At present the two countries are guardedly optimistic on the prospect of resolving their
differences.
As reported in India’s The Hindu (April 2006): “Sounding upbeat about the current pace of the
Indo-Pak peace process, the then Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan Shiv Shankar Menon had
said that the third round of the Composite Dialogue talks may result in ‘tangible’ progress on some
key issues. Menon also said that more than the pace of the talks, it was important that the dialogue
process should be sustainable in the long run.”
More comments from Menon appeared in Qatar's The Peninsula (April 2006): “The Pakistan-
India talks are going in the right direction and have reached a point where they will gather
momentum. The Indian High Commissioner in Islamabad Shiv Shankar Menon has said. ... ‘We feel
that the time has come when India and Pakistan, while working on our differing political and security
perspectives, should focus attention on economic cooperation, building upon our strengths,
complementaries and affinities,’ said the Indian diplomat.”
A positive development that came to be initiated was the initiation of confidence-building
measures (CBMs), which include:
e advance notification of troop movement;

© grants of military aircraft landing rights; and
© prevention of airspace violations.
Since 2003-04, both India and Pakistan have been coming closer and, as per the meetings of the
Indian and Pakistani leaders, both the nations are seeking mutually acceptable negotiated
settlements. This is in continuation to the already-present CBMs built up by both the countries,
which CBMs also include the bus service, rail service, trade relations, and people-to-people
diplomacy. Since 2004, leaders of both the countries have begun resolving their mutual problems
amid occasional terroristic activities, stalling the composite dialogue between the two.
Both India and Pakistan have launched several mutual (CBMs) to ease tensions between the
two. These include more high-level talks, easing visa restrictions, restarting of cricket matches
between the two, and so on. The new bus service between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad has also
helped bring the two sides closer. Pakistan and India have also decided to co-operate on various
economic fronts.
The recent meetings between the Indian Prime Minister and the Pakistan leaders on the sidelines
of the NAM Summit augured well for resolving bilateral disputes, including the Kashmir dispute. It
may well be said that Pakistan’s reasons for coming to terms with India include:
i. the present Pakistan generation is sick of the age-old dispute relating to Kashmir;
ii. the USA and People’s Republic of China are no more Pakistan’s ally in a dispute that has lost
significance so far as they are concerned;
iii. Islamic nations are not favourable to the idea of annoying India whose friendship they have
tested for years: and
iv. Pakistan has relatively more serious problems (poverty, backwardness) to address. India’s
reasons for coming to terms with Pakistan include:
. her keenness to act as a favourable big brother;

ii. her keenness to act as a favourable big brother;
iii. her longing to extend the Gujral doctrine to all neighbours, especially Pakistan.
The two countries would do well to promote composite dialogue if they concentrate on:
(a) Kashmir
1. Re-locate forces from Indian side of Kashmir, including Siachen.
2. Repeal ‘draconian’ laws.
3. Reduce human rights violations.
4. Establish Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus link.
5. Open the Jammu-Sialkot route.
6. Permit cross-border trade at selected points.
7. Allow interaction at selected points between people on both sides of the LoC.
8. Permit pilgrimages to holy shrines on both sides.
9. Promote cultural interaction and cooperation.
10. Explore cooperation on issues such as management of environment, forestry resources, etc.
(b) CBMs
1. Establish new communication links between the two armies, navies, and air forces.
2. Upgrade, dedicate, and secure the communication links between the two foreign secretaries.
3. Establish communication links between Indian Coast Guards and Pakistan Maritime Security
Agency.
4. Restore the strength of the respective high commissions to 110.
5. Re-establish consulates-general in Karachi and Mumbai.
6. Release all apprehended fishermen.
(c) Commercial and Economic Cooperation
1. Pakistan needs to grant Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status to India.
2. Grant transit facilities to each other’s goods on a reciprocal basis.
3. Open the Attari-Wagha land routes for trade.
4. Promote investment in joint ventures.
5. Participate in trade fairs/exhibitions.
6. Open branches of nationalised banks in each other’s country;
7. Collaborate in post-harvest technologies.
8. Cooperate in the water resources sector.
(d) Promotion of Friendly Exchanges
1. Exchange of artists, writers, poets, musicians, painters, and sculptors.
2. Liberal visa regime for performing artists, film personalities, and liberalise visa regime through
grant of one-year multiple visas to bonafide businessmen; grant of Exempt from Police
Reporting (EPR) visas to journalists, artists, students, scholars, businessmen, persons working
with multinational companies, and senior citizens (65 years and above).
3. Invitation to theatre groups from Pakistan and India;
4. Exchange of exhibitions, paintings, sculpture, photographs, handicrafts, and musical
instruments.
5. Interaction between national museums.
6. Exchange of youth delegations.
7. Exchange sportspersons, teams, and coaches.
8. Remove ban on Indian TV channels in Pakistan.
India seeks to reiterate a peaceful, friendly and cooperative bilateral relationship with Pakistan
and to resolve all its outstanding issues within the framework of the Shimla Agreement of 1972. In
this context, Prime Minister Modi has always underlined the importance of maintaining an
environment free from terrorism so as to ensure peace along the line of control. From the swearing-
in of Modi as the Prime Minister to his private visit to Pakistan in December 2015, India availed
every opportunity to build good neighbourly relations with Pakistan. Pakistan, owing to its domestic
problem (civil and military tussle) and domination of terrorist groups, has not reciprocated in the true
spirit of friendship.
Ceasefire violations from the Pakistan’s side is a common affair. Like the earlier years, year 2015
was also witnessed such violations, though a major conflict between the two countries was always
avoided. At times, the relations between the two governments also improved. As and when, the two
sides came closer, the terrorists in and from Pakistan damaged the chances of friendly-growing
relations between the two. Attacks on the Indian Parliament, 26/11 incident and the attack on the
Pathankot Air-base (an attack on January 2, 2016) are such examples. It is certain that until
Pakistan becomes serious in punishing the terrorists and in bringing them to justice, the relations
between India and Pakistan would remain cloudy and shady. The ball, being in Pakistan’s court,
needs to act, act seriously on terrorists and act reciprocatively towards India.
ll. INDIA-NEPAL RELATIONS

Nepal has an area of approximately 147,181 sq. km. with a population of 27,676,547 (2006). The
length from the Mechi river at the eastern border to the Mahakali river at the western border is
about 885 kms. From North to South, distances vary from 125 km to 241 km. Nepal is divided into
five development regions consisting of 14 zones. Hill areas as well as parts of the Terai are
included in each zone. These are further sub-divided into 75 districts.
Nepal is bordered in the north by the Tibet Autonomous Region and on the remaining three sides
by India (in the east by Sikkim and West Bengal, in the west by Uttar Pradesh and in the south by
both Bihar and Uttar Pradesh).
Nepal has some very rugged and difficult mountain terrain. About 75 per cent of the country is
mountainous. From the south to the north, Nepal can be divided into four main physical belts, each
of which extends east to west across the country. These are, first, the Terai, low flat, fertile land
adjacent to the border of India; second, the forested Churai foothills and the inner Terai zone, rising
from the Terai plain to the rugged Mahabharat Range; third, the mid-mountain region between the
Mahabharat Range and the Great Himalayas; and fourth the Great Himalaya Range, rising to more
than 29,000 feet (some 8850 metres).
Nepal, once a Hindu state, is now a republic where Hinduism is a prominent religion. In the
medieval ages, the country was divided into a number of small principalities. It was first unified by
Prithvi Narayan Shah, the King of Gorkha, who conquered the various kingdoms within Kathmandu
valley and established the Shah dynasty in 1769. Nepal’s internal politics during the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries were marked by violence, bloodshed, and struggles for power. From 1845 to
1951, actual power was exercised by the Rana family, which established a hereditary Prime
Ministership and reduced the Shah Kings to mere titular figureheads. Although there was some
progress and modernisation during the Rana regime, it remained a feudal and elitist state, until
1990 when prodemocracy movement came to be launched. Following the constitutional reforms,
the general elections were held in May 1991 under the new constitution. Thereafter began the era
of instability with coalition governments one after the other. In between there was the Maoist
insurgency, as also the royal family shoot out in the closing years of the last century and the early
years of the present century, with the communist Prachanda’s regime having come and gone in
between.
The relations between India and Nepal have been shaped by long-standing geographical,
historical, cultural, social, and economic ties: the people of the two countries have shared with each
other in all walks of life. An open border of more than 1800 km cements this special relationship.
Under the Indo-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1950, both governments have undertaken,
in token of the neighbourly relations between India and Nepal, to give to their respective nationals
the opportunity with regard to participation in industrial and economic development and the grant of
concessions and contracts relating to such development. The nationals of India and Nepal are also
granted, on a reciprocal basis, in the territories of the other the same privileges in the matter of
residence, ownership of property, participation in trade and commerce, movement, and other
privileges of a similar nature. This Treaty has enabled Nepal and Nepalese to be ‘land-linked’ with
India, rather than land-locked, and facilitated sharing of opportunities in pursuit of peace and
progress.
India’s concern, as regards Nepal, was never motivated by any dominance, but, at the same
time, India did not want Nepal’s territory to be used against India. Speaking in the Lok Sabha in
December 1950, Nehru had said: “Much as we respect the independence of Nepal, at the same
time we are concerned about our security also.” The two treaties between India and Nepal, which
serve as the basis of political relationship between the two countries, both signed on the same day,
ie., July 31, 1950 are The Treaty of Peace and Friendship, and the Treaty of Trade and
Commerce. Some of the major provisions of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship are:
(a) Neither government would tolerate any threat to the security of the other by any foreign
aggressor;
(b) The two countries would consult each other on measures of mutual concern;
(c) Nepal would buy arms from India, generally; and
(d) Nepal would consult India before it buys war equipments from any other country.
The major features of the Treaty of Trade and Commerce (the trade and transit treaty) are:
(a) India would provide all possible commodities essential for Nepal;
(b) India would ensure Nepal’s routes and other related means of transport;
(c) India would permit transit Nepal’s goods to other countries; and
(d) Nepalese shall enjoy the same economic and educational opportunities as provided to
the Indians.
Both these treaties were revised from time to time, though Nepal had wanted to change the
provisions of trade and transit. Tensions came to a head in the mid-1970s, when Nepal pressed for
substantial amendments in its favour in the trade and transit treaty and openly criticised India’s
1975 annexation of Sikkim, which was considered as part of Greater Nepal. In 1975 King Birendra
Bir Bikram Shah Dev proposed that Nepal be recognised internationally as a zone of peace; he
received support from China and Pakistan. In New Delhi’s view, the 1950 treaty was merely an
extension of non-alignment, and hence this stand of Nepal was unnecessary; if it was a repudiation
of the special relationship, it represented a possible threat to India’s security and could not be
endorsed. In 1984, Nepal repeated the proposal, but there was no reaction from India. Nepal
continually promoted the proposal on international forums, with Chinese support; by 1990 it had
won the support of 112 countries. In 1978 India agreed to separate trade and transit treaties,
satisfying a long-term Nepalese demand. In 1988, when the two treaties were due for renewal,
Nepal’s refusal to accommodate India’s wishes on the transit treaty caused India to call for a single
trade and transit treaty. Thereafter, Nepal took a hard-line position that led to a serious crisis in
India-Nepal relations. After two extensions, the two treaties expired on March 23, 1989, resulting in
a virtual Indian economic blockade of Nepal that lasted until late April 1990. Although economic
issues were a major factor in the two countries’ confrontation, Indian dissatisfaction with Nepal’s
1988 acquisition of Chinese weaponry played an important role in this. India perceived the arms
purchase as an indication of Kathmandu’s intent to build a military relationship with China, in
violation of the 1950 treaty.
The special security relationship between India and Nepal was re-established during the June
1990 New Delhi meeting of Nepal’s Prime Minister Krishna Prasad Bhattarai and Indian Prime
Minister V.P. Singh. During the December 1991 visit to India by Nepalese Prime Minister Girija
Prasad Koirala, the two countries signed new, separate trade and transit treaties and other
economic agreements designed to accord Nepal additional economic benefits. Indo-Nepali relations
appeared to be undergoing further reassessment when Nepal’s prime minister Man Mohan
Adhikary visited New Delhi in April 1995 and insisted on a major review of the 1950 peace and
friendship treaty. In the face of benign statements by his Indian hosts relating to the treaty, Adhikary
sought greater economic independence for his landlocked nation while simultaneously striving to
improve ties with China.
Under King Gyanendra, India-Nepal relations soured, but after the restoration of democracy and
the introduction of the Republic in Nepal (2008), there began, what the Nepalese Prime Minister
Prachanda described as, a new dawn in the bilateral relations between the two countries. The need
to review, adjust, and update the 1950 treaty was thought to be necessary and so was agreed to
between the two nations.
The economic and trade relations between India and Nepal are well established. Bilateral trade
was US$ 2.28 billion during Nepalese fiscal year 2005-06 (beginning on July 16). Nepal’s import
from India amounted to US$ 1652.16 million and exports to India aggregated US$ 627.82 million.
During fiscal year 2006-07, Nepal’s total trade with India was about US$ 2.46 billion; Nepal's
exports to India were about US$ 645.71 million; and imports from India were about US$ 1.81 billion.
While exports to India increased by about 2.8 per cent, its exports to the rest of the world declined
by 0.9 per cent; its imports from India grew by 9.9 per cent, while imports from rest of the world
grew by 10.3 per cent. There has been strong growth in bilateral trade since the revised Trade
Treaty was signed in 1996. Since the revision of the Indo-Nepal trade treaty in 1996, Nepal's
exports to India have grown over eight times and total bilateral trade has grown over five times.
Over 96 per cent of the increase in Nepal’s total exports worldwide since 1996 has been on account
of India. This period has also seen an increase in India’s share in Nepal’s foreign trade. During the
early 1970s, India absorbed almost all of Nepal’s exports and accounted for nearly 90 per cent of
Nepal’s imports. However, India’s share in Nepal’s foreign trade dropped below 30 per cent by mid-
1990s. Since the 1996 Treaty, India’s share in Nepal’s export has grown from 18.5 per cent in
1995-96 to 68.9 per cent by July 2007. India’s share in Nepal’s imports has also reached nearly
61.4 per cent by July 2007, from 32.8 per cent in 1995-96. Today, India accounts for nearly two-
third of Nepal’s foreign trade.
Tables 43.1, 43.2, and 43.3 indicate Indo-Nepal trade, its growth, and investment figures:
Table 43.1 Indo-Nepal Trade
INR Million (US$ million)
2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08
Total Foreign Trade 1,91,866.0 2,08,179.3 2,34,014.4 2,52,504,6 2,86,903.3

(2603.3) (2915.6) (3188.2) (3825.8) (4412.5)
Total Trade with India 1,12,896.2 1,27,592.4 1,47,857.8 1,59,615.2 1,83,150.5

(1,531.8) (1,787.0) (2,014.4) (2,418.4) (2,816.8)
India’s share in total trade 58.8% 61.3% 63.2% 62.0% 63.8%
Total Nepalese Exports 52,723.7 58,705.7 60,234.1 60,795.8 60,787.5

(715.3) (822.2) (820.6) (921.1) (935.0)
Export to India 31,244.3 38,916.9 40,714.7 41,874.8 38,626.4

(423.9) (545.0) (554.6) (634) (594.0)
India’s share in total export 59.2% 66.3% 67.6% 70.3% 63.5%
Total Nepalese Imports 1,39,142.3 1,49,473.6 1,73,780.3 1,91,708.8 2,26,116.0

(1,887.9) (2,093.4) (2,367.5) (2,904.6) (3,477.6)
Import from India 81,651.9 88,675.5 1,07,143.1 1,17,740.4 1,44,524.1

(1,107.8) (1,241.9) (1,459.7) (1,783.9) (2,222.7)
India’s share in total import 58.6% 59.3% 61.7% 59.5% 63.9%
Total Trade Balance -86,418.6 -90,767.9

(-1,172.5) (-696.8) 1,13,546.2 1,30,913.0 1,65,328.5
(-905.0) (-1,149.4) (-2,542.7)
Trade balance with India -—50,407.6 -49,758.6 -66,428.4 -75,865.6 -

(-683.9) (696.8) (-905.0) (-1149.4) 1,05,897.7
(-1,628.6)
India’s share in total trade 58.3% 54.8% 58.5% 54.8% 64.1%

balance
Nepalese financial year: July 16 - July 15
Table 43.2 Growth of Nepal’s Trade with India (in %)
2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08
Total Foreign Trade of Nepal 9.1 9.5 12.4 8.6 12.9
Total Trade with India 12.5 16.5 15.9 6.6 16.2
Total Nepalese Exports 8.0 8.9 2.6 -1.4 2.4
Export to India 16.4 26.4 46 2.5 -7.4
Total Nepalese Imports 9.6 9.7 16.3 12.0 16.1
Import from India 11.0 12.6 20.8 8.1 24.7
Total Trade Balance 10.7 10.2 25.1 19.2 22.2

Trade Balance with India 7.8 3.7 33.5 11.6 42.8
Table 43.3 Indian Investments in Nepal
INR Million
Cumulative 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Cumulative
upto2002/03 upto
2007/08
Indian 7862.13 1,696.48 1,167.10 1,563.36 2,045.94 4,553.21 18,888.23

Investment
Growth in 7.6 236 -31.2 34 30.8 122.5 31.7

%
No. of 280 10 15 31 28 37 401

Industries
There are currently two major multi-purpose projects (encompassing power, irrigation and flood
control) on the agenda of the two countries.
(i) Pancheshwar Multipurpose Project: The 1996 Mahakali Treaty between India and Nepal
provides for the implementation of the Pancheshwar Multipurpose Project. The project,
conceived as a peaking power project, will have 5600 MW of installed capacity and create
irrigation potential for 130,000 hectares in Nepal and 240,000 hectares in India. The
Detailed Project Report (DPR), to be prepared jointly by the two countries, has not been
finalised, since certain issues remain pending. The two countries are pursuing their
dialogue through the Joint Group of Experts on Pancheshwar.
(ii) Sapta Kosi-Sun Kosi Multipurpose Project: The project, located in Nepal, involves a high
storage dam on Kosi River; 3000 MW power plant; a barrage downstream to feed irrigation
canals in Nepal and India; a diversion structure on Sun Kosi River to channelise water
through a tunnel into Kamala River; a small dam on Kamala River with a powerhouse of 50
MW and barrage downstream for irrigation purposes. The project is designed to provide
flood control, power, irrigation and navigational benefits to both countries.
To give a concrete shape to this vision of development cooperation, the Government of India set
up the Indian Aid Mission in Kathmandu in 1954, which was later renamed as the Indian
Cooperation Mission (ICM) in 1966 and remained functional till the 1980s. The change in the
nomenclature was to reflect the fact that India’s association with the economic development of
Nepal was more in nature of cooperation than merely financial assistance. The ICM, with its more
than 80 staff, devoted exclusively to implementing Indian-assisted mega development projects in
Nepal. Later, the ICM was recast as the Economic Cooperation Wing of the Embassy of India,
which continues to carry forward the development assistance to Nepal with the same zeal as under
the ICM. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Nepal visit in August 2015, has helped improve the
relations between the two countries. The talks with the Nepalese leaders were focused on
reviewing the 1950’s treaty of peace and friendship. India had funded hydroelectric projects and
other infrastructural projects in Nepal. PM Modi, even addressed the Nepalese Parliament. He did
pooja at the 5th century Pashupatinath temple. He pledged not to interfere in Nepal’s internal
affairs. He announced a credit assistance programme of $1 billion to Nepal.
India is concerned about the welfare of the retired Nepalese soldiers who have served in India’s
defence. They constitute about 80,000 ex-servicemen residing in Nepal. The Government of India
has made all efforts to ensure that these ex-servicemen, their families and dependents are well
looked after. They are provided medical facilities, are given timely pensions, offered drinking water
facilities, educational fellowships and the like.
lil INDIA-BANGLADESH RELATIONS

India and Bangladesh share a common border of 4096 kms running through five Indian states:
West Bengal, Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram. India’s relations with Bangladesh are
traditionally cultural, social, social, and economic. There is much that brings them together—a
shared history and common heritage, linguistic and cultural ties, passion for music, literature and
the arts. India shares not only a common history of struggle for freedom and liberation but also
enduring feeling of both fraternal as well as familial ties. This commonality is reflected in the multi-
dimensional relations with Bangladesh at several levels of interaction.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s successful two-day visit to Dnaka in June, 2015 saw the signing
of a slew of 22 agreements covering the entire gamut of political, economic and cultural relations.
Among these agreements, five issues that are part of the 60-point Memorandum of Understanding
(MoU) stand out and promise an era of greater cooperative relationship, best reflected in the title of
the joint declaration—Notun Projonmo-Nayi Disha (New Beginning-New Direction).
These agreements are related to connectivity — a priority area for the NDA government—and
include grid interconnection and generation of power, improving the balance of trade, better
coordination among the border guarding forces and people-to-people contact. While the first two
issues are to be advanced within a sub-regional framework, other issues are exclusively bilateral in
nature.
For the first time since the 1965 war led to the severing of cross-border connectivity between
India and the then East Pakistan, steps have been taken to restore it. After the liberation of
Bangladesh, the two countries had signed agreements to restore connectivity but a change of
regime in Dhaka after the 1975 coup put an end to that effort.
Though both countries periodically renewed the Inland Water Transit and Trade Protocol, the
issue of road and rail connectivity remained mired in the debate within Bangladesh whether
providing transit rights to India would constitute a ‘security threat’ and a breach of sovereignty.
Taking Dhaka’s sensitivities into consideration, the term ‘transit’ was replaced with ‘transshipment’
in 1997. Connectivity within a regional framework has since become the new buzzword. In this
context, the Bangladesh, Bhutan, India and Nepal (BBIN) sub-regional framework assumes
importance and was rightly emphasised by Modi during his Dhaka visit.
The announcement of a second line of credit worth $2 billion, to be used particularly for
developing public transport, roads, railways, inland waterways and ports, apart from education and
health, is significant.
It needs to be mentioned here that the earlier line of credit of $863 million and $200 million in
grant was mostly used by Dhaka to improve rail connectivity. Bangladesh has now offered India the
use of the Chinese built Chittagong port as well as the Mongla port for trade purposes. Such a
facility has already been extended by Bangladesh to Nepal and Bhutan.
The BBIN countries are exploring potential road, rail and bus routes using multimodal transport to
meet their commercial as well as tourism needs. While the BBIN countries met in July 2015, in
Dhaka to sign a multimodal transport agreement, India and Bangladesh are commencing
negotiation on a bilateral framework and a Joint Task Force has been proposed in this regard. India
has agreed to provide transit to Bangladesh for conducting trade with Nepal and Bhutan.
The second significant issue covered in the MoU is power generation and electricity trade. Both
countries have already taken several steps to further bilateral cooperation in this field since former
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Dnaka in September 2011. Agreements exist between
the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. and Power Grid Company of Bangladesh, as does a 400
KV line linking Baharampur in India to Bheramara in Bangladesh with a load capacity of 500 MW.
Bangladesh is already receiving 500 MW of electricity. Modi has promised to increase it to 1000
MW using this transmission line. An additional 100 MW is due from the Palatana project in Tripura.
It is also worth noting here that earlier, in 2010, the National Thermal Power Company (NTPC) and
Bangladesh Power Development Board (BPDB) had signed an MoU to set up a 1320 MW (2x660
MW) coal-based power project in Rampal in the Sunderban area. This project is being implemented
by Bangladesh-India Friendship Power Company Private Ltd., a 50:50 Joint Venture owned by the
NTPC and BPDB.
What is significant this time around is that private companies have been brought on board to
invest capital. Deals worth $5.5 billion were inked between BPDB and Indian companies Adani
Power Limited and Reliance Group. Adani Power Limited is planning to invest $2.5 billion in a coal-
based power plant with a capacity to generate 1,600 MW power. Reliance Group has signed a $3
billion deal to set up an imported Liquefied Natural Gas-based power plant in Bangladesh with a
capacity to generate 3,000 MW power. All these efforts would help fulfil the Sheikh Hasina
Government's 2021 goal of achieving an installed capacity of 24,000 MW power. There is a
proposal to connect the grid on the western side of Bangladesh. There is also a consensus to
evacuate power from the North-eastern region connecting Rangia/Rowta to Muzaffarnagar in India
by constructing bi-pole DC grind line with suitable tapping points in Barapukuria in Bangladesh.
Within the BBIN framework, the two countries have decided to discuss grid security, transmission,
interconnection and applicable domestic laws in different countries. Already, Bhutan has shown
willingness to export power to Bangladesh. For their part, India and Bangladesh have decided to
initiate an annual energy dialogue and enhance the already existing cooperation on nuclear and
renewable energy.
The third major issue—balance of trade—has been a major bone of contention between the two
countries in the past. Lately, many in Bangladesh recognise that imports from India are helping
Bangladesh obtain cheap raw material and use that for competitively exporting high end readymade
garments. It needs to be noted that India is providing duty free access to all Bangladeshi goods
except for 25 products that are on a restricted list which constitute alcoholic items. Many attribute
the lopsided trade to the lack of a level playing field to Bangladeshi manufacturers due to several
non-tariff barriers (NTBs) imposed by India. However, India in the recent past has taken steps to
facilitate increased bilateral trade.
It is helping the Bangladesh Standards and Testing Institution (BSTI) to harmonise the quality
control norms. It has also taken steps to test perishable items at the border for early clearance,
especially of Hilsa fish and fresh fruits. The establishment of state-of-the-art Land Customs Stations
(LCS) at the border and reducing the pressure on Benapole and Akhaura by opening up a new LCS
at Phulbari-Banglabandha are going to facilitate easy clearance of goods. However, the roads
connecting the LCS need to be improved and decongested in view of the heavy traffic. Both
countries have three border haats that are functioning and there are proposals to set up a few more
in the coming year. The agreement to establish two new Indian Special Economic Zones in Mongla
and Bheramara is likely to generate employment, cater to the markets of Bangladesh and India and
also contribute to correcting the balance of trade.
The fourth key aspect of the MoU is the effective implementation of a “Coordinated Border
Management Plan” that was agreed to earlier. The two sides have agreed to take steps to identify
vulnerable areas that are used for criminal activities, irregular movements and smuggling that
sometimes have led to loss of life. They have finalised a Standard Operating Procedure, for which a
need was felt long ago, to plug the inadequacies that prevent effective management of the border.
Coordinated patrols need to be undertaken to make this plan effective. India has agreed to allow
the Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) to use Indian border roads to maintain their Border Out Posts
(BOPs). Perhaps, what is most significant is allowing BGB personnel to use Indian medical facilities
in difficult areas of the border where no Bangladeshi medical facility is available. This will surely
create a better understanding between the two border guarding forces. Bangladesh’s pledge of
‘zero tolerance’ against terrorism and extremism needs to be matched with ‘zero killing in the
border’ in which the BGB has to play a significant role.
Lastly, the MoU emphasised the significance of people-to-people contact in carrying the
relationship forward. Not only two new bus services were flagged off and more bus and train
services were agreed upon, India and Bangladesh also announced the opening of new consulates
in Sylhet and Khulna for India and in Guwahati for Bangladesh. Bangladesh is planning to upgrade
its consulate in Agartala to the Assistant High Commission level. Similarly, since the Dnaka-Kolkata
Moitree Express is currently not very popular due to the slow immigration process that
unnecessarily delays travel time, India has agreed to construct a modern international passenger
terminal to mitigate the grievances of travellers between the two cities.
The high-point of the visit was the exchange of the instrument of ratification of the Land Boundary
Agreement (LBA) 41 years after it was signed in June 1972. The jubilation was evident in the
enclaves — which were under the notional sovereignty of the two countries — where people
celebrated their new identities as citizens with full rights for the first time since 1947.
For Bangladeshi intellectuals, the lack of an agreement on Teesta River was a big
disappointment, with some attributing it to an Indian conspiracy. But the fact remains that ahead of
Modi’s visit, Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj had clarified that a Teesta deal is not on the cards.
For his part, Modi gave the assurance that discussions are in progress among the relevant
stakeholders and soon the two countries would reach an understanding on the Teesta and Feni
rivers.
The presence of the Chief Minister of West Bengal at the ceremony that marked the exchange of
instruments of ratification of the LBA underlined the important role of state governments in
progressing ties with immediate neighbours. The Government of Bangladesh also did not hesitate
in according due importance to Mamata Banerjee’s visit.
On the whole, the Modi visit symbolised the bipartisan consensus among the major political
parties in India on enhancing relations with Bangladesh. While heralding a new era in building
regional connectivity, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government led by Modi has taken
what was a warm relationship with Bangladesh under the previous United Progressive Alliance
(UPA) government to a new high by sealing the LBA. With settled and demarcated land and
maritime boundaries, the two countries are now set for opening a new chapter—Notun Projonmo-
Nayi Disha—in their bilateral ties.
The Land Boundary Agreement with Bangladesh has been a landmark achievement in the realm
of India’s diplomatic relations with its SAARC neighbours. A successful completion of the
implementation process is a sine qua non for the expected benefits to ensue and positively affect
domestic politics in both countries.
This will be possible if the impact on the lives of the 51,000-plus residents visibly improve within a
reasonable time-frame and the political elements and civil society groups in the districts concerned
(Cooch Behar in India and Panchagarh, Nilphamari, Lalmonirhat and Kurigram in Bangladesh) are
broadly satisfied and do not fall prey to the machinations of individualistic, inimical forces and group
interests having some influence over the enclaves and adjoining areas.
After ratification of the LBA by Parliament on June 6, 2015, the legal exchange process involving
162 enclaves (111 Bangladeshi enclaves with a total area of 17,160 acres and 51 Indian enclaves
covering a gross area of 7,110 acres) has been completed by August 1, 2015. The enclaves within
enclaves (popularly known as counter-enclaves) and also a counter-counter-enclave have been
automatically subsumed within the largest enclave entity and exchanged with the swapping of the
outermost enclave entity.
The nearly 14,000 residents of the Bangladeshi enclaves in India (since integrated territory-wise
into India) have decided to stay on and become citizens as per the option given to them under the
LBA. So far, however, 971 residents of the Indian enclaves in Bangladesh (since assimilated into
that country) out of the nearly 37,000 staying there have chosen to repatriate to India and slightly
more than 920 such persons have already arrived in India. As per the agreement, the transfer of
residents was to be completed by November 30, 2015, but this timeline may have to be extended
for a short period owing to local exigencies.
The government of West Bengal, through its Cooch Behar district administration and with some
interim Central financial assistance, has undertaken a reasonable set of relief measures to
rehabilitate the Indian residents of its erstwhile enclaves in Bangladesh. For example,
semipermanent houses of 380 square feet carpet area with concrete foundation consisting of two
rooms and a kitchen have been provided to all the residents who have come over from the Indian
enclaves.
They have been enrolled as citizens and provided Aadhar cards for availing government benefits
towards their basic minimum needs. The state government is also putting in place village road
networks, electricity and water supply arrangements, and primary healthcare facilities for these
persons, and many of the facilities are already in place. However, the total rehabilitation package in
financial terms is still to be firmed up by the central government. This needs to be done without
further delay. According to Cooch Behar district authorities, at least Rs. 1,000 crore would be
needed in the initial spell.
As regards the land which the repatriating people owned in the former enclaves now in
Bangladesh, the Cooch Behar District Magistrate, with the help of the Indian diplomatic mission in
Dhaka, has been able to prevail upon the Bangladesh district authorities concerned to prevent
distress sale. In fact, most of the affected people have been able to sell their land at three to four
times the normal market rate. These people have come over to Indian territory with the land sale
proceeds in Bangladeshi Taka, and are authorised to convert these to Indian Rupees through
banking facilities set up at short notice in their new settlement area. This only indicates the degree
of responsiveness on the part of the West Bengal government authorities near the enclaves as well
as mutual trust and a high level of cooperation between the grassroot-level officials of the two
countries. It is incumbent on the highest authorities of India and Bangladesh to maintain and
promote further the present level of understanding at different echelons.
As far as NGOs are concerned, their role till now has been minimal in the enclave exchange
process, and rightly so, except for the Bharat-Bangladesh Enclave Exchange Coordination
Committee (BBEECC), which is a civil society-based NGO. Since its formation in 1994, the
BBEECC has played a significant role in projecting the problems of the enclaves and the pitiful
condition of the enclave-dwellers in the public domain and before the government authorities. The
Indian part of BBEECC led by Diptiman Sengupta, son of a former Forward Bloc party MLA, may be
mentioned in this respect. The Bangladeshi part of BBEECC has also acted as a similar pressure
group within that country, with coordination with its Indian counterpart. Till now, Sengupta has
denied pursuing any political ambition and has gone to the extent of publicly indicating that
BBEECC will cease to exist when the situation normalises. There are, however, reports from the
environment that the BBEECC is more interested in optics, is trying to pressure the local
administration on the means and manner of relief and rehabilitation activities, and that Sengupta
harbours political ambitions. Such tendencies of the BBEECC need to be curbed through sensitive
handling and greater proactiveness on the part of the district administration at those places where
the repatriates are being settled in order to obviate any negative political fallout. Such action on the
administrative front would paradoxically be in line with the public protestation of Sengupta to the
effect that no private NGO should work in the region till settlement of the repatriates is over.
The central government has assured the Government of West Bengal that it would provide
adequate financial support for settlement of the people repatriating from the former Indian enclaves
in Bangladesh. A token quantum has already been transferred to the State Government. West
Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee had publicly claimed, before her government came on
board vis-a-vis the LBA, that she had no issue in principle against the Agreement, but that the
burden of the rehabilitation of those interested in returning could not be borne by her debt-stressed
government alone. The BBEECC has, however, gone on record to claim that Rs. 30 lakh on an
average would be provided by the State Government for development purposes, for each acre of
land foregone consequent to the LBA. But this is still to be officially substantiated. Such claims may
only raise public expectations in the short-term and have political ramifications that may not be
desirable.
The Bangladesh Liberation War

The Bangladesh Liberation War refers to an armed conflict between West Pakistan (now Pakistan)
and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) that lasted for roughly nine months in 1971. The war resulted
in Bangladesh’s independence from Pakistan.
Ever since the partition of India, Pakistan found itself in two parts: West Pakistan and East
Pakistan (East Bengal till 1955), the two zones separated by several thousand miles of Indian
territory. The two zones had differences, of culture, language, art, and music. The West began
dominating the East Zone from the beginning.
Table 43.5 Economic Exploitation
Year Spending on West Spending on East Percentage
Pakistan (in crore Pakistan (in crore

Rupees) Rupees)
1950-51—1954— 1,129 524 46.4

55
1955-56—1959— 1,655 524 31.7

60
1960-61—1964— 3,355 1,404 41.8

65
1965-66—1969-— 5,195 2,141 41.2

70
Total 11,334 4,593 40.5
Between 1948 and 1960, East Pakistan produced 70 per cent of all Pakistan’s exports, while its
share of import earnings was 25 per cent. In 1948, East Pakistan had 11 textile mills, West
Pakistan only 9; in 1971, in West Pakistan, textile mills were about 150 in number, while in East
Pakistan, there were 26. According to 1971 exchange rates, about US $ 2.6 billion of resources
were transferred over time from East to West Pakistan.
Although East Pakistan accounted for a majority of the country’s population, political power
remained firmly in the hands of West Pakistanis, specifically the Punjabis. Since a straightforward
system of representation based on population would have concentrated political power in East
Pakistan, the West Pakistani establishment came up with the “One Unit” scheme, where all of West
Pakistan was considered one province. This was solely to counterbalance the East wing’s votes.
Ironically, after the East broke away to form Bangladesh, the Punjab province insisted that politics
in West Pakistan now be decided on the basis of a straightforward vote, since Punjabis were more
numerous than the other groups, such as Sindhis, Pashtuns, or Balochs. Close ties existed
between East Pakistan and West Bengal, one of the Indian states bordering Bangladesh, as both
were composed mostly of Bengalis. West Pakistan viewed East Pakistani links with India
unfavorably as relations between India and Pakistan had been very poor during the Cold War
period. Bangla was used in East Pakistan while Urdu, mainly in West Pakistan. The situation
reached a climax when in 1970 the Awami League, the largest East Pakistani political party, led by
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, won a landslide victory in the national elections. The party won 160 of the
162 seats allotted to East Pakistan, and thus a majority of the 300 seats in the National Assembly.
This gave the Awami League the constitutional right to form a government. However, Zulfikar Ali
Bhutto, the leader of the Pakistan Peoples’ Party, refused to allow Rahman to become the Prime
Minister of Pakistan. Instead, he proposed the idea of having two Prime Ministers, one for each
wing. The proposal elicited outrage in the east wing, already chafing under the other constitutional
innovation, the “one unit scheme”. Bhutto also refused to accept Rahman’s Six Points. On March 3,
1971, the two leaders of the two wings along with the President General Yahya Khan met in Dnaka
to decide the fate of the country. Talks failed. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman called for a nation-wide
strike. He demanded:
The immediate lifting of martial law;

Immediate withdrawal of all military personnel to their barracks;
An inquiry into the loss of life; and
Immediate transfer of power to the elected representative of the people before the assembly
meeting on 25 March.
General Tikka Khan was flown in to Dhaka to become Governor of East Bengal. East-Pakistani
judges, including Justice Siddique, refused to swear him in. MV Swat, a ship of the Pakistani Navy,
carrying ammunition and soldiers, was harbored in Chittagong Port and the Bengali workers and
sailors at the port refused to unload the ship. A unit of East Pakistan Rifles refused to obey
commands to fire on Bengali demonstrators, beginning a mutiny of Bengali soldiers. Between 10
and 13 March, Pakistan International Airlines cancelled all their international routes to urgently fly
“Government Passengers” to Dhaka. These “Government Passengers” were almost all Pakistani
soldiers in civilian dress.
On the night of March 25, Pakistan Army began a violent effort to suppress the Bengali
opposition. In Bangladesh, and elsewhere, the Pakistani actions are referred to as genocide. Before
carrying out these acts, all foreign journalists were systematically deported from East Pakistan.
Bengali members of military services were disarmed. The operation was called Operation
Searchlight by Pakistani Army and was carefully devised by several top-ranked army generals to
“crush” Bengalis. Although the violence focused on the provincial capital, Dhaka, the process of
ethnic elimination was also carried out all around Bangladesh. Residential halls of University of
Dhaka were particularly targeted. The only Hindu residential hall—the Jagannath Hall—was
destroyed by the Pakistani armed forces, and an estimated 600 to 700 of its residents were
murdered. Hindu areas all over the region suffered particularly heavy blows. By midnight, Dhaka
was literally burning, especially the Hindu-dominated eastern part of the city. Time magazine
reported on August 2, 1971, “The Hindus, who account for three-fourths of the refugees and a
majority of the dead, have borne the brunt of the Muslim military hatred.”
The violence unleashed by the Pakistani forces on 25 March 1971, proved the last straw to the
efforts to negotiate a settlement. Following these outrages, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman signed an
Official declaration that read as follows:
Today Bangladesh is a sovereign and independent country. On Thursday night West Pakistani
armed forces suddenly attacked the police barracks at Razarbagh and the EPR headquarters at
Pilkhana in Dhaka. Many innocent and unarmed have been killed in Dhaka city and other places of
Bangladesh. Violent clashes between EPR and Police on the one hand, and the armed forces of
Pakistan on the other, are going on. The Bengalis are fighting the enemy with great courage for an
independent Bangladesh. May God aid us in our fight for freedom. Joy Bangla.
(Source: The History of the Liberation Movement in Bangladesh by J. S. Gupta)
Sheikh Mujib also called upon the people to resist the occupation forces through a radio
message. Mujib was arrested on the night of 25-26 March 1971 at about 1:30 AM (as per Radio
Pakistan’s news on March 29, 1971).
As political events gathered momentum, the stage was set for a clash between the Pakistan
Army and the Mukti Bahini and the other forces. The war ended on December 16, 1971. Lt. Gen.
Niazi surrendered to the head of the combined forces, Lt. Gen. Jagjit Singh Aurora.
After Pakistan’s surrender late in 1971, people in Bangladesh rejoiced at their liberation. This was
followed by the need for international acceptance for Bangladesh, as only a few countries
recognised the new nation. Bangladesh sought admission into the UN most members voting in its
favour but China vetoed recognition, as Pakistan was its key ally. However the United States
grudgingly recognised it. To ensure a smooth transition, in 1972 the Shimla Agreement was signed
between India and Pakistan. The treaty was a watershed in the history of the South Asian region as
it ensured that Bangladesh would be officially recognised by Pakistan and its principal allies in
exchange for the return of the Pakistani PoWs. As a gesture of goodwill, nearly 200 soldiers who
were wanted for war crimes by Bengalis were also pardoned by India. The accord also gave back
more than 13,000 sq. km of land that Indian troops had won in West Pakistan during the war,
holding on to a few strategic places; most notably Kargil.
IV. INDIA-SRI LANKA RELATIONS

Sri Lanka has been one of India’s assertive neighbours. Though, the bilateral relationship
weathered many potentially destabilising storms and even touched bottom in the mid-1980s yet
never did they reach a point of saturation or complete disruption or breakdown. That both the
countries have developed adequate strength to withstand the stresses and strains is a notable
feature of their bilateral relations. There have been shifts and changes in the pattern of relationship
marked by mutual differences, irritants, cooperation, and friendship.
There are five important factors that have determined the relationship. First, the geo-strategic
configuration of both the countries has been the most compulsive factor in their relations. India is
Sri Lanka’s closest neighbour, separated only by a narrow stretch of waters in the Palk Strait
covering about 20 miles. The implication of such a close proximity is that developments in each
country have affected the other. Their bilateral relations have been influenced accordingly. The
geo-strategic factor is significant. Sri Lanka is located in what Prime Minister D.S. Senanayake
called “the strategic highway”. Its centrality in the Indian Ocean has had strategic advantages and
disadvantages. While the island’s location increased its vulnerability mostly during the cold war
period marked by the militarisation of the Indian Ocean, it has also been an asset from the
standpoint of Sri Lanka’s foreign and security policy. Buttressed by a strategically important natural
harbour in Trincomalee in the Eastern province, Sri Lanka had used its location to neutralise India’s
position by cultivating extra-regional powers and even expressing its desire to give base facilities
especially to the United States in the 1980s. India is always worried about the harbour’s status; its
occupation by any external power is considered as a threat to its security.
Second, asymmetry of power between India and Sri Lanka is also a factor in their relations. India
is over 50 times more than Sri Lanka in terms of area and population. Unlike India, Sri Lanka has a
very small economic and technological base. Tea and tourism industries form a mainstay of the Sri
Lankan economy. The country’s military strength is inadequate even to protect its national security.
The asymmetrical power factor made the Singhalese ruling elite deeply suspicious of India in the
past. They looked upon India as, in the words of Ivor Jennings, “a mountain that might, at any time,
send down destructive avalanches”. J.R. Jayewardene, former President, said in 1954 that “History
has shown that adventures and men with imperialistic ideas may at any moment gain control of the
reins of government in a state, and if that happens in India, the smaller nations that are her
neighbours would have to seek protection not from external aggression but from Indian
aggression.”
Third, Sri Lanka’s historical antecedents formed a factor in its relations with India. The island’s
history is integrated with that of India, which played a significant role in shaping the course of
events in the past. India’s strong influence or ‘Indian-ness’ is quite evident in the Sri Lankan society.
As a result, Sri Lanka has always felt the need to assert its separate identity in the foreign policy
arena. In this context, the memories of frequent Tamil invasions from Tamil Nadu and destruction of
the Singhalese Buddhist civilisation and the cross-boundary ethnic linkages between the Tamils
across the Palk Strait have created a fear complex in the minds of the majority Singhalese
Fourth, given its strong ethnic linkages and geographical proximity with the island, Tamil Nadu
has always showed an interest in India-Sri Lanka relations. Successive governments in Delhi could
not ignore the views and sentiments of Tamil Nadu because of its being a politically sensitive and
articulate state. The national political parties have had their electoral interest and this makes them
work under pressure for Tamil Nadu, often. Three incidents can be quoted here. India signed the
1964 agreement on repatriation of the stateless Indian Tamils totally against the wishes of Tamil
Nadu. Similarly, the 1974 agreement on Kachchativu was contrary to the dominant wishes of the
state. In the mid-1980s, while responding to Tamil Nadu’s demand for a direct Indian role in the
conflict, the Central government rejected the state’s pressure to undertake a military intervention
with the objective of creating a separate Tamil eelam. It shows the limitations of Tamil Nadu in
influencing India-Sri Lanka relations.
Finally, understanding at the level of political leadership and regime has been an important factor
in India-Sri Lanka relations. Evidently the Congress regime in India and the Sri Lanka Freedom
Party (SLFP) government in Sri Lanka have always enjoyed good relations. On the contrary, the
United National Party (UNP) leaders did not enjoy a good rapport with the Congress leaders, but
they enjoyed mutual understanding with the non-Congress leaders. Thus, the relations remained
cordial when the Congress and the SLFP were in power in India and Sri Lanka respectively. Both
the countries faced difficulties and irritants under the UNP and Congress regimes. At the same
time, the relationship was cordial under the UNP government headed by President J.R.
Jayewardene and Janata Party government led by Prime Minister Moraji Desai.
The relations between India and Sri Lanka can be reviewed as follows:
Decades of Differences (1948-63)

Three issues dominated the bilateral relations in the first phase. The ticklish issue was related to
the statelessness of Indian Tamils who went to the island during the British colonial period to work
on the plantations. The future political status of the Indian Tamils had loomed large as an issue in
the politics of Sri Lanka even during the colonial period. However, it attained highly emotive
dimensions only since 1948 when the Singhalese ruling elite undertook measures to progressively
whittle down the basic political rights of the Indian Tamils. Perceiving the Indian Tamil votes as a
major threat to the electoral prospects of the UNP, the Sri Lankan government under the UNP
Prime Minister, D.S. Senanayake, enacted Citizenship Acts of 1948 and 1949. They were made
rigid and restrictive primarily to deny citizenship to all those who were not indisputably indigenous.
The majority of the Indian Tamils found it difficult to comply with the provisions of the legislation,
and thus became stateless.
In this atmosphere of disagreement both India and Sri Lanka conducted bilateral negotiations in
the 1950s to arrive at a working compromise on the status and rights of the Indian Tamils.
Following the official talks in January 1954, Prime Minister Nehru and Premier John Kotelawala
signed an agreement which inter alia stated that Sri Lanka agreed for the expeditious registration of
stateless persons as its citizens under the Indian and Pakistani Residents’ (Citizenship) Act of
1949. Those Indian Tamils who were not registered as Sri Lankan citizens would be allowed, if they
so desired, to register themselves as Indian citizens in accordance with the provisions of Article 8 of
the Indian Constitution. The pact, however, was not implemented scrupulously.
The dispute over Kachchativu, a tiny barren island in the Palk Strait, formed another source of
bilateral discord. All historical evidence shows that the island formed a part of the Zamindari of Raja
of Ramnad in Tamil Nadu. At the same time, Sri Lanka did not have sufficient evidence to show that
the island belonged to it. However the Sri Lankan government made a claim on the ground that its
ownership of the island was tacitly accepted by the British Indian government. While disagreeing
with Sri Lanka, successive Indian leaders showed apathy and indifference towards the territorial
dispute. Nehru and his successors underplayed the dispute in the interest of bilateral relations.
However, the dispute remained unresolved until 1974.
The third bilateral issue during the first phase of relations was related to security perceptions. The
successive Sri Lankan leaders had perceived India to be a potential threat to the island’s security.
On this ground, they justified the 1947 Sri Lanka-UK defence agreement. Prime Minister Nehru
tried to allay the unjustified fears of Sri Lanka by assuring the UNP leaders of India’s goodwill and
peaceful intentions. The fact that Sri Lanka was not convinced of India’s assurance and remained
baselessly suspicious of its intentions showed Colombo’s extra-strategic considerations in pursuing
a kind of defence policy that Senanayake and Kotelawala preferred. The policy demonstrated their
desire to counterpoise India’s pre-eminence through a strategy of military co-operation by using the
country’s locational advantage in the Indian Ocean. The 1947 defence agreement with Britain was
an example of this.
Resolving the Disputes (1964-82)

The second phase of India-Sri Lanka relations was noteworthy for the resolution of bilateral
problems. Solutions to two contending problems—statelessness of the Indian Tamils and
Kachchativu—were found in 1964 and 1974 when the Congress Party and the SLFP were in power
in India and Sri Lanka respectively. The Sirimavo-Shastri Pact of 1964 began the process of
resolving the stateless question. The pact stated that out of 9.75 lakh stateless persons in the
island, Sri Lanka would grant citizenship to 3 lakh (along with their natural increase), while India
agreed to accept repatriation to India of 5.25 lakh people (together with their natural increase) after
granting its citizenship to them. The future status of the remaining 1.5 lakh stateless persons, it was
agreed, was to be the subject of a separate agreement between the two governments. The
Agreement also laid down that both the processes of granting Sri Lankan citizenship and the
repatriation to India would have to be completed in 15 years (the duration was extended to 17 years
in 1973) and would have to be as evenly phased as possible.
As regards the residue stateless people (numbering 1.5 lakh), India and Sri Lanka agreed to
share them in equal numbers under the Agreement of 1974. The June 26, 1974 Agreement
accepted Sri Lankan claim over the Kuchchativu island, though the Indian fishermen and pilgrims
were allowed to travel to the island without any visa. The 1976 Maritime Agreement between the
two countries stated that the fishing vessels and fishermen of the country shall not engage in
fishing. Thus, the agreement introduced a new irritant in Sri Lanka-India relations.
Troubled Years (1983-90)

The July 1983 ethnic violence in Sri Lanka and the subsequent civil war between the Sri Lankan
army and the LTTE have made a decisive impact on the bilateral relations. India’s expression of
concern over the killing of innocent civilians and its strong desire to protect the interest of Sri
Lankan Tamils had created a strong sense of fear in the minds of the Sri Lankan government. To
argue that the Indian intervention was creating a separate eelam drove the Sri Lankan leadership to
undertake a global search for security in 1983-84. What annoyed India more was Sri Lanka’s
strategic gestures to the West against India’s security sensitivities. In desperation to win US support
the Jayewardene administration allegedly extended refueling and recreation facilities to visiting US
naval ships. It sought to make itself closer to the Western strategic interests by granting a contract
for leasing of oil storage tanks in the strategic harbour of Trincomalee to a Singapore-based US
company. Furthermore, Sri Lanka entered into an agreement with the US in December 1983 to set
up a powerful Voice of America (VOA) station in the island. It was expected to be the largest radio
station with a powerful transmission facility established outside the US. India’s apprehension was
that the VOA could be used for intelligence purpose for the US Navy in the Indian Ocean. Not only
these, Jayewardene tried to seek Britain’s direct involvement in the conflict by giving a fresh lease
of life to the 1947 defence agreement. India’s firm and categorical stand against external
involvement in Sri Lanka frustrated, to a large extent, Sri Lanka’s frantic move to build up a
strategic design and nexus in the region aimed at countervailing India. Though many countries
(including the UK, the US, China and Pakistan) supplied arms or allowed military sales but none of
them was prepared to become Sri Lanka’s strategic partner in a real sense.
Amidst the bilateral strategic differences India played a direct role in resolving the conflict since
1984. It adopted a two-pronged strategy of persuasion and coercion both against the Sri Lankan
government and the Sri Lankan Tamil groups so to evolve a visible structure of political settlement
through negotiations.
The sustained and prolonged negotiations under Indian mediation resulted in a bilateral peace
accord, which Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and President Jayewardene signed on July 29, 1987.
Since it was primarily for this assistance that Jayewardene carved out an intervener for India, the
request came immediately. India sent a contingent of peacekeeping force of about 8,000 men on
July 30, 1987; their number rose to around one lakh in course of a full-scale military operation
which began against the LTTE in mid-October 1987. The cost of intervention was heavy for the
intervener as well as the LTTE. More than 1,200 soldiers (including a good number of officers) were
killed and about 2,500 injured. India spent more than US $ 180 million on the operation. The LTTE
also suffered a heavy loss. Above all, several hundreds of civilians were dead or injured in the
IPKF-LTTE war.
Nevertheless, for India, the IPKF operation turned out to be a thankless venture. Hated by the Sri
Lankan Tamils and the Singhalese alike, the IPKF was characterised as an army of occupation by
the Premadasa regime. India protected Sri Lanka’s national interest at its own heavy cost, but the
Singhalese refused to acknowledge and appreciate its sacrifice. Instead, the Premadasa
government successfully used all unceremonious means to send the IPKF off the island.
Restoring Friendship (Since 1991)

India’s current stand on the ethnic conflict is characterised by its non-involvement and, at the same
time, continued interest in the conflict. While refusing to play any direct role in the conflict, India is
supportive of the peace process. Departing from its traditional stand against external involvement in
South Asia, India has extended its wholehearted support for the Norwegian facilitation of the peace
process. The US, the European Union, and Japan also played a proactive role in the peace
process. With the LTTE, India does not want to maintain any relations. The LTTE remains a banned
terrorist organisation in India and its chief V. Prabhakaran has since been killed. Despite the fact
that the LTTE is ostracised, the Indian government seeks a political solution to the ethnic conflict
through sustained negotiation. It favours a political solution within the framework of a united Sri
Lanka that will satisfy the aspirations of all the communities. There has begun a period of
cooperation in the Indo-Sri Lanka relations.
There is a growing defence co-operation between India and Sri Lanka. This was unthinkable
some two decades ago. India supplies military hardware, shares intelligence information with the
Sri Lankan navy to contain the LTTE’s activities in the Palk Strait, and provides training to the Sri
Lankan armed forces. Now, both the countries are engaged in discussions to conclude a defence
agreement presumably to cover all the existing co-operation and intensify their military interactions.
On the economic front, India and Sri Lanka signed a free trade agreement in December 1998
which became operational from December 15, 2001. India has committed itself to immediately
make 102 items duty free, with50 per cent duty concession given to 400 items which would become
duty free in three years’ time. Bilateral trade has registered significant growth during the last three
years. It has reached the US $ 1 billion mark, with Sri Lanka’s trade deficit decreasing. In June
2002, India offered a credit line of US $ 100 million to Sri Lanka for buying capital goods, consumer
services, and food items from India.
India and Sri Lanka are member nations of several regional and multilateral organisations such
as the South Asian Assocation for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), South Asian Coopertive
Environment Programme, South Asian Economic Union, and BIMSTEC, working to enhance
cultural and commercial ties. Since a bilateral free trade agreement was signed and came into
effect in 2000, Indo-Sri Lankan trade rose 128 per cent by 2004 and quadrupled by 2006, reaching
US $ 2.6 billion. Between 2000 and 2004, India’s exports to Sri Lanka increased by 113 per cent,
from US $ 618 million to US $ 1,319 million while Sri Lankan exports to India increased by 342 per
cent, from US $ 44 million to US $ 194 million.
Indian exports account for 14 per cent of Sri Lanka’s global imports. India is also the fifth largest
export destination for Sri Lankan goods, accounting for 3.6 per cent of its exports. Both nations are
also signatories of the South Asia Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA). Negotiations are also underway
to expand the free trade agreement to forge stronger commercial relations and increase corporate
investment and ventures in various industries. India’s National Thermal Power Corp (NTPC) is also
scheduled to build a 500 MW thermal power plant in Sampoor (Sampur). The NTPC claims that this
plan will take the Indo-Sri Lankan relationship to a new level.
India is active in a number of areas of development activity in Sri Lanka. About one-sixth of the
total development credit granted by GOI is made available to Sri Lanka.
Lines of Credit
In the recent past three lines of credit were extended to Sri Lanka: US$ 100 million for capital
goods, consumer durables, consultancy services and food items, US$ 31 million for supply of 300,0
MT of wheat and US$ 150 million for purchase of petroleum products. All of these lines of credit
have been fully utilised. Another line of credit of US$ 100 million is now being made available for
rehabilitation of the Colombo-Matara railway.
A number of development projects are being implemented under the ‘Aid to Sri Lanka’ funds. In
2006-07, the budget for ‘Aid to Sri Lanka’ was Rs 28.2 Crores.
Health Projects
India has supplied medical equipments to hospitals at Hambantota and Point Pedro, supplied four
state of the art ambulances to the Central Province, implemented a cataract eye surgery
programme for 1500 people in the Central Province, and implemented a project of renovation of OT
at Dickoya hospital and supplying equipment to it.
The projects under consideration at present are: Construction of a 150-bed hospital at Dickoya,
upgradation of the hospital at Trincomalee, and a US $ 7.5 million grant for setting up a Cancer
Hospital in Colombo.
Education Projects
Upgradation of the educational infrastructure of the schools in the Central province including
teachers’ training, setting up of 10 computer labs, setting up of 20 e-libraries (Nenasalas), Mahatma
Gandhi scholarship scheme for +2 students, and setting up of a vocational training centre in
Puttalam. India also contributes to the Ceylon Workers Education Trust that gives scholarships to
the children of estate workers.
Training
A training programme for 465 Sri Lankan Police officers was commenced in December 2005.
Another 400 Sri Lankan Police personnel were trained for the course of ‘Maintenance of Public
Order’.
Conclusion
Despite differences, the two countries have strong friendly ties. Both, India and Sri Lanka are
member-nations of several regional and multilateral organisations such as South Asia Cooperative
Environment Programme, South Asian Economic Union and BIMSTEC, working to enhance cultural
and commercial ties. Trade has increased four times between 4 years (20002004). India’s exports
in the last four years (2006-2010) have by 113% from $618 million to $1319 million. While Sri
Lankan exports increased from $44 million to $194 million. Both the nations are signatories of
South Asia Free Trade Agreement (SAFTR). PM Modi’s Sri Lanka visit in March 2015 strengthened
the ties and enhanced cooperation in developmental tasks (Aid to Sri Lanka Fund, for example).
Tourism is another area between the two countries.
V. INDIA AFGHANISTAN RELATIONS

The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is a land-locked within South Asia and Central Asia. It has an
approximate population of 32 million (42°¢ most populated country in the world) with about 652,0
km (418t largest country in the world) . It is bordered by Pakistan in the south and east, Iran in west,
Turkmanistan, Uzbekistan and Tajakistan in the north and China in far north-east.
Though an ancient country, Afghanistan’s contemporary history begins with 21St century when,
following the Taliban government, Hamid Karzai formed the government in December 2001. From
here onward, the India-Afghanistan relations began strong and went on growing stronger thereafter.
India helped Afghanistan in her reconstruction efforts, giving Afghanistan $650-790 million in
humanitarian and economic aid (2008). India’s support and collaboration extended to rebuilding of
air links, power plants and investments in health and education sectors. The Indian Army’s border
organisation constructed a major road in 2009 in the remote areas of the country. Earlier India
advocated and sought Afghanistan’s membership of SAARC (2005). Afghanistan became the sth
member of SAARC in 2007. The cooperation between India and Afghanistan in the fields of rural
development, education and standardisation brought them together, not withstanding two attacks
on the Indian Embassy in 2008 and 2009. Terrorism in Afghanistan did not deter the cordial
relations between the two. In 2011, Afghanistan signed its first strategic pact with India about which
the then President Karzai said, “This strategic partnership is not directed against any country, it is to
support Afghanistan’. He had also said, “Pakistan is our twin brother, India is a great friend; This
agreement was signed with our friend, it will not affect our brother.”
Another attack on the Indian Consulate in May 2014, did not dilute India’s development
assistance and in the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Afghanistan. In December 2015, India
donated M1-25 attack helicopters to Afghanistan as part of bilateral strategic partnership to counter
the Talibans. The next day, i.e., on 25th December, PM Modi visited Kabul to open the newly
constructed Parliament. Modi had said at that time, “It will stand as an enduring symbol of the ties
of emotions and values of affection and aspirations that bind us in a special relationship.” President
Ghani who has replaced Hamid Karzai had made a comment, “Though India and Afghanistan need
no introduction, we are bound by a thousand ties. We have stood by each other in the best and
worst times.” On Ghani’s visit to India, Modi had said that India would walk shoulder to shoulder
with the people of Afghanistan in a mission of global importance, saying that Afghanistan's direct
surface link to India and the rest of the South Asia and increased connectivity to sea would turn it
into a hub that connected Asia’s diverse regions and beyond.”
India and Afghanistan share numerous commonalities. They fight terrorism together; they build
nations together; they help each other together; Afghanistan is determined to fight terrorism; terror
cannot be classified into good or bad.
India’s friendship with Afghanistan is beyond any doubt. It gives out the essence of the song ’Yari
hai imaan mera, yaar meri zindagi’.
India has helped Afghanistan’s economy extensively. It has invested $10.8 billion in Afghanistan
as of 2012. Numerous projects are coming up in Afghanistan with India’s help steel plants, irrigation
projects, electricity. India has about $100 million in the expansion of Chabahar port in south-eastern
Iran which will serve as a hub for transportation of transit goods. India is constructing a new
Parliament complex of Afghanistan at a cost of $115 million—the building was inaugurated on
December 25, 2015.
Practice Questions
1. Explain clearly India-Pakistan relations. (700-800 words)

2. What is major dispute between India and Pakistan? Explain. (200-250
words)
3. Discuss Indo-Nepal relations as they operate at present. (700-800
words)
4. Write a brief note on 1950 treaties between India and Nepal. (200-250
words)
5. “The relations between India and Bangladesh are at times normal, and
at times sour.” Do you agree? Give reasons. (700-800 words)
6. Write a detailed note on the Bangladesh Liberation War. (700-800
words)
7. Discuss the Indo-Sri Lanka relations in the post-cold war period. (700-
800 words)
C'-
8. Discuss the India Afghanistan relations.
‘India and the Global South
{Africa and Latin America)
Ty he prominent continents in the southern hemisphere

are Africa and Latin America. As the second-largest
and the second-most populous continent after Asia,
Africa is almost 30.2 million square km in area. It covers six
per cent of the earth’s total surface and 20.4 per cent of the
total land area. With a billion people, as of 2009 in 61
territories, it has about 14.8 per cent of the world’s human
population. The continent is surrounded by the Mediterranean
Sea in the north, the Suez Canal and the Red Sea in the
north-east, the Indian Ocean in the southeast and the Atlantic
Ocean in the west. There are 54 countries if we do not count
the disputed territory of the western Sahara.
Latin America is a region of the Americas. It has an area
of approximately 7,880,000 sq. miles or about 3.9 per cent of
the Earth’s surface. As of 2008, its population was estimated
to be about 569 million.
Il. AFRICA: PRE-COLONIAL, COLONIAL AND POST-

COLONIAL
Pre-colonial Africa had innumerable polities, around ten
thousand, characterised by different sorts of political
organisations. These included small family groups of hunter-
gatherers such as the San people of southern Africa; larger,
more structured groups such as the family clan groupings of
the Bantu-speaking people of central and southern Africa;
heavily-structured clan groups in the Horn of Africa; the large
Sahelian Kingdoms; and autonomous city-states and
kingdoms such as those of the Yoruba and Igbo people (also
misspelled as Ibo) in West Africa, and the Swahili coastal
trading towns of East Africa. Of the earliest Hausa states,
some were Ghana, Gao, and Kanem-Bornu empires. Ghana
declined in the eleventh century, but was succeed by the Mali
empire which consolidated much of western Sudan in the
thirteenth century. Kanem accepted Islam in the eleventh
century. By this century, some Hausa states Kano, Jigawa,
Katsina and Gobir had developed into walled towns engaging
in trade, servicing caravans, and the manufacture of goods.
Until the fifteenth century these small states were on the
periphery of the major Sudanic empires of the era, paying
tribute to Songhai to the west and Kanem-Borno to the east.
Slavery has been practiced in Africa as well as other
places throughout recorded history. Between the seventh and
twentieth centuries, Arab slave trade took 18 million slaves
from Africa via trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean routes.
Between the fifteenth and the nineteenth centuries, the
Atlantic slave trade took 7-12 million slaves to the New World.
In West Africa, the decline of the Atlantic slave trade in the
1820s caused dramatic economic shifts in local polities. The
gradual decline of slave-trading, prompted by a lack of
demand for slaves in the New World, increasing anti-slavery
legislation in Europe and America, and the British Royal
Navy’s increasing presence off the West African coast,
obliged African states to adopt new economies. Between
1808 and 1860, the British West Africa Squadron seized
approximately 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans
who were aboard. Action was also taken against African
leaders who refused to agree to British treaties to outlaw the
trade, for example, against “the usurping King of Lagos’,
deposed in 1851. Anti-slavery treaties were signed with over
50 African rulers. The largest powers of West Africa: the
Asante Confederacy, the Kingdom of Dahomey, and the Oyo
Empire, adopted different ways of adapting to the shift.
Asante and Dahomey concentrated on the development of
“Legitimate Commerce” in the form of palm oil, cocoa, timber
and gold, forming the bedrock of West Africa’s modern export
trade.
Almost the whole of Africa, during the colonial period, came
under the Western powers. By the end of the nineteenth
century, the European imperial powers were engaged in a
major territorial scramble. These colonial powers occupied
most of the African continent continuing to create many
colonial nation-states, and leaving only two independent
nations: Liberia, an independent state partly settled by African
Americans; and Orthodox Christian Ethiopia (known to
Europeans as “Abyssinia”). Colonial rule by Europeans would
continue until after the conclusion of World War II, when all
colonial states gradually obtained formal independence.
Independence movements in Africa gained momentum
following World War Il, which left the major European powers
weakened. In 1951, Libya, a former Italian colony, gained
independence. In 1956, Tunisia and Morocco won their
independence from France. Ghana followed suit the next
year, becoming the first of the sub-Saharan colonies to be
freed. Most of the rest of the continent became independent
over the next decade, most often through relatively peaceful
means, though in some countries, notably Algeria, it came
only after a violent struggle. Though South Africa was one of
the first African countries to gain independence, it remained
under the rule of its white settler population until 1994, in a
policy known as Apartheid.
Africa, today, in the post-colonial period has 54
independent (i.e. sovereign), nations; their boundaries drawn
during the era of the European colonialism. Since the end of
colonialism, the African states have frequently been
hampered by _ instability, violence, corruption and
authoritarianism. The vast majority of the African nations are
republics which operate under some form of government,
mostly of presidential system. However, few of them have
been able to sustain democratic governments, and many
have cycled through a series of coups, producing military
dictatorships.
A number of Africa’s post-colonial political leaders were
military generals who were poorly educated and ignorant on
matters of governance. Greater instability, however, was
mainly the result of marginalisation of other ethnic groups and
graft under these leaders. For political gain, many leaders
fanned ethnic conflicts. In many countries, the military was
perceived as being the only group that could effectively
maintain order, and it ruled many nations in Africa during the
1970s and early 1980s. During the period from the early
1960s to the late 1980s, Africa had more than 70 coups and
13 presidential assassinations. Border and territorial disputes
were also common, with the European-imposed borders of
many nations being widely contested through armed conflicts.
Cold War conflicts between the United States and the
Soviet Union, as well as the policies of the International
Monetary Fund, also played a role in the African instability.
When a country became independent for the first time, it was
often expected to align with one of the two superpowers.
Many countries in Northern Africa received Soviet military aid,
while many in Central and Southern Africa were supported by
the United States, France or both. The 1970s saw an
escalation, as newly independent Angola and Mozambique
aligned themselves with the Soviet Union, and west and
South Africa sought to contain Soviet influence by funding
insurgency movements. There was a major famine in
Ethiopia, when hundreds of thousands of people starved. The
most devastating military conflict in modern independent
Africa has been the second Congo War. By 2008, this conflict
and its aftermath had killed 5.4 million people. Since 2003
there has been an ongoing conflict in Darfur which has
become a humanitarian disaster.
The African Union (AU) is a federation (as of 2008)
consisting of all the African states except Morocco. The Union
was formed, with Addis Ababa as its headquarters, on June
26, 2001. There is a policy to decentralise the African
federation’s institutions so as to enable all the states to share
their obligations towards the federation.
The African Union is formed by an Act of Union, which aims
to transform the African Economic Community, a federated
commonwealth, into a state under established international
conventions. The African Union has a_ democratic
government, known as the African Union Government,
consisting of legislative, judicial and executive organs. It is led
by the African Union President and Head of State, who is also
the President of the Pan African Parliament (PAP). A person
becomes AU President by being elected to the PAP, and
subsequently gaining majority support in the PAP.
The powers and authority of the President of the African
Parliament derive from the Union Act, the Protocol of the Pan
African Parliament, as well as the inheritance of presidential
authority stipulated by African treaties and by international
treaties, including those subordinating the Secretary General
of the OAU Secretariat (AU Commission) to the PAP. The
government of the AU consists of all-union (federal), regional,
state, and municipal authorities, as well as hundreds of
institutions, that together manage the day-to-day affairs of the
institution.
While no African nation has joined the ranks of the
developed nations in the Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) yet, the entire continent
is not utterly impoverished and there is considerable
economic variation in regions. Arab North Africa has long
been closely linked to the economies of Europe and the
Middle East. South Africa was by far the continent's
wealthiest state, both in GDP per capita and in total GDP. Its
neighbours have shared in this wealth. However, it has now
been surpassed in some ways by other African nations such
as Equatorial Guinea and Mauritius in GDP per capita. The
small, but oil-rich states of Gabon and Equatorial Guinea
round out the list of the ten wealthiest states in Africa.
The temperate northern and southern ends of the continent
are wealthier than tropical sub-Saharan Africa. Within the
tropics, East Africa, with its long pre-colonial history of trade
and development, has tended to be wealthier and more stable
than elsewhere. Islands such as the Seychelles, Réunion,
Mauritius, and Cape Verde have remained wealthier than the
continental nations, although the unstable Comoros remain
poor. The poorest states are those engaged in or just
emerging from civil wars. These include the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Sierra Leone, and Burundi. In recent
times, the poorest region has been the Horn of Africa,
although it had historically been one of the wealthiest regions
of sub-Saharan Africa. Ethiopia in particular had a long and
successful history. The current poverty of the region and the
associated famines and wars have been a problem for
decades.
Happily, the economy of the continent is opening up. It has
begun to maintain a high economic growth rate despite the
current global economic recession.
ll. LATIN AMERICA: COLONIAL AND POST-

COLONIAL ERA
Columbus had discovered the Americas in 1492. It was later
that the European expeditions began to build a network,
especially trade, and in the process, converted the natives to
Christianity. Spain concentrated building its empire on the
central and southern parts of the Americas (allotted to it by
the Treaty of Tordesillas) because of the presence of large,
settled societies like the Aztec, the Inca, the Maya and the
Chibcha whose human and material resources it could exploit
along with the large concentrations of silver and gold. The
Portuguese built their empire in Brazil, which fell in their
sphere of influence as per the Treaty of Tordesillas, by
developing the land for sugar production.
Following the model of the US and French revolutions,
most of Latin America achieved its independence by 1825.
However, Europe and the United States continued to play
major roles thereafter. The Indendpence of Latin American
countries rendered many of the older colonial power
structures obsolete and helped to create a new, self-
consciously “Latin American” ruling class and intelligentsia.
During the first century after independence, the elite looked
towards other European, Catholic models in particular France
for a new Latin American culture, and even if they at times
avoided Spanish and Portuguese models, they did not seek
input from the indigenous people.
In many cases this restructuring of economic and political
realities resulted in a sizable gap between the rich and the
poor, with the landed elite controlling the vast majority of land
and resources. In Brazil in 1910, for instance, 85 per cent of
the land belonged to one per cent of the population. Gold
mining and fruit growing, in particular, were monopolised by
these wealthy landowners. These “Great Owners” completely
controlled local activity, and furthermore, were the principal
employers and the main sources of revenue. This led to a
society of peasants with little connection to larger political
realities which remained confined to farming and mining
magnates.
In Spanish America with the failed efforts to keep together
Gran Colombia, the Federal Republic of Central America and
the United Provinces of South America, a number of
interstate conflicts broke out in which the interior of the
countries was often plagued by the fights between federalists
and centrists who ended up asserting themselves through the
military repression of the opponents. The regimes were either
presidential; a little liberal and rather democratic, or
parliamentary; that is to say more liberal, less democratic and
more oligarchic. In both cases, the opinion of the average
man was devalued.
For the next few decades there was a long process to
create a sense of nationality. Most of the new national
borders were created around the often centuries-old
jurisdictions, which had created a sense of political space, or
the Bourbon intendencies. In many areas the borders were
unstable since the new states fought wars with each other to
gain access to resources, especially in the second half of the
nineteenth century. The more important conflicts were the
War of the Triple Alliance (1864-70) and the War of the
Pacific (1879-84). The War of the Triple Alliance pitted
Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay against Paraguay, which was
utterly defeated. As a= result Paraguay suffered a
demographic collapse: the population went from an estimated
525,000 persons in 1864 to 221,000 in 1871 and of this
population, only around 28,000 were men. In the War of the
Pacific, Chile defeated the combined forces of Bolivia and
Peru. Chile gained control of rich areas previously controlled
by Peru and Bolivia, and Bolivia became a land-locked nation.
By mid-century the region also confronted a growing United
States seeking to expand on the North American continent
and extend its influence in the hemisphere. In Mexican-
American War (1846-48), Mexico lost over half of its territory
to the United States. In the 1860s, France attempted to
indirectly control Mexico. In South America, Brazil
consolidated its control of large swathes of the Amazon Basin
at the expense of its neighbours. In the 1880s, the United
States implemented an aggressive policy to defend and
expand its political and economic interests in all of Latin
America, which culminated in the creation of the Pan-
American Conference, the successful completion of the
Panama Canal and the United States intervention in the final
Cuban war of independence.
The political landscape was occupied by conservatives and
liberals, neither of whom had a social policy. Popular
insurrections were often influential and repressed: 100,000
people were killed during the suppression of a Colombian
revolt in 1890. Only some states managed to have some
semblance of democracy: Uruguay, and partially, Argentina,
Chile, Costa Rica and Colombia. The others were clearly
oligarchist, sometimes with a major support.
Latin America was economically dependent on Europe,
primarily Britain, and the United States after the mid-
nineteenth century. Independence left a place for an
increased dependence on the financial investment provided
by nations which had already begun to industrialise. During
the cold war period, the nations of Latin America faced
numerous critical problems such as poverty and poor health.
The United States hoped that the moderate Latin American
governments would gradually improve their conditions. Many
Latin Americans, however, rejected gradual _ solutions.
Instead, revolts brought anti-American groups to power. Many
Americans worried about the threat to American security and
American businesses in Latin America. As a result, the United
States helped military dictators keep or gain power in several
Latin American countries. This policy aroused hostile feelings
in Latin America towards the United States.
Inequality and poverty continue to be the region’s main
economic challenges; according to the ECLAC, Latin
America is the most unequal region in the world. Moreover,
according to the World Bank, nearly 25 per cent of the
population lives on less than two USD a day. The countries
with the highest inequality in the region (as measured with the
Gini index in the UN Development Report) in 2006 were
Bolivia (60.1), Haiti (59.2), Colombia (58.6), Paraguay (58.4),
Brazil (57.0) and Panama (56.1); while the countries with the
lowest inequality in the region were Nicaragua (43.1),
Uruguay (44.9) and Mexico (46.1). One aspect of inequality
and poverty in Latin America is unequal access to basic
infrastructure. For example, access to water and sanitation in
Latin America and the quality of these services remain
relatively low.
Crime and violence prevention as well as public security
have become key social issues of concern to public policy
makers and citizens in the Latin American countries. As of
2004, violence is the principal cause of death in Brazil,
Colombia, Venezuela, El Salvador and Mexico; and among
the five main causes of death in the region. Homicide rates in
Latin America are among the highest of any region in the
world. From the early 1980s through the mid-1990s,
intentional homicide rates in Latin America increased by 50
per cent. The growing social inequality is fuelling crime in the
region. Countries with the highest homicide are Guatemala,
El Salvador, Venezuela, Honduras, Colombia, and Brazil.
The major trade blocs (or agreements) in the region are the
Union of South American Nations, composed of the
integrated Mercosur and Andean Community of Nations
(CAN). Minor blocs or trade agreements are the G3 Free
Trade Agreement, the Dominican Republic Central America
Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) and the Caribbean
Community (CARICOM). However, major reconfigurations
are taking place along opposing approaches to integration
and trade; Venezuela has officially withdrawn from both the
CAN and G3 and it has been formally admitted into the
Mercosur (pending ratification from the Brazilian and
Paraguayan legislatures). Ecuador seems to follow the same
path. This bloc nominally opposes any Free Trade Agreement
(FTA) with the United States, although Uruguay has
expressed its intention otherwise. On the other hand, Mexico
is a member of the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA). Chile has already signed an FTA with Canada.
lll. INDIA-AFRICA RELATIONS

India-Africa relations date back to ancient times when the
Indian merchants had extensive trade along the eastern coast
of the African continent. As the European expansion of Africa
expanded, the trade between the two regions came to an
end, not affecting the establishment of the substantial
communities of people of Indian origin in Africa. It was
Mahatma Gandhi who fought for the Asians’ (and in particular
for the Indians) rights in South Africa, itself ruled by the white-
minority government. Almost whole of Africa was under the
colonial rule of the western powers. When India obtained
freedom, there were four sovereign states in all of Africa
Egypt, Ethiopia, Liberia and South Africa. As India marched
on its path of modernisation, it gave support to the enslaved
people in their struggle for liberation, recognising, for
example, the African National Congress (ANC) in 1967 and
the South-West African People’s Organisation (SWAPO).
India’s support for Africa’s liberation was instant and was a
part of its condemnation of imperialism and colonialism. India
makes a cause for Africa, Latin America and the rest of the
developing world in its emphasis on South -South
cooperation, North-South dialogue and a liberal view on the
rules of the World Trade Organisation; and above all, the new
international economic order favouring the developing
nations.
The closeness between India and Africa has grown in the
past and is now growing even faster. Both have come closer
through a fraternity. India is committed to the African cause,
and this commitment is total. India recognises the vastness of
the African continent as also the existence of its sub-regional
integration. India knows that Africa has five key sub-regions
that are progressively working towards greater economic
integration. India has taken steps through the establishment
of an India-Southern African Development Community
(SADC) forum that links India with fourteen countries from
Southern Africa. Since 2006, India has linked with nations of
the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)
through visits of ministerial delegates. Further, dialogue with
eleven members of the Economic Community of Central
African States (ECCASs) has already been initiated during
the African Union (AU) summit in July 2006. Even the first
ministerial summit with the twenty members of the Common
Market for Eastern and Southern African Countries
(COMESA) took place in October 2006. Another important
initiative was noticed when India activated in similar ways her
relationship with
Eastern African Countries (EAC). India has signed a
Preferential Trade Agreement (PTA) and Comprehensive
Economic Partnership Agreement with Mauritius and with the
Southern African Custom Union (SACU).
In addition to the above activities, there is India’s support to
the vision of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development
(NEPAD) since its inception in July 2001. One of the
strategies of NEPAD is for Africa to build bridges with her
development partners in order to collectively contribute to the
renewal of the African continent. India has been a worthy
partner in this regard. One of the largest infrastructure
projects under this framework, the Lagos-Algiers Trans-
Sahara pipeline, has already attracted the attention of many
major Indian companies. There is the Techno-Economic
Approach for Africa-India Movement (TEAM-9) which signifies
a specific and targeted approach to economic, technological
and scientific cooperation between India and eight other
countries in Africa. It is unique because it aims at facilitating
and strengthening relations between the private sectors of
India and the eight African countries.
India, through its commerce and_ industry ministry,
announced the Focus Africa Programme relating to
countries of the Sub-Saharan Region viz. South Africa,
Nigeria, Mauritius, Tanzania, Kenya, Ghana and Ethiopia on
March 31, 2002 along with the announcement of the Export
Import (EXIM) policy for the years 2002-07. With a view to
further enhance India’s trade with Africa the scope of this
programme was further extended with effect from April 1,
2003 to all the other countries of the Sub-Saharan African
region where India has diplomatic missions i.e. Angola,
Botswana, Ivory Coast, Madagascar, Mozambique, Senegal,
Seychelles, Uganda, Zambia, Namibia and Zimbabwe, along
with the six countries of North Africa viz. Egypt, Libya,
Tunisia, Sudan, Morocco and Algeria. Many missions in Sub-
Saharan Africa are concurrently accredited to other countries
in the region. The programme in effect, covers the entire
African continent.
Measures are being taken to boost trade with Africa. A
bilateral preferential trade agreement with Egypt and SACU
nations is nearing completion. Joint Trade Committees exist
between India and the African states such as Senegal,
Kenya, Zimbabwe, Ghana, Uganda, Namibia, Ethiopia and
Tanzania along with Joint Economic Commissions with
Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Sudan and Tunisia.
In spite of constraints such as distance, language and lack
of information, India’s trade with the region has grown rapidly.
The trade between India and SSA region has grown from
US$ 7572.65 million in 2004-05 to US$ 197,053.37 million in
2007-08, registering a growth of 32.34 per cent.
India’s exports to the region have increased by 30.85 per
cent from US$ 4218.23 million in 2004-05 to US$ 83,535.94
million in 2007-08 and the imports from the region have
increased by 42.70 per cent from US$ 3354.42 million in
2004-05 to US$ 111,517.43 million in 2007-08. The areas of
cooperation include information technology, telecom,
agriculture, mining,and power. Bharti Airtel has announced a
deal with Africa on mobile phones worth $23 million. In
addition, there is the bilateral trade with individual African
states.
India has also provided direct assistance to a number of
countries in response to humanitarian emergencies or in the
context of longer-term development projects. The Ministry’s
“Aid to Africa” programme provides the resources for these
projects. India has responded to the requests for emergency
assistance by sending food grains to Chad and Guinea,
medical supplies to Cote d’lvoire, Guinea, Niger and the
Gambia, and pumps, tents and other relief material to
Senegal. During 2006 itself, she provided an agricultural
assistance package comprising sixty tractors and associated
equipment to Cameroon, Benin and DR Congo and Togo.
The IT Park in Mauritius, the Entrepreneurship Training and
Development Centre in Senegal, the Kofi Annan Centre for
Excellence in IT in Ghana and the machine tools facility in
Nigeria. These are some of the outstanding examples of
India’s technical and financial collaboration with these
countries. India’s aid to Africa is associated with numerous
lines of credit.
A line of credit of US$ 500 million provided by India for this
programme is producing outstanding results. Projects worth
over US$ 200 million are already at varying stages of
implementation. These lines of credit are in use to finance a
diverse range of projects in the region. India is providing
support to New Partnership for Africa’s Development
(NEPAD) through a line of credit of US$ 200 million to assist
the NEPAD’s objectives. Several projects in Senegal, Mali,
the Gambia, DR Congo and Mozambique worth over US$100
million are already being implemented within the ambit of this
programme. They include coaches and locomotives for the
Dakar-Bamako railway line and tractors and other agricultural
equipment for the Gambia. In DR Congo, it has supported
construction of a cement plant in Kisangani and has provided
250 buses for urban transport in Kinshasa. An Agreement for
rural electrification project in Mozambique and another in
Ethiopia is to be signed soon.
A further line of credit of US$ 250 million has been
extended by EXIM Bank to ECOWAS Bank for investment
and development. This will support projects throughout the
15-member ECOWAS region, promoting regional integration
and creating opportunities for Indian companies to participate
in the energy, telecom, railways and other sectors in this
region. Similar credits, albeit on a smaller scale, have been
extended in the past to other regional institutions such as
PTA-COMESA Bank.
More than 131 projects worth over US$ 10 billion were
discussed during the three day India-Africa Conclave that
took place on March 19, 2009. Over 900 delegates attended
“The India Africa Project Partnership 2008” organised by the
Confederation of India Industry (Cll), the EXIM Bank and the
Ministries of Commerce and Industry and External Affairs.
The main focus was given to four main areas: technology,
agriculture, human resource and energy. Indian investors
were allowed to interact with key people from more than 35
African countries on one platform. India-Africa Forum
Summits help harmonise comprehensive framework to
reinforce cooperation in a wide range of fields.
IV. INDIA-LATIN AMERICA RELATIONS

India’s relations with Latin American Countries (LAC) have
been friendly. The interaction with the LAC is at both bilateral
and multi-lateral levels. The high-level visits complemented
by officials and exchange visits have further cemented India’s
relations with the countries of the region. In the economic field
a concerted effort has been made to enhance bilateral
cooperation. As a result, India has trade and economic
agreements with seven LAC nations. We have set up “Joint
Business Councils” with some other countries as well.
Furthermore, under “Focus LAS” Programme, the Indian
exhibitions and joint seminars are organised to discuss and
explore the potential of mutual interactions.
India enjoys a considered goodwill in the LAC region. At the
institutional level, there are cultural, educational and scientific
exchange programmes, which strengthen cooperation
between the two. The science and technology collaboration
between India and Latin American countries at both the
bilateral and multilateral levels is being done so as to develop
the capabilities of the participating countries and share each
other’s expertise. Some such examples of collaboration in
science and technology are: Indo-Brazil Agreement in July
1985; Agreement for cooperation between India and Mexico
in 1975; Indo-Cuban Joint Commission, and the like.
The visits of officials from the LAC to India (for example,
President Luis Inacio Lula da Silve of Brazil in 2007;
President Felipe Caldern Hinojose of Mexico; the foreign
ministers of Cuba, Gautemala, El Salvador, and the reciprocal
Official visits including trade missions, prove the growing
cooperation between India and the LAC) and of India to the
countries of this region have helped create an atmosphere of
cooperation and understanding.
Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Peru, Mexico, Panama, Colombia,
Venezuela and Uruguay are India’s major export markets in
the region. Exports to the region include textiles and
readymade garments, drugs and_ pharmaceuticals,
engineering goods such as bicycles and components thereof,
mopeds, two-wheelers, automotive components, diesel
engines, hand-tools, leather and leather manufacturers, dyes,
intermediates, etc. Our imports from the region include crude
minerals, iron and steel and their products, non-ferrous
metals, metal ferrous ores, vegetablev oils, pulp and paper
waste, raw wool, etc. India’s imports from Latin America
region have increased from US$ 593.71 million in 1996-97 to
US$ 2409.43 million in 2004-05, registering a growth of 305
per cent.
India’s exports to the Latin American countries have grown
at a rapid pace during the last decade. The percentage share
of India’s exports to this region has also shown an increasing
trend. India’s exports to the region have increased by nearly 6
times in 10 years (1996-97 to 2005-06). The percentage
share of India’s exports to Latin America in its global exports
has increased from 1.43 per cent in 1996-97 to 2.88 per cent
in 2005-06. The growth of our exports and the share of
exports to the region in India’s global exports during the last
10 years are as follows:
Table 44.1 India’s Global Exports
(Values in US$ million)
YEAR EXPORTS % TOTAL SHARE

TO LAC GROWTH EXPORTS %
1996- 478.74 30.07 33469.76 1.43

97
1997— 699.83 46.18 35007.85 2.00
98
1998— 611.31 -12.65 33218.39 1.84

99
1999— 652.46 6.73 36714.81 1.77

00
2000- 978.42 49.96 44075.54 2.21

01
2001-— 1455.7 1 48.78 44061.30 3.34

02
2002-— 1636.36 12.41 52234.40 3.13

03
2003-— 1777.13 8.6 63454.56 2.80

04
2004-— 2160.71 21.58 83535.94 2.59

05
2005— 2956.01 36.81 102725.10 2.88

06
Despite the high export growth rates and increasing share

of the region in India’s total exports, India’s exports constitute
a minuscule part of the total imports of the region. While the
global imports of the Latin American region were US$ 526
billion in 2005, India’s exports had a share of just about 0.5
per cent in the imports of the region.
With the individual LAC nations, India’s relations are
enhancing to the benefits of the bilateral partners. India’s
commonalities with developing nations in Latin America,
especially Brazil and Mexico have continued to grow. India
and Brazil continue to work together on the reform of Security
Council through the G4 nations while they have also
increased strategic and economic cooperation through the
India-Brazil-South Africa (IBSA) Dialogue Forum. The
process of finalising Preferential Trade Agreement (PTA) with
MERCOSUR (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay) is
on course and negotiations are being held with Chile. The
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva was the guest of
honour at the 2004 Republic Day celebrations in New Delhi.
The two-way trade in 2007 nearly tripled to US$ 3.12 billion
from US$ 1.2 billion in 2004.
India and Brazil want the participation of developing
countries in the UNSC permanent membership since the
underlying philosophy for both of them are: UNSC should be
more democratic, legitimate and representative the G4 is a
novel grouping for its realisation. India and Brazil are deeply
committed to South-South Cooperation initiatives and attach
utmost importance to this trilateral cooperation between the
three large, multi-ethnic, multi-racial and multi-religious
developing countries which are bound by the common
principle of pluralism and democracy.
India and Colombia established diplomatic ties on January
19, 1959. Since then the relationship between the two
countries has been gradually increasing with more frequent
diplomatic visits to promote political, commercial, cultural and
academic exchanges. Colombia is currently the commercial
point of entry into Latin America for Indian companies. India’s
relations are both cordial and friendly with Paraguay and
Mexico.
V. INDIA, WTO AND NIEO

The developing countries, ranging from Brazil, India and the
Philippines to South Africa, have objections to numerous
rules and regulations of WTO which prompted them to leave
the WTO meeting in 2005. Speaking on behalf of the G-20
bloc, the Brazilian foreign minister described the boycott of
the WTO as a political victory. Sir Ronald Sanders, the trade
minister of Antique and Barbuda had said that if the proposals
of the rich at WTO were accepted, the poor countries would
be condemned by their people. The Doha Development
Agenda is against the interests of the developing nations.
The developing nations, as India argues, condemn the
developed nations of the northern hemisphere on the ground
that they had exploited and are exploiting the countries of the
developing nations. This was also the theme of the
dependency theory of the neo-Marxists during the 1960s
which spoke of the “core” countries exploiting the “periphery”
nations, thus leading the developing nations to poverty and
backwardness. This made the developing nations advocate a
new equitable economic order which they did through NAM
and the United Nations in early 1970s. India was one of the
frontline nations to argue for the New International Economic
Order (NIEO). It was from here that the demand for the North-
South dialogue began and voices of the South-South
Cooperation began echoing.
The three major areas of objection to WTO’s negotiations
as raised by the developing nations, especially India, are:
e Discriminatory tariffs on goods and services between

developed world and the developing world as against
tariffs they use between themselves. This prevented a
level playing field for all the developing nations of the
world.
e Farm subsidies, which the developed world gives to its
farmers, distort the cost structure. Agricultural
production in EU and USA is heavily subsidised. Major
beneficiaries of these subsidies are US corporate
farmers, and French farm and processing sector in the
EU. With these subsidies in place the developing world
loses its advantage. Additionally, farm imports from
developing world are under heavy tariff, which
effectively keeps these products out.
e A major irritant in the trade policies have been the textile
exports. Quota system effectively killed any cotton
textile business from prospering in the developing world.
Luckily, the EU and US relented on these policies. As of
last year this policy has been disbanded.
These irritants have resulted in a deadlock in negotiations.

Brazil, the most efficient agricultural products producer, has
concentrated its energies during Doha Ministerial discussions
on reduction in farm subsidies in EU and US. India and
Pakistan are concentrating on textiles and farm produce.
Additional trade concessions on service sector have also
been sought by India. The service sector is the key to India’s
future as an economic power.
The developing nations expect these irritants to be
removed. They want the amount of subsidies and tariffs to be
cut by the developed nations, especially the 54 per cent tariff
on agricultural products, and also for US to slash 75 per cent
of its agricultural subsidies. These are unacceptable to the
EU and US. In return, they have offered 39 per cent reduction
in tariffs and 53 per cent reduction in subsidies.
The above gap, in what the developing countries want and
what the developed countries have offered has not changed
in the last six months of negotiations, hence the angry
walkout by India’s Commerce Minister from the Geneva
discussion, although the Western media labeled it as an
astringent Indian attitude.
The WTO needs to give up the rich countries’ interests and
must show, as an_ international institution, credibility,
legitimacy and transparency in its conduct.
The inequitable functioning of WTO has added to the
North-South differences, and accordingly set a tone for a
fresh look into the North-South impasse.
The world economy is not that of either the US or the EU.
The vast group of expanding economies, especially the
emerging ones from the developing nations, are challenging
the traditional international economic order. The interests of
the emerging economies are not confined mainly to the
attaining of profit, but relate to development and
modernisation. Obviously, leadership of such economies is
with a group of countries which include India, Brazil, South
Africa, Thailand and Malaysia.
India’s position vis-a-vis the new international economic
order revolves around:
(a) a favourable economic system that helps the
developing nations evolve an economy of
development and modernisation;
(b) an economy which does not serve as an instrument
of the developed nations;
(c) equitable relationship between the developed and
the developing nations;
(d) one that corresponds to the needs of development
strategy;
(e) one that can integrate with the economies of rest of
the world.
India, being opposed to the asymmetric distribution of
wealth, though not of resources, as created through free
trade, wants to eliminate this inequality. India believes that
this economic inequality creates a gap between the
developed and the developing nations; a gap that leads to
inequalities in other fields such as in polity, power and
position too. It is because of this inequality that India
advocates the new international economic order, as well as
South-South Cooperation, so as to enable the developing
nations become self-reliant. It also advocates North-South
dialogue so that a feasible economic collaboration is made
possible between the South and the North. Beyond the whole
philosophy of the New International Economic Order lies the
idea that the WTO should conduct itself in the manner that it
benefits the developing nations in order to bring their
economies at par with those of the developed nations. Until
the equitable economic order is established, objections would
also keep emerging against WTO negotiations; and until then,
the task of countries such as India would not be over.
Practice
Questions
1. Give an account of Africa during the

pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial
era in its history. (700-800 words)
2. Analyse the history of Latin America.
(200-250 words)
3% Describe Indo-African relations,
especially with regard to trade. (700-800
words)
4. Explain India-Latin America relations as
they exist at present. (700-800 words)
5. Write a short note on India’s perception
f\
VY
of WTO and the NIEO. (700-800 words)
India And The Global Centres of
Powers (USA, EU, Japan, China,
Russia, France, eic.)
7 he global centres of power are countries which have

influence over events beyond their boundaries. In
themselves, they influence other countries through
events which occur in their own nations. A nuclear test in the
United States is an event, which influences, say, Russia,
France or China. These centres of power, amongst others,
are the United States of America, the European Union,
Japan, China and Russia. India’s relations with these
countries have significance in their own right.
I. RELATIONS BETWEEN INDIA AND THE UNITED

STATES
President Nixon of the US transformed relations with China
following his Beijing visit in 1970s which brought about
China’s significant role in Asia and in the world. President
Reagan transformed US relations with the USSR in the
1980s, contributing, though very meagerly, to the
disintegration of the USSR. Can we say that President Bush
transformed India-US relations when he visited India in the
early years of the twenty-first century and brought about a
transformation of India’s role in the world? The answer is:
most likely. Bush had envisaged a much bigger role for India
than his predecessors had ever thought.
The Indo-US relations during the cold war era following
World War II were not very cordial, and at times, were grossly
indifferent. The successive US administrations followed the
policy of viewing non-alignment of India rather critically.
Dulles described India’s policy of non-alignment as “an
immoral and shortsighted conception”. This view about India’s
non-alignment was primarily because of our different
perceptions about the world, being mutually at different poles,
our dispute with Pakistan and our proximity to the Soviet
Union. But with the end of the cold war and the subsequent
disintegration of the USSR, the world situation changed, and
so changed the Indo-US views about each other. We began
to evolve a new relationship with the world’s most powerful
nation, the USA. Often in the past, the love-hate relationship
between the two largest democracies witnessed hesitations
and prevented them from coming closer. Often, adversarial
feelings embedded in mutual distrust ruled the relationship.
Often, a step forward had led to two steps backwards.
With suspicion having gone, the two nations are marching
ahead on the road to close cooperation and friendship. The
situation of the world, following the failure of the socialist
model of economy in late 1980s and early 1990s, changed so
drastically that its changing contours had an impact on India
as well. India followed liberalisation and privatisation in its
economy, and consequently emerged a big economic power.
India’s new economy brought her close to USA, which saw
India as a power emerging in its own right. The ever-growing
economy of the country changed the very face of our foreign
policy: we moved from the socialist model to the capitalist
model; from politics to economics, from idealism to realism,
from anti-Westernism to neo-liberalism, and from non-
alignment to “independent policy”.
For a long time, India faced enemies at its doors: Pakistan
went to war with us in 1948, 1965, 1971 and a scuffle in 1999;
China humiliated us in 1962 and captured vast areas of our
country. Our security was always threatened. This insecurity
led us to nuclear testing. Since 1998, we have been a nuclear
power. Though the existent nuclear powers including the US
criticised and pressurised us to sign the non-proliferation
treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
(CTBT), we managed to withstand the pressure, and
convinced the USA of our position as a responsible nuclear
power. Within seven years, i.e. in 2005, we found the United
States not only our ally, but also our strategic partner. From
the beginning of the present century our relations with the
USA are growing from strength to strength.
Strategic Agreement of July 2005

On July 18, 2005, India and the US signed a landmark
strategic agreement that had far reaching consequences.
There were two important facets to this agreement. First, the
belated acceptance of India as a “responsible state with
advanced nuclear technology” which amounted to a tacit US
recognition of India’s status as a de facto nuclear weapons
power outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Second, the US
offered to cooperate with India on civilian nuclear energy
issues. As per the agreement, the US would work to achieve
full civilian nuclear energy cooperation with India as it realised
India’s goals of promoting nuclear power and achieving
energy security. It would seek agreement from the Congress
to adjust US laws and policies. The US would also work with
friends and allies to adjust international regimes to enable full
civilian nuclear energy cooperation and trade with India,
including, but not limited to, expeditious consideration of fuel
supplies for safeguarded nuclear reactors at Tarapur; Russia
having expressed its inability to continue fuel supply.
Defence Agreement of July 2005

The India-US Defence Agreement of July 2005 is likely to set
the parameters within which the two countries could
potentially cooperate with each other. The USA also
approved the lease of two P-3C reconnaissance aircrafts for
India and notified the US Congress of a $133 million military
sale to provide logistical support for the deal that included
training devices, test equipment and spare parts. Announcing
the deal, the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency
(DSCA) said the proposed sale would help “improve the
security of an important ally and strengthen the US-India
strategic partnership”. The P-3C aircrafts, built by Lockheed
Martin, would replace the Navy’s Soviet IL-38 May aircrafts
which are “quickly reaching the end of their operational
service life’. This modernisation would enhance the
capabilities of the Navy, support its regional influence, and
meet its legitimate needs of self-defense, said the DSCA. It
said that India needed the advanced aircraft for land-based
maritime patrol and reconnaissance to protect its economic
exclusion zone and to guard against submarines and surface
warfare ships.
India and the United States also agreed to further
strengthen bilateral defense cooperation and emphasised the
importance of service-to-service ties at the meeting of the
Defense Policy Group (DPG) in Washington in September
2005. The three-day meeting of the DPG, held in an
extremely frank, friendly and cooperative atmosphere, was
co-chaired by the Indian Defense Secretary Shekhar Dutt and
the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy—Eric Edelman.
The two sides exchanged views on the international strategic
and security situation as well as on the further development of
bilateral defense cooperation as envisaged under the Indo-
US Defense Framework agreement inked in June 2005. “Both
countries view their bilateral defense cooperation as an
important facet of the India-US global partnership, reflected in
the India-US Joint Statement of July 18, 2005.”
In a step up of service-to-service engagement, India and
the US conducted the biggest ever army level exercises near
Ranikhet, in Uttarakhand, in January as American officials
indicated that Washington was working to open doors to high
technology transfers. A company force of the US army also
conducted joint exercises with a thrust towards anti-
insurgency operations in the mountainous terrain near
Choubhatia. American officials said that in the coming year
armed forces of the two countries would participate in “more
complex, patterned” war games.
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty

India and the US also signed an agreement to help each
other investigate offences related to terrorism, narcotics,
trafficking, and other organised crimes in October 2005. The
protocol of exchange for the Instrument of Ratification
concerning the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty was signed by
Union Home Secretary V. K. Duggal and the then US
Ambassador to India, David C. Mulford. Speaking after the
signing of the treaty, Mulford termed it as “a very, very
important step forward” in bilateral relations between the two
countries. He said that relations between India and the US
touched virtually every area of human activity, and the US
would like to develop relations further. The Union Home
Secretary described the signing of the Protocol as yet another
step in “our continuing strong friendship.”
Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Science and

Technology
After 15 years of negotiation, India and the United States
finally signed an umbrella agreement on cooperation in the
field of science and technology in October 2005. The pact
was signed by the then Union Science and Technology
Minister, Kapil Sibal and the then US Secretary of State,
Condoleezza Rice. In a press release from Washington,
where the agreement was signed, the Ministry of Science and
Technology said that cooperation would be based on shared
responsibilities and equitable contributions.
India also gave assurance to the United States that it would
make all-out efforts to curb money laundering and stamp out
financing of terrorist activities while it laid down a roadmap for
major reforms in the financial sector. At the conclusion of a
joint press conference with the then US Treasury Secretary,
John Snow, pertaining to the Indo-US Financial and
Economic Forum meeting, the then Finance Minister, P.
Chidambaram said, “I have told Secretary [John Snow] that
we are fully committed to checking money laundering as well
as stamping out financing of terrorist activities.”
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER)

Energy Project
India’s inclusion as a full partner in the ambitious multinational
“International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor” (ITER)
energy project was an acknowledgement of it being a
responsible nuclear state with advanced nuclear technology.
The decision was taken by six partner countries—US,
European Union, Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea.
“The decision recognises that India can_ significantly
contribute to such endeavours and also is recognition that
India is a country with advanced nuclear technology, including
in the field of fusion research.”
Bush Visit to India and the Nuclear Agreement of March

2006
Bush-Manmohan Singh talks with each other when the US
President landed in India on March 1, 2006 produced
conducive results: the commitment to democracy, to the
institutions of freedom— free press, freedom of religion,
independent judiciary, and the like—and the important
message that the United States and India had to stand
together as advocates for these institutions, and subsequently
provide the world with a living example of the strength of such
institutions. The discussion also included issues like the war
on terror, trade issues—especially the impending entry of
Indian mangoes into American markets, the Doha round
conclusions, and the agriculture knowledge initiative.
The discussion largely concentrated around India’s need
for energy, its plans to dramatically enhance its ability to
provide secure energy to its people, and its desire to do so in
a way that avoided proliferation risks and did not create
environmental problems. The American President talked
about his advanced energy initiative and his hope that
technologies arising from initiative could be shared with India
and other countries.
Under the historic nuclear agreement signed on March 2,
2006, India has agreed to classify 14 of its 22 nuclear
facilities as civilian, and put these under the permanent
supervision of the IAEA. This should, then end a 30-year long
moratorium on the sale of nuclear fuel and _ reactor
components by the US to India. The export of nuclear
material, reactors, and their major components from the US,
would require a Section 123 amendment of the Atomic
Energy Act. Technically, India is a non-nuclear weapon state
and does not have the full-scope of safeguards. Under the
terms of the Atomic Energy Act, the Congress has to approve
an agreement for cooperation and needs to pass a joint
resolution of approval.
The nuclear deal accords acceptance to the military and
the security component of the Indian nuclear programme by
the sole superpower and torchbearer of the nuclear non-
proliferation regime, the US. The Indo-US deal also makes
India’s nuclear weapons programme acceptable, legitimate
and non-threatening to the existing nuclear order unlike those
of Iraq, North Korea, and Iran. The nuclear deal envisages an
alliance, albeit informal, between the US and India deriving
from a real convergence of mutual security interests. The
nuclear deal also seeks to enhance India’s nuclear security
via nuclear arms control. By agreeing to separate its large
civilian and small military nuclear programmes, India has
acknowledged its commitment to minimum nuclear
deterrence which provides for its nuclear security interests.
One of the major objectives of the United States in entering
into the Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement is to bring
about an early freezing of the Indian weapon-usable nuclear
materials stock at the minimum possible level. India, in turn,
obviously wants to retain all the accumulated inventory of
such materials, as well as the facilities to produce the
additional material we consider essential for a minimum
credible deterrence, in compliance with IAEA safeguards.
Obviously, each country wants to manoeuvre the separation
plan to suit its specific objective.
USA continues to be India’s largest trading partner and a
leading foreign investor. During 2006, the total bilateral trade
in merchandise and commodities stood at US$ 31.91 billion
as compared to US$ 26.76 billion in 2005; an increase of 17
per cent. The total bilateral trade in merchandise and
commodities during the first nine months of 2007 stood at
US$ 29.64 billion. The US continues to be one of the largest
foreign direct investors in India. The cumulative FDI flows
from USA from August 1991 to July 2007 stood at US$ 6215
million. FDI inflows from the US constitute about 12 per cent
of total actual FDI inflows into India. The US is the leading
portfolio investor in India. During 2006-07, portfolio
investments by USA were US$ 2240 million. The US is also
the most important destination of Indian investment abroad.
Between 1996 and March 2007, Indian companies invested
US$ 2727 million in the USA largely in manufacturing and
non-financial services. The USA contributed 12 per cent of
India’s total exports of US$ 168.70 billion in 2008-09. In the
year 2008, India’s total exports to the US stood at US$ 25.86
billion while imports from the USA were at US$ 17.33 billion.
The US has emerged as the largest supplier of arms to India,
surpassing Russia and Israel, thanks largely to its Foreign
Military Sales (FMS) Programme, under which the MoD buys
military equipment following the procedure laid down by the
US. There is apparently great comfort for MoD officials in
procuring equipment through the FMS route as a procedural
propriety is underwritten by the US agencies. The history of
the past three years of the Defence Trade and Technology
Initiative (DTTI) of the US government, started in 2012,
brought further growth of defence cooperation between India
and the US.
The India-US bilateral cooperation agreement on civil
nuclear cooperation is a significant landmark in India-US
cooperation which paved the way for civil nuclear cooperation
and trade between India and the West and other members of
the Nuclear Suppliers Group.
India-USA interactions today encompass strategic and
security issues, defences, counterterrorism, science and
technology, health, trade, space, and energy. The bilateral
dialogues on a wide range of issues have contributed to the
qualitative transformation in bilateral cooperation.
PM Modi’s two visits (2014 and 2015) to the USA brought
India and the USA closer. President Obama, backing Modi’s
‘Make in India’ programme, called him a ‘Man of Action’. The
two leaders met at various places and bilateral relations in
numerous fields. Obama was the Republic Day guest in India
in 2015. Now an ally of the USA, India is America’s greatest
friend and a strategic partner in trade, education, space,
technology and in other areas.
ll. INDIA AND EUROPEAN UNION (EU) RELATIONS

The India-EU relations can be traced to early 1960s. India
was one of the first few countries to have established
diplomatic relations with the EU, then the European Economic
Community (EEC). The two signed the 1994 cooperation
agreement and took the bilateral relationship beyond trade
and economic cooperation.
The first India-EU Summit in Lisbon in June 2000 marked a
watershed in the evolution of this relationship. A decision was
taken to hold annual summits. Since then there have been
four Summit-level interactions. The EU sees India as a
“regional and global leader’, emerging increasingly on equal
terms with other world powers.
The frequency and intensity of India’s contacts with the EU
have grown since 2000. In order to provide greater coherence
and focus to all the various activities being undertaken as well
as undertake new initiatives, the European Commission
prepared a comprehensive communication outlining in detail
its views on the various areas in which a strategic partnership
could be forged with India. This document examined sector-
by-sector how current activities can be streamlined and the
new actions launched. When implemented, they would be the
basis of a stronger and more intensive relationship over the
entire gamut of exchanges from political and multilateral,
economic, science and technology, academic to cultural and
civil society.
During their Summit of September 7, 2005, the EU and
India adopted the India-EU Strategic Partnership Joint Action
Plan and agreed to take positive steps to further increase
bilateral trade and economic cooperation and to tackle
barriers to trade and investment. Specifically, they agreed to
set up a High Level Trade Group to study and explore ways
and means to deepen and widen their bilateral trade and
investment relationship and agreed to cooperate on a number
of other trade-related issues.
The High Level Trade Group reported to the seventh EU-
India Summit in Helsinki on October 13, 2006 in
recommending that an expanded trade partnership be
developed through the negotiation of a broad-based trade
and investment agreement. The EU-India Summit endorsed
the recommendations of the High Level Trade Group in
agreeing that both sides move towards negotiations for such
an agreement. Following that agreement, a negotiating
Directive for a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with India on
April 23, 2007 was adopted. Negotiations for this EU-India
FTA were launched on June 28/29, 2007 in Brussels.
As a region, the European Union (EUV) is India’s largest
trading partner with total bilateral trade worth more than $70
billion in 2008-09. The participation of European companies in
building India’s power generation capacity will help achieve
the 100 billion ($140 billion) trade target by 2013 set at the
Ninth Indo-European Union Summit in Marseille, France last
year.
India is currently negotiating a free trade agreement (FTA)
with the EU as well as with the European Free Trade
Association (EFTA) which includes Switzerland, Norway,
Iceland and Liechtenstein. The talks with the EU are in
progress. The Congress-led UPA government is expected to
explore better prospects of Indo-EU trade relations.
The 27-member EU is also the largest investment partner
of India. The EU investments in India more than doubled to
5.4 billion ($7.73 billion) in 2007 compared with 2.5 billion
($3.58 billion) in 2006. This figure, however, dropped sharply
to 852 million ($1.22 billion) last year due to recession in the
European economies.
Among the EU countries, Germany has brought the
maximum foreign direct investment FDI into India during
2004-07 accounting for about 20 per cent of the total EU
investments in the country according to Eurostat, the
European statistical office.
On the other hand, Indian investments in the EU countries
have also picked up in recent years, reaching 2.4 billion in
2008 ($3.43 billion) from 879 million ($1.25 billion) in 2007
and almost nil in 2004. Still, there is ample scope to enhance
the investment inflows into India from the EU, as the other
three BRIC countries (the group of four emerging economies
including Brazil, Russia, India and China) receive much
higher FDI inflow from the EU compared with India. Brazil,
Russia and China had registered FDI inflow of 88 billion
($126 billion), 52.2 billion ($74.7 billion) and 32.7 billion
($46.8 billion) respectively, from the EU during 2006, while
India had attracted only 12.3 billion ($17.6 billion) in the same
period.
Bilateral Agreements
There are a number of bilateral agreements between India
and the EU. Some of these are:
Bilateral Investment Protection

India has signed Bilateral Investment Protection Agreements
(BIPA) with 16 of the 27 EU member-states.
Double Taxation Avoidance

India has Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA)
with 18 out of 27 EU member-states. Negotiations for signing
DTAAs with Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Slovakia and Slovenia
are in advanced stages.
S&T Agreement
India and the EU have signed an agreement for cooperation
in the field of Science and Technology in the year 2001. The
agreement also assures a predictable and secure IPR regime
for the EU companies and research institutions interested in
cooperation with India. A steering committee formed under
the Agreement to facilitate mutual discussions and exchange
of views held its first meeting in Brussels on March 4-5, 2004
where it drew up a Programme of Cooperation (PoC).
Information Technology
India and EU have signed a Joint Vision Statement for
promoting cooperation in the field of information and
communications technology. The Vision Statement was
issued at the India-EU Summit held in Delhi in November
2001.This provides a framework for exchange of views on
regulatory practices, mutual cooperation in regulatory and
industry initiatives, and specific issues/projects of bilateral
interest.
lll. INDIA-JAPAN TRADE RELATIONS

India’s relations with Japan, especially in trade are
expanding. Going by the number of the Japanese delegations
visiting India, we may say that India figures as a significant
spot on the Japanese investment radar. Japan is the third-
largest FDI contributor to India. Its cumulative FDI inflow to
India has been tremendous.
According to the data released by the Ministry of Finance of
Japan, Japan’s FDI in 2006 was 59.8 billion yen (US$
515.5 million), which has doubled from 29.8 billion yen
(US$ 254.7 million) in 2005. FDI inflows in 2006 are the
largest annual FDI inflows from Japan to India (the last
peak was US$ 488.4 million in 1997. So far as trade is
concerned, it may be stated that the bilateral trade between
India and Japan has doubled in four years.
According to the data from the Ministry of Finance in Japan,
bilateral trade between Japan and India has been on a steady
rise since the year 2003, and the amount was more than
doubled from US$ 4.0 billion in 2002 to US$ 8.6 billion in
2006, which increased by 27 per cent from US$ 6.8 billion
in 2005.
The rapid expansion of bilateral trade has occurred in both
ways in 2006 from the previous year ( Japan’s import and
export from/to India respectively marked more than 26 per
cent increase). Especially, the import of “petrochemical
products” from India to Japan rapidly increased from US$
544.4 million in 2005 to US$1130.4 million in 2006 and
became the top import item from India to Japan, overtaking
the traditional top item of “gems and jewels”. Japan’s export
to India also increased more than 26.8 per cent (in US dollar
terms) mainly because the volume of each of the major items
of exports, such as machines, electronics, and transport
equipments has increased substantially.
Recently Japanese joint venture companies in India are
investing further and expanding production capacities for the
purpose of exporting goods manufactured in India to third
countries. The major trends among automobile makers are as
follows:
Maruti Suzuki has exported 35 thousand cars or around
6.6 per cent of domestic sales of 527 thousand units to
developing countries in FY2005. In addition, Maruti Suzuki
invests JPY 300 billion (US$ 2564 million) during FY2005-09
to build a new production plant in Manesar, and to update the
existing plant in Gurgaon. They are planning to export 200
thousand cars annually from these plants. Honda Group
(Hero Honda and HMSI) has exported 131 thousand two-
wheelers against 3.47 million domestic sales in FY2005.
Nissan Motor, which decided to build a new plant in Tamil
Nadu, is also planning to export their cars manufactured in
India to European countries.
These trends indicate that there has been a qualitative
change of the strategies of Japanese companies, and that
some leading Japanese companies have started considering
India as a future export hub of their products. These trends
are expected to further facilitate export from India in the
future.
The India-Japan summit level meeting held on 25 January
2014 and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s presence as the chief
guest of India’s Republic Day parade the following day
marked the deepening bond between the two countries.
There has been a high-level of bilateral exchanges
between the two countries from Manmohan Singh's visit to
Tokyo in May 2013 to Abe’s latest visit. Emperor Akihito and
Empress Michiko visited India in November 2013 followed by
the visit of the Defence Minister Itsunori Onodera in January.
Clearly, a push towards. strengthening the strategic
partnership between India and Japan is ongoing.
On 25 January 2014, the leadership signed eight
agreements. The currency swap arrangement expanded from
US$15 to 50 billion effective from January 2014.
(a) Military cooperation

To further consolidate the relation and strengthen maritime
cooperation, India had invited Japan to participate in the
Malabar naval exercise in 2014 despite Chinese reservations
witnessed in 2007.
The Japanese Coast Guards and their Indian counterparts
performed a joint exercise off the coast of Kochi and Japan
Maritime Self-Defence Force (JMSDF) and the Indian Navy
conducted second bilateral exercise off the coast of Chennai
in January 2014 and December 2013 respectively. A dialogue
mechanism between the Secretary-General of National
Security Secretariat of Japan, Shotaro Yachi, and then India’s
National Security Advisor, Shivshankar Menon, had been
instituted.
Joint Working Group (JWG) negotiation on the ShinMaywa
Industries Utility Seaplane Mark 2 (US-2) amphibian aircraft is
scheduled for March 2014. Both the countries are weighing
the possibility of assembling the US-2 aircraft in India, which
will provide India the opportunity to access Japanese military
technology.
(b) Issues in Nuclear policy

Despite evident proximity, one of the challenges in the
bilateral relation is negotiating the Agreement for Cooperation
in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy. Fundamental
differences on CTBT continue to make the negotiations
difficult. While Japan underscores the importance of CTBT,
India reiterates its commitment towards voluntary moratorium
on nuclear testing. Following the 2008 NSG waiver, India has
entered into civil nuclear agreements with several countries
despite being a non-signatory to the CTBT. Moreover, the
Indo-US Civil Nuclear Agreement of 2008 is the framework on
which India wants to model subsequent agreements.
Additionally, Abe is navigating through the difficult choice of
Japan’s position on nuclear nonproliferation and the
commercial interests of Japanese nuclear businesses,
struggling to cope with the post-Fukushima financial loss. The
agreement is also important for the French and US nuclear
businesses. Their projects in India are affected since critical
components for the nuclear reactors are expected to be
provided by the Japanese corporations. Toshiba, Hitachi and
Mitsubishi have stakes in Westinghouse, General Electric and
Areva respectively. Nuclear lobby is exerting pressure on the
political leadership of Japan to facilitate nuclear technology
export to compensate for the loss post-Fukushima accident.
Delay in negotiation runs the risk of escalating cost.
(c) Economic cooperation

While the bilateral trade figure is expanding following the
2011 Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement
(CEPA), it reflects trade imbalance in favour of Japan, which
is likely to continue in the near future. Bilateral trade in 2012-
13 totalled US$18.51 billion. This figure leaves much to be
desired when compared to the bilateral trade figures between
Japan and China, which amounts to $334 billion, despite the
developments following the nationalisation of the Senkaku
islands.
(d) Japan and the South China Sea

Japan is concerned about what is perceived as an assertive
China particularly following the developments in the East
China Sea. Japan has for long relied on the US-Japan
security alliance, but there is a school of thought, which
argues that US is worried about getting dragged into Japan’s
conflict. Following Abe’s Yasukuni shrine visit, the US
conveyed its disappointment stating that “Japan’s leadership
has taken an action that would exacerbate tensions with
Japan’s neighbors”.
Abe realises that solely relying on the US-Japan security
alliance might not serve national interest in the fast evolving
regional security architecture. So the leadership is diversifying
its options and strengthening cooperation with countries like
India and Australia. Moreover, Abe is working hard to garner
support for reviving the debate on Article 9 of the Constitution
and restructuring Japan’s pacifist orientation which, if
matures, is expected to redefine Japan’s role in international
politics.
China has keenly observed the progress of the India-Japan
relations that it perceives as a part of a broader attempt by
Abe to encircle China. Chinese media has been restrained
this time compared to the previous year following Manmohan
Singh’s visit, when People’s Daily in May 2013 referred to
Japanese politicians as “petty burglars” for courting India. The
Global Times on 30 May 2013 reported that “Japan’s wishful
thinking of “encircling China” is just an illusion. Besides
sneaking a few bargains from its competition with China,
Japan does not have the strength to prevail over China’s
influence in Asia”. Chinese media perceived the recent visit
as “aims at pinning down China but hardly looks like
succeeding”. Then Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Qin Gang,
on January 2014 conveyed a measured response by stating
that “We hope that development of defence cooperation
between both countries will be conducive to peace, stability
and security of the whole region’.
(e) Asian Security Diamond and India

Abe, who is known for his hawkish foreign policy, is friendly
towards India. It was under his leadership that Japan signed
the Strategic and Global Partnership with India in 2006. His
historic speech on the Confluence of the Two Seas and his
concept of Democratic Security Diamond underscore that
India is perceived as an important partner. The National
Security Strategy and the National Defence Program
Guidelines released in December 2013 articulated that
“Japan will strengthen its relationship with India in a broad
range of fields, including maritime security’. Japan has
enormous opportunity to invest since India is planning $1
trillion investment in infrastructure over five years. The
footprints of Japanese ODA in Indian _ infrastructure/
developmental projects are expanding. There remains no
historical baggage between India and Japan. The leadership
needs to address the concerns and realise the full potential of
the strategic partnership. Both India and Japan continue to
deepen their strategic partnership while responding to the
evolving regional security landscape in the coming days.
IV. INDIA-CHINA RELATIONS

China is India’s neighbour in the north, beyond the
Himalayas. With its territory of 9561 thousand sq. km. and its
population of over 1170 million (1991), it is the only country
where borders touch each of the major divisions of the
continent—central, east, southeast, south, and west Asia.
The relationship between India and China is age-old:
commercial as well as cultural. The two countries had
experienced socio-political change (India in 1947, and China
under the people’s regime in 1949) at almost the same time.
The Indian National Congress had expressed its solidarity
with China, and China, through Chaing Kai-Shek and Mao
supported India’s cause of independence. For quite a long
time and until 1957, the two nations had very close ties (for
example, the Panchsheel agreement, 1954). Thereafter,
China, following its ideological militancy and rigidity strained
relations with India. In late 1950s, China laid a formal claim to
1,28,000 sq. km of Indian territory; and in October 1962, she
attacked and captured another 6400 sq. km of India’s
territory. After its unilateral ceasefire, China had, in her
possession, about 90,000 sq. km of Indian territory. The
border dispute still continues, though the two countries are
coming closer in other spheres.
The road map for a comprehensive relationship between
India and China in recent years was laid down during Atal
Behari Vajpayee’s visit to China in June 2003 and a return
visit by the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao in April 2005. Since
then, Sino-Indian relations have seen many developments.
The two countries are engaged in constructive dialogue on a
number of issues, including political, economic, cultural,
people-to-people and military cooperation. There is a much
stronger thrust to learn from each other than before.
Economic Relations
India and China were busy netting comprehensive economic
relations in the last one year. Sino-Indian trade has reached
an all time high and was pegged at $18.7 billion at the end of
2005. The average annual growth rate is over 30 per cent, not
to forget the near phenomenal growth of 79 per cent in 2004.
If this trend continues, China is likely to overtake US as
India’s largest trading partner by 2007. At this rate, the
bilateral trade will cross $ 50 billion much earlier than 2010.
While global trade was facing a sluggish growth, the boom
in Sino-Indian trade came due to a quantum push in India’s
exports to China last year. China’s hunger for raw materials,
intermediates and components saw a big leap in Indian
supply of raw materials. Exports of iron ore to China more
than doubled, pushing Japan to the second place. Iron ore
now constitutes around 40 per cent of India’s exports to
China. The other major exports are plastic materials, steel,
chemicals and soyabean oil.
While India has been supplying mostly primary goods to
China; value added items, especially machinery and electrical
machinery constitute about 36 per cent and dominate
Chinese exports to India. The top 15 Chinese exports to India
recorded growth between 29 per cent (organic chemicals)
and 219 per cent (iron and steel). Border trade, though small
in volume, also played a significant role in enhancing bilateral
trade and economic cooperation. Moreover, it contributes to
generate opportunities for the export of commodities across
the bordering provinces of the two countries.
While the burgeoning trade holds good for both countries,
there is plenty of scope for further enlargement of the trade
basket. Towards this objective, both sides are committed to
remove trade hurdles. The Cll has identified the following
areas for trade enhancement:
1. Biotechnology
2. Information technology
3. Health
4. Education
5. Tourism
6. Financial sector
To foster an all round expansion of Sino-Indian trade, the
Joint Study Group (JSG) that was commissioned during
Former Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s visit to China in
June 2003, gave its recommendations during Wen Jiabao’s
visit to Delhi. The JSG in its report has identified a series of
measures related to trade in goods and services and other
areas of economic cooperation, and recommended their
expeditious implementation to remove impediments and
facilitate enhanced economic engagement between India and
China.
With booming trade, bilateral investments have also picked
up. However, the comparative assessment is quite
asymmetrical. While China is the most popular FDI
destination in the world, attracting over $ 60 billion, India was
a laggard with a paltry $ 4.5 billion. On bilateral front, China
accounts for more than five per cent of India’s total FDI
receipt, whereas India accounts for less than one per cent of
China’s total FDI receipts. Indian companies have invested in
sectors such as iron and steel, textiles, chemicals, automobile
components and pharmaceuticals. They are also active in
service sectors like restaurants, entertainment, culture and
banking. The State Bank of India has become the first Indian
bank to start commercial operations in China by opening its
branch in Shanghai. Among the Indian companies that have
set up joint ventures or subsidiaries are pharmaceutical
companies like Ranbaxy, Aurobindo Pharmaceuticals, Dr.
Reddy’s Laboratories, and IT software companies like
Aptech, NIIT, Tata Consultancy Services, and Infosys.
Manufacturing houses are also making their entries. On the
other hand, Chinese companies are making forays into the
Indian market through investments in telecom, metallurgical,
transportation, electrical equipment and financial sectors. In
fact, there is huge optimism about benefiting from Chinese
expertise in the power sector; in particular, thermal power.
On the whole, trade and economic relations between India
and China are marked by strong political commitments of the
leaderships of both countries. The structural framework of
economic cooperation is being continuously strengthened and
expanded. For the first time, the two countries have decided
to hold regular financial dialogue between the two sides as
envisaged in a Memorandum of Understanding signed during
Wen Jiabao’s visit.
Information Technology and Energy Cooperation

A Sino-India software research, education and training base,
the first of its kind, has been established in Chengdu to
replicate the success of Bangalore. The Indian IT giant,
Infosys, is rapidly spreading its presence in China. After
making a modest beginning in Shanghai, the company now
plans to recruit around 6000 programmers to run its two
software development centres to be developed near
Shanghai. Back home, Infosys has been training around 100
Chinese software engineering students at its Global
Education Centre, Mysore and at Infosys’
Development Centre, Bangalore. India’s largest software
training company, NIIT, has already trained over 25,000
students in China through its 125 “education centres”. NIIT is
still spreading rapidly in China, its number one overseas
market. In March 2006, India’s Alagappa University has
signed an MoU with China’s Jiujiang University (located in
Jiangxi Province) for offering courses to Chinese students in
Computer Science and English. The Chinese university would
send about 2000 students to the Alagappa University.
A desire to institutionalise cooperation on energy security
and avoid unbridled rivalry to the advantage of sellers led to
some high level oil diplomacy between India and China in
recent times. Notable among them was the visit of the then
Indian Petroleum Minister, Mani Shankar Aiyar to China in
January 2006. During this visit, the Indian delegation had
parleys with major Chinese players such as China
Petrochemical Corporation (SINOPEC), and China National
Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), apart from the CNPC.
The two countries finally signed five memoranda to
strengthen their energy cooperation. The full spectrum
cooperation will firstly involve in upstream exploration and
production, building joint ventures on seismic warning and oil
and gas exploration.
Secondly, there will be cooperation on prospecting and
petrochemical production and marketing. The third area is the
transmission of gas and urban gas supply. The two sides will
also join hands on domestic and cross-border oil pipelines,
unconventional oil and gas resources, the innovation and
development of energy technologies, and software and
information technology in energy sector. India, during Aiyar’s
visit, also supported a Chinese suggestion for creating an
Asian counterpart to the International Energy Agency to
coordinate the long-term energy import policies of major oil
importers in the region.
Cooperation in Other Spheres

Being developing economies, agricultural development is very
important in both countries and both sides are willing to learn
from each other’s experience. In March 2005, the Indian
Agriculture Minister, Sharad Pawar, had visited China. Hectic
parleys led to some protocols being signed during Wen
Jiabao’s visit. A comprehensive MoU on agriculture has been
signed during the return visit of the Chinese Agriculture
Minister, Du Qinglin, to Delhi in March 2006.
The MoU identifies many areas for cooperation including
exchange of information and experience of best practices in
respect of crop production, horticulture, fisheries, and animal
husbandry. The two parties shall establish a Sino-India
Committee of Agricultural Cooperation to ensure the
implementation of this MoU.
The two sides are also cooperating on common
environmental issues. For example, during Wen’s visit, the
two sides have signed an MoU that envisages provision of
hydrological information in respect of the
Sutlej/Langeconomicn Zangbo River in flood season for flood
control and disaster mitigation in downstream areas. The
arrangement entails building of a hydrological station by the
Chinese side on the Sutlej/Langeconomicn Zangbo River
before the flood season of year 2006 and provision of
hydrological information to the Indian side beginning the flood
season of 2006.
The Chinese side will also provide information on any
abnormal rise/fall in the water level/ discharge. Both sides will
continue to discuss the possibility of same arrangement in
respect of two more rivers—Parlung Zangbo and Lohit/Zayu
Qu.
While economic relations have picked up, cultural relations
between India and China are in a stalemate. The two
countries have been traditionally close to each other, with
very little exchanges taking place. This societal gap is
probably one of the reasons for many misperceptions about
each other. The leaderships of the two countries have shown
eagerness in opening up their social faces. Coinciding with
Wen Jiabao’s visit, representatives of 23 Chinese universities
visited India to advertise their institutions, which are now
home to 1.1 million foreign students, but have only about 800
Indians among them. The aim, the representatives said, was
to create awareness about Chinese universities, their
curriculum, scholarship facilities and the many opportunities
available to the student fraternity.
During Wen Jiabao’s visit, the two sides signed a protocol
that envisages the constitution of the India-China Film
Cooperation Commission to strengthen cooperation and
promote bilateral exchanges between India and China in the
entertainment sector, with special focus on films; both
features and documentary and animation. Under another
Memorandum, India will build an Indian Style Buddhist
Temple in the International Garden on the west side of the
White Horse Temple in Luoyang, which is the oldest icon of
India-China exchanges in the field of Buddhism. It is expected
that the temple, once completed, will become an enduring
symbol of the centuries old Indian influence in China and
epitomise how Buddhism from India became an integral part
of Chinese culture and life.
In 2005, the two countries also celebrated the 55th
anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations
between India and China. To mark the occasion, the two
countries organised a series of commemorative activities.
These included the “Cultural Festival of China” in India and
“Cultural Festival of India” in China. In order to further
promote mutual awareness and deepen the friendship
between the two peoples, the two sides celebrated 2006 as
the “year of India—China friendship’.
While the two governments have taken the initiative, people
from the two sides are also getting to know more about each
other through various mechanisms. Needless to say, the
business opportunities and the great power potential of the
two countries have generated curiosity about each other.
Journalistic coverage about each other has increased in
domestic newspapers. More and more Indian journalists are
living in and reporting from China.
Military Relations
Although the two countries abide by a series of confidence
building measures (CBMs) agreed under the 1996 treaty and
the subsequent protocols, additions were again made during
Wen Jiabao’s visit. The 2005 Protocol includes among others,
border meeting points at Kibithu-Damai in the Eastern Sector
and Lipulekh Pass in the Middle Sector; exchanges between
the relevant Military Regions of China and Army Commands
of India; and exchanges between institutions of training,
sports and culture of the two armed forces. In 2006, such
activities have gained momentum. Both sides held joint naval
exercise in December 2005 off the Kochi coast in the Arabian
Sea. According to naval sources, the emphasis was on
communication exercises, manoeuvre procedures and
exercises relating to casualty evacuation. Earlier, in 2003,
Indian naval vessels had taken part in joint exercises off the
Shanghai coast in China. The Chinese were also invited as
observers, along with other international observers, during the
Indian Army’s war game exercises in Western Sector in 2005.
A high-level Indian Army delegation led by the GOC-in-C
Eastern Command, Lt. Gen. Arvind Sharma visited China in
February 2006 and_ interacted with their Chinese
counterparts. The two armies are planning more CBMs,
including more sporting events along the Line of Actual
Control (LAC) so as to keep the border areas incident free.
The Indian Defence Minister Pranab Mukherji is slated to visit
China in May 2006. Hopefully, India and China will work out
more interactive activities with each other.
Upward trade and economic relations supplemented by a
policy decision by the political leadership of both sides to
focus on improvement of bilateral relations and keep the
border issue aside has helped in forging better political
relations between the two countries. To a great extent, high-
level political exchanges at regular intervals between the two
sides have also helped to bring down their differences on
major bilateral issues and global issues. Witness, for
example, China’s new world map which shows Sikkim as part
of India, or its toned down rhetoric on Pakistan. Similarly,
India’s position on Tibet is more accommodative to Chinese
demands.
Both countries have also resorted to strategic dialogue to
discuss in detail all issues pertaining to bilateral, regional and
global importance. Two rounds have been concluded so far:
January 2005 and January 2006. Issues such as
globalisation, democratisation of international relations, UN
reforms, non-proliferation and regional cooperation were
discussed in both these rounds. The issue of terrorism is
being discussed separately. On all these issues, the two
countries share a common vision and approach. Differences,
however, do exist on the specifics, particularly where India
and China are the parties. For example, on the Security
Council reforms, while Wen Jiabao did sympathise with India,
China opposed tooth and nail the claim of G-4 that included
India and Japan. “In fact, China’s vociferous opposition to its
Asian rivals may well now be the major obstacle to the
realisation of their aspirations.”
Similarly, while India and China have got ‘observer’ status
in Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and South
Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC)
respectively, China was not comfortable when India was
invited at the East Asian Summit (EAS). Its discomfort was
visible once again when the Indo-US nuclear deal was
signed. Without being openly critical, China has sounded a
cautious note appealing to India to give up its nuclear
weapons programme and join the Nuclear Non-proliferation
Treaty (NPT) as a non-nuclear state.
Border Issue
Improved political relations between India and China in recent
times have led to better understanding on the border issue.
During Wen Jiabao’s visit, the two sides exchanged views on
the issue and reiterated their readiness to seek a fair,
reasonable and mutually acceptable solution through equal
and friendly consultations, and proceeding from overall
interests of bilateral relations. The two countries also signed a
landmark Agreement on the Political Parameters and Guiding
Principle for the Settlement of the India-China boundary
question.
Such an agreement was necessitated as the two sides
were convinced that an early settlement of the boundary
question will advance the basic interests of the two countries,
and should therefore be pursued as a strategic objective. The
agreement is not merely a political statement, but carries
some significant provisions:
e Article Ill: The boundary settlement must be final,

covering all sectors of the India-China boundary.
e Article |V: The two sides will give due consideration to
each other’s strategic and reasonable interests, and the
principle of mutual and equal security.
e Article V: The two sides will take into account; inter alia,
historical evidence, national sentiments, practical
difficulties and reasonable concerns and sensitivities of
both sides, and the actual state of border areas.
e Article VI: The boundary should be along well-defined
and easily identifiable natural geographical features.
e Article Vil: In reaching a boundary settlement, the two
sides shall safeguard due interests of their settled
populations in the border areas.
India’s Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, spoke to Chinese

President, Hu Jintao, on the sidelines of the East Asia
Summit in Kuala Lumpur in December 2005 about a fast-track
border resolution mechanism and also emphasised on
moving simultaneously on all three disputed sectors. The
Chinese, on the other hand, favour a sectoral, so-called “step-
by-step” approach, but the PM told Hu this was slackening
the pace and delaying a solution. Officials said that though
the Chinese president agreed to speed up the process, he
still felt a final solution would take “long”.
It appears now that the two countries are serious to resolve
the border issue once and for all. Meanwhile, the institutional
mechanisms to sort out the border issue are on their job. The
India-China Joint Working Group and the _ India-China
Diplomatic and Military Expert Group continue their work
under the Agreements of September 7, 1993 and November
29, 1996, including the clarification of the Line of Actual
Control (LAC) and the implementation of CBMs. In March
2006, India and China also concluded the seventh round of
talks on the border dispute. Special representative M. K.
Narayanan and Dai Bingguo led their sides for four rounds of
talks in a southern Kumarakom resort in Kerala. It was learnt
that the two sides were negotiating a package proposal on all
sectors of the border.
Conclusion
It might take some time before the border issue is sorted out.
The good thing is that both countries are also eager to sort it
out. It is probably a question of ‘when’ and not “how”. The
strategy of not letting the border issue be an obstacle in the
overall improvement of comprehensive relations between the
two countries has paid dividends. Relations between the two
countries have improved, the political and the societal gap are
being narrowed and overall relations are less emotional than
they were around a decade back. Hopefully, there will be
many positive efforts which will serve as “building blocks” for
further consolidation of better Sino-Indian relations.
It may take a number of high level mutual visits (for
example, President XI’s in 2014), greater plain speaking and
a more profound economic development between the two.
However PM Modi’s visit to China has been a well-begun
task.
V. SINO-INDIAN WAR
The Sino-Indian War is one of the largest military conflicts
fought at such a high altitude and an example of mountain
warfare, with combat taking place at over 4267 metres, or
14,000 feet. Another high-altitude conflict was the Kargil War
of 1999.
Causes of the War

British India and Tibet had never clearly marked their mutual
border. The British Survey of India mapped the boundaries of
Aksai Chin and the British government put up boundary
markers, but administrative borders lay further south.
The British claimed that the McMahon Line, which was
drawn up during the Simla Conference of 1914 and agreed to
by the Tibetans, was valid. However, because of
disagreements with the British, the Qing Dynasty authorities
and later the Republic of China refused to accept the terms
imposed by Britain. China refused to recognise the boundary
on the grounds that Tibet, allegedly a dependency of China
since the rule of the Qing Dynasty, could not make treaties.
As a result, China did not recognise the validity of the
McMahon Line. Even the independence of India in 1947 and
the establishment of the PRC on October 1, 1949, did not
fully resolve the border issues.
India and the PRC maintained good relations throughout
the 1950s, focusing on the Five Principles of Peaceful
Coexistence proposed by the prime ministers of the two
countries in 1953. However, after the PRC occupied Tibet in
1950, the Indian government under Prime Minister Jawaharlal
Nehru adopted a policy of aggressive military deployment in
the border area. China disputed India’s claim that the Line of
Actual Control was a demarcation line. Until 1962, India and
China both maintained forces in the disputed area.
Periodically, each side accused the other of moving troops
over the border as each side tried to extend its line of actual
control. A few skirmishes occurred during this time.
Both Chinese and Indian sources continued the dispute
until the cause escalated into war. India disputed troop
movements and border claims by China. Negotiations
between the two countries deteriorated over the following
months. This transformed a boundary problem into a dispute,
which then progressed into a border war. China maintained
that parts of the boundaries remained undetermined and
needed to be negotiated. The Indians held that previous
events had already determined the boundaries and, therefore,
decided to establish checkposts along them. Fighting began
shortly thereafter, with both sides claiming that the other had
started the aggression.
Events of the War

Various border conflicts and “military incidents” between India
and China flared up throughout the summer and fall of 1962.
According to Chinese sources, in June 1962, a small skirmish
broke out between the two sides and dozens of PLA were
killed and wounded. Units of the Indian and Chinese militaries
maintained close contact throughout September 1962;
however, hostile fire occurred only infrequently. On
September 8, 1962, a 600-strong Chinese People’s Liberation
Army (PLA) unit launched a surprise attack on one of the
Indian forward posts at Dhola on the Thagla Ridge, three
kilometres into the Chinese side of the McMahon Line. Nehru
had gone to London to attend a Commonwealth Prime
Ministers Conference, and when told of the act, said to the
media that the Indian Army had instructions to free the
territory from PLA occupation. However, Nehru’s directives to
Defense Minister V.K. Krishna Menon were unclear, and the
response, code named Operation LEGHORN, got underway
only slowly. By the time an Indian battalion reached the
Thagla Ridge in the Chedong region on September 16,
Chinese units controlled both banks of the Namka Chu River.
The day after, India’s Chief of the Army Staff, Kaul, ordered
his men to retake the Thagla Ridge. On September 20, at one
of the bridges on the river a fire-fighting developed, killing
nine Chinese and Indian soldiers.
On 10 October, an Indian military patrol moved toward the
bridges of Yumtso La, to be met by an emplaced Chinese
position of some 1000 soldiers. The patrol was forced to
retreat after facing heavy fire, officially suffering 50 per cent
casualties; however, the total number of killed and wounded
on the Indian side was actually higher. This date of the
conflict is often given as the official start of the Sino-Indian
Border War.
On October 12, Nehru proclaimed India’s intention to drive
the Chinese out of areas claimed by India. On October 14,
Indian defence minister, Menon, called for his men to fight
China to the last man and the last gun.
On October 20, 1962, the Chinese People’s Liberation
Army launched two attacks, 1000 kilometers apart, in the
Chip Chap valley in Ladakh and the Namka Chu river. After
securing a substantial portion of the disputed territory, the
Chinese made an offer to negotiate on October 24. The
Indian government promptly rejected this offer and tried to
regroup during a lull in the fighting.
On October 24, 120 officers and jawans of the Ahir Charlie
Company of the 13 Kumaon Regiment, almost all of them
hailing from the Ahirwal region (southern Haryana), were
airlifted from Hyderabad to the Chushul sector. They were
deployed on the Rezang La Ridge to defend the highest air
strip in the world located at 16,000 feet—just across the
Chinese claim line setting precedence of exemplary courage
in World Military History.
Indian forces had displayed determined, but insufficient
resistance. The Indian deployment covered a large area and
Indian units required an airlift for more supplies. The Indian
jawans also lacked both, sufficient supplies and training for
mountain combat. Some skirmishes also took place in Sikkim
(at that time an Indian protectorate) at the Nathula Pass.
Neither side declared war, used their air force, or fully
broke off diplomatic relations; however, the conflict is
commonly referred to as a war.
By November 18, the PLA had penetrated close to the
outskirts of Tezpur, Assam, a major frontier town nearly fifty
kilometers from the Assam-North-East Frontier Agency
border. Due to either logistical problems (according to Indian
accounts) or political reasons (according to Chinese
accounts) the PLA did not advance further, and on November
21 declared a unilateral cease-fire. The United States Air
Force flew in massed supplies to India in November 1962, but
neither side wished to continue hostilities. The PLA withdrew
to positions it occupied before the war and on which China
had staked its diplomatic claim.
After the War
After India’s defeat, Indian Defence Minister, Menon,
resigned. Prime Minister Nehru also faced harsh accusations
from government officials. Neither the People’s Republic of
China nor India officially admitted to starting the war as
accusations continued between the two governments.
The Indian government commissioned an_ investigation,
resulting in the Henderson-Brooks Report on the causes of
the war and the reasons for defeat. However, the Indian
government has refused to declassify the relevant
documents. No known commission of inquiry has reported for
the Chinese side on the events that led to the war. India’s
defeat in 1962 led to an overhaul of the Indian Army in terms
of doctrine, training, organisation and equipment.
In the early 1980s, as a shift of emphasis in the Indian
military, the Indian army began to actively patrol the Line of
Actual Control (LoAC). Friction began to ensue over the
Chinese occupation of the Sumdorong Chu pasturage, lying
north of Tawang. The Indian media gave the matter national
prominence, and an angry exchange of official protests
between the Chinese and Indian governments followed. The
Indian Parliament passed a bill setting up the state of
Arunachal Pradesh, a territoriy in which China claims 11 of 15
districts.
In 1993 and 1996, the two sides signed the Sino-Indian
Bilateral Peace and Transquility Accords, an agreement to
maintain peace and tranquility along the Line of Actual
Control (LoAC). Ten meetings of a Sino-Indian Joint Working
Group (SIJWG) and five of an expert group have taken place
to determine where the LoAC lies, but little progress has
occurred. Recently, during the visit of Chinese Prime Minister
to India, China recognised the territory of Sikkim as belonging
to India.
Neither the Indian nor the PRC governments appear very
interested in disturbing the status quo, and the disputed
boundary, called by Indians the Line of Actual Control or the
McMahon Line, does not currently appear to be a possible
major flash point. Military commissions from
China and India meet regularly in the capitals of both
countries to discuss the status of the border. However, they
have made little progress in resolving this contentious border
issue.
VI. INDO-RUSSIA RELATIONS

India and Russia are the world’s pre-eminent examples of
pluralistic, multi-denominational societies with a deeply rooted
tradition of tolerance and constructive co-existence between
different faiths and beliefs; of great internal diversity,
combined with a strong sense of national and cultural unity
operating in a federal political framework. This makes for
common elements in national ethos and perceptions and
some common vulnerabilities as well. This dimension has
also enriched the cultural heritage of both countries and
helped cultural empathy. Another common element of
fundamental importance is that both countries are
democracies—with a commitment to freedom of speech,
assembly, free press and a strong Parliament and judiciary.
Also of great relevance is the fact that both India and Russia
have large and rapidly growing economies with very
substantial human and natural resources, augmented by new
strengths generated through reform and _ liberalisation,
emergence of active entrepreneurship and strong science,
and technology traditions and capabilities. This creates large
and significant possibilities for mutually beneficial economic
and S&T cooperation. The post-Gorbachev period witnessed
a qualitative change in Indo-Russian relationship.
The traditionally friendly and cooperative relations between
India and Russia are marked by stability and continuity. The
importance of India’s relations with Russia enjoys a
consensus cutting across party lines both, in India and
Russia. Mutually beneficial Indo-Russian cooperation is
multifaceted; encompassing areas such as trade and
economy, culture, science and technology, defence and
military-technical cooperation, peaceful uses of atomic
energy, and outer space.
Indo-Russian Strategic Partnership

A Declaration on Strategic Partnership between India and the
Russian Federation was signed during the state visit of
President Putin to India in October 2000. This is a document
of cardinal significance and marks a new step forward in the
elaboration of the principles of our bilateral relations. It lays
down the broad contours of bilateral relations between India
and the Russian Federation in the twenty-first century. It
envisages a closer and deeper level of cooperation in all
areas of mutual interest.
The tradition of high-level exchanges between the two
countries continues. Regular annual exchange of summits is
an important dimension of Indio-Russian Strategic
Partnership. Annual summit level exchanges not only
demonstrate the continued desire of the two sides to further
build upon the strategic partnership relations, but also offer an
opportunity to conduct a comprehensive bilateral dialogue at
the highest political levels.
Defence and Military-Technical Cooperation

Defence cooperation goes back 40 years and substantial
acquisitions have been made over this period. A major part of
the inventories of the armed forces of India is of Russian
origin. The tempo of acquisition has progressively increased
as indicated in the large items such as T-90 tanks, frigates,
Sukhoi aircraft, and the purchase of the aircraft carrier
Admiral Gorshkov. Average annual acquisitions over the last
10 years are estimated at US$ 1 billion. Prospective
purchases will enhance this figure. A vitally important
dimension of defence cooperation is that it is no longer a
mere buyer/seller relationship, but involves, to an increasing
extent, technology transfer as well as joint design,
development, production and marketing.
Space Cooperation
Peaceful exploitation and use of outer Space is a traditionally
important area of cooperation. India’s first generation
satellites in the 70s and 80s were launched from a Soviet
Cosmodrome. Among the high points of cooperation was the
joint space flight in 1984. Since then, India has built very
substantial launch capabilities of its own as demonstrated in
the Polar, and Geostationary Satellite Launch Vehicles; PSLV
and GSLV. Russian cryogenic engines were an important
element in the third stage of the latest and largest launch
vehicle (GSLV). India is ready to develop new areas of
cooperation.
An Interagency Memorandum of Understanding on Space
Cooperation was signed during the visit of the Russian Prime
Minister to India in November 2003. During the visit of
President Putin to India in December 2004, the following two
bilateral documents were signed:
i. Agreement on cooperation in the study and use of

space for peaceful purposes, and
ii. Agreement on long-term cooperation in joint
development and use of the Russian global navigation
satellite system (GLONASS) for peaceful purposes.
International Terrorism
India and Russia share a common resolve to fight terrorism.
The two sides have reaffirmed that global terrorism in all its
forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious
threats to international peace and security, and condemned in
the strongest terms all acts of terrorism irrespective of their
motivation, whenever and by whomsoever committed. They
underscore that there can be no justification for terrorism on
any grounds, including ideological, religious, racial, ethnic or
any other. They believe that the fight against terrorism has to
be long-term, sustained and comprehensive. In this regard
they emphasise the need for giving substance and credibility
to the global fight against terrorism and avoid selective
approaches and political expediency. With the recent
targeting of open societies around the world, Russia and India
as two large and influential democracies, have reasons to be
concerned about the vulnerability of democracies to terrorist
attacks, because terrorism exploits the strengths of
democracies such as the protection of human rights, freedom
of expression and movement. Both countries welcome the
unanimous adoption of the UN Security Council resolution
1566 (piloted by the Russian Federation).
Energy
Cooperation in this field is yet another area of great potential
and mutual interest. Russia is among the world’s leading
producers and suppliers of energy. India is one of the largest
and fastest growing markets for energy. Successful
cooperation in the Sakhalin-l and Kudankulam project
underlines the synergy in this sector. Indo-Russian
cooperation could cover upstream and downstream projects
and other aspects. India is ready to invest in the Russian
energy sector on this basis, taking into account India’s
experience in overseas investment.
Considering the expanding energy requirements of India,
both sides have stressed the need for employing resources
that are environment-friendly and available in sufficient
quantities. Nuclear power plants offer a pollution-free and
substantial source of energy to provide for sustainable
development. Both sides are determined to continue their
cooperation in the field of nuclear energy; incorporating
innovative technologies to ensure energy security, with due
regard to their commitments to non-proliferation norms.
Tourism
India and Russia mutually offer very attractive and cost
effective tourist destinations. A good beginning has been
made in exploiting these possibilities. The current focus is on
Goa (as against 18,000 tourists in 2003, the present projected
traffic is about 40,000), organised through frequent charter
flights from Moscow and other points in Russia. Other
destinations of interest in India including wild life sanctuaries,
adventure tourism sites, the Himalayan areas, the deserts of
Rajasthan, etc. are now being considered by Russian tourists.
It is expected that the trade between the two countries
would touch the figure of about $10 billion by 2010 from $ 5.3
billion in 2008. The tenth session of the Indo-Russian
InterGovernmental Commission on _ Trade, Economic,
Scientific, Technological and Cultural Cooperation (IRIGC)
was held in New Delhi on November 18-19, 2004. Both the
countries agreed to diversify bilateral relationship by covering
areas such as space, information andtelecommunications,
pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, machinery and equipment,
tourism, oil and gas, thermal, hydro and nuclear energy for
power production, etc. The two sides also underlined the
need to synergise the capabilities in the area of high
technology. The two sides are also committed to creating a
favourable environment for the business sectors of the two
countries to engage with each other on a sustained basis.
Following Modi’s assuming power, the visit of President
Putin to India in December 2014, brought India-Russia closer.
Trade and energy cooperation dominated the talks as they
had a target of $ 30 million by 2025 and equal investment in
each other’s economy. In the annual summit between India
and Russia in 2014, the two sides honoured a total of 16
agreements and memorandum of understanding on various
fields.
Vil. INDIA-FRANCE RELATIONS

President Frangois Hollande’s visit is the fifth such by a
French leader to have been honoured as the chief guest at
the Republic Day, more so than any other country. Equally
significant, this was his second state visit (the first was in
2013), a trend that was started by his predecessor, Nicolas
Sarkozy, who was chief guest at the 2008 Republic Day and
returned for another state visit in 2010. With corresponding
visits by Indian Prime Ministers, this annual summitry
highlights the expanding areas of cooperation and
convergence between the two countries.
(a) Snapshot of India-French ties

In recent years, India has entered into more than three dozen
“strategic partnerships”, but France remains the original one.
President Jacques Chirac had a long-standing interest in
India and undertook three visits to India, in 1976, 1998 and
2006, the only leader to have been chief guest at the
Republic Day twice, first as Prime Minister in 1976 and then
as President in 1998.
The second visit saw the establishment of the “strategic
partnership” which was tested months later in May when India
conducted a series of nuclear weapon tests.
France was the first major power to open a dialogue with
India. Within weeks, Brajesh Mishra was in Paris as Special
Envoy of Prime Minister Atal Bihar Vajpayee.
Mr. Chirac not only gave the Indian team a patient hearing,
but also responded with a keen appreciation of India’s
security predicament arising from the unbridled nuclear
proliferation that had taken place in our neighbor-hood. He
designated Ambassador Gérard Errera as the interlocutor and
the dialogue grew in scope as the French focused on
developing an understanding about our perceptions while
they shared their thinking about the Balkan conflict, the risks
of US triumphalism and the worries about a resurgent
nationalism in Russia.
(b) Key elements in Indo-French strategic partnership

The strategic dialogue has become institutionalized at the
level of the National Security Advisers.
The agenda has also expanded to include counter-
terrorism, intelligence sharing and cybersecurity issues, in
addition to the original nuclear, space and defence related
matters.
The 57-paragraph-long Joint Statement covers these and
also a wide range of other areas of cooperation—climate
change and sustainable development, economic cooperation,
urban development, human resource development, heritage
preservation and cultural cooperation.
The terrorist attacks in 2015, on the Charlie Hebdo office in
January and at multiple locations in Paris in November 2015,
have changed the way France looks at global terrorism.
There is a realisation of vulnerability on account of the
alienation in the French Muslim community.
Radicalisation and the growing appeal of the ideology of
global jihad is now perceived as a real threat. This resulted in
a standalone Joint Statement on counter-terrorism which
seeks to do away with the caste system in terror strikes. If
New York, London and Paris were horrific, so must Mumbai,
Beirut and Nairobi be, and the statement makes that point
effectively.
(c) Nuclear cooperation and energy relationship

A push has been given to the Jaitapur nuclear plant
negotiations by seeking to conclude these by the end of 2016,
coupled with the affirmation that there will be six European
pressurized reactors which should help in bringing the cost to
below $5 billion for each reactor.
To mark 50 years of India-France space cooperation, new
projects for cooperation between the Indian Space Research
Organisation and the French government space agency,
Centre national d’études spatiales (CNES) have been
announced, dealing with environment and _ weather
monitoring, mapping of water resources and a joint Thermal
Infrared Earth observation mission.
The implementation of the announcement made during
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Paris in April 2015
about the decision to purchase 36 Rafale combat aircraft in a
flyaway condition, has been taken forward by signing a
memorandum of understanding (MoU) which freezes the
technical parameters, weapon payloads and lifetime servicing
and spares needed.
It is expected that the negotiations of the financial terms will
be concluded in coming months. More significant are the joint
ventures (JV) proposed to be set up between private sector
entities in both countries that can provide a much needed
boost to “Make in India” in defence.
This should give greater content to the Agreement on
Defence Cooperation, originally signed in 2006 and now
extended till 2026, providing a framework for cooperation in
defence production, research and development and
procurement of defence materials.
(d) Emerging areas of cooperation

Among the emerging areas of cooperation are homeland
security, cyber security, special forces like the National
Security Guard and its French counterpart GIGN, and
intelligence sharing to tackle the common threats of terrorism
and global criminal networks.
Closely linked are concerns about Internet governance,
surveillance by external powers and the dominance of U.S.
companies in this field. Maritime security in the Indian Ocean
region is another sector ripe for greater cooperation, given
French presence by virtue of its territories (the Reunion
Islands) for maintaining safety of sea lanes, tackling piracy
and enhancing maritime domain awareness.
(e) Areas lagging in the India-France relationship

Cooperation in “strategic” areas is growing and the
government-to-government relationship is the principal driver
for this. Two areas that have been lagging are economic and
trade relations as well as the people-to-people exchanges.
The 2016 Hollande visit has sought to fix these by
announcing a range of new measures. Bilateral trade
between the two countries has been languishing at $8 billion,
well below potential. French foreign direct investment has
picked up and there are more than 800 French enterprises
operating in India. These include industry leaders like Alstom,
Airbus, Schneider, Alcatel, Total, BNP Paribas, L’Oréal,
Renault, Sanofi Aventis, Veolia, Engie (GDF Suez), Thales,
Vinci, etc. Capgemini, an IT major, has a large workforce in
India.
With a large number of MoUs signed in sectors like urban
development, solar energy, sewage and sanitation, urban
transport including railways, water supply and entertainment,
there appears to be a determined effort to make the business-
to-business link more robust.
Dovetailing the Smart Cities initiative is a good move in this
regard. Nagpur, Chandigarh and Puducherry have been
identified as three cities where French technical assistance
and funding has also been promised. However, the challenge
will be to develop viable public-private partnerships that can
generate long-term funding and also make the projects self-
sustaining in the long run.
An attempt has also been made to energise the people-to-
people relationship by focussing on educational exchanges
and skill development which creates a resource pool as Indo-
French JVs generate greater employment opportunities.
The number of Indian students going to France annually is
2,500 while the number of Chinese students is 10 times
larger. Allowing larger number of French youth to intern in
enterprises in India and easing visa norms for Indian students
to work for two years after completing their education in
France are steps in the right direction. Linkages between
educational institutions need to be built up as more and more
French institutions begin to offer bilingual courses.
Traditionally, the people-to-people relationship has been
driven at the elite level of artists, musicians, dancers, writers
and film-makers as eminent Indians in these fields have
engaged with their French counterparts, but at a popular
level, it lacks a buzz. Out of seven million foreign tourists
visiting India annually, the number of French tourists is less
than 3,00,000. Direct air links between India and France are a
fourth of those between India and Germany.
An Indo-French Centre for the Promotion of Advanced
Research has been in existence for nearly three decades but
limited budgetary resources hamper its activities. It needs to
be restructured to permit it to raise resources from Indian and
French industry; for this, the scope of projects needs to be
broadened.
Cultural festivals have been a regular feature but events
need to be planned outside the metropolises, taking local
calendars into account. The strategic relationship between
the two countries has developed over the years generating a
sense of comfort between the relevant government agencies.
What are needed are initiatives that can strengthen business-
to-business linkages and people-to-people contacts which
can, in turn, provide a broader underpinning to the overall
bilateral relationship. The Hollande visit has rightly sought to
focus on these sectors. If these can be _ effectively
implemented, it will help establish a more balanced
relationship between the two countries, with overlapping
networks of stakeholders from all sections in both societies.
Vill. RELATIONS BETWEEN INDIA AND OTHER

COUNTRIES
United Kingdom gives, as David Cameron said after Modi
assumed power, and on the sidelines of G20 leaders, India a
top priority. The British leaders hailed Modi’s Make in India
policy. United Kingdom is all set to invest in Rajasthan.
PM Modi visited Germany in April, 2015 where bilateral
talks were held with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. He
inaugurated Hanover Fair 2015 — world’s largest industrial
fair. There were declarations of strengthened cooperation in
sectors like energy, skill development, science and
technology.
PM Modi and the Brazilian President met at the sidelines of
BRICS in July, 2014. The two leaders agreed to expand and
diversify trade and investment flows and deepen cooperation
in agriculture and dairy, energy, space research, defence.
Practice
Questions
1. Describe the India-US Relations as they

prevail at present. (700-800 words)
2. Explain the India-EU relations. (700-800
words)
3. Write a brief note on Indo-Japanese
trade relations. (200-250 words)
4. “India and China are the two big powers
of Asia”. In the light of this statements
explain India-China relation. (700-800
words)
5. Write a detailed essay on Sino-India
conflict of 1962. (700-800 words)
VY
fA
6. Discuss India-Russia relations, as they
exist at present. (700-800 words)
India And The United Nations
System
Ty he United Nations (UN) and its specialised agencies have been established
to maintain world peace and security and those conditions which help
enhance and develop cooperation among the nations, so as to attain the
objectives as enshrined in the UN Charter (especially, maintenance of peace and
security, promotion of friendly relations, cooperation in solving international
problems, protection of human rights and the like). Indeed, the United Nations is
not a state, for sovereignty lies with the states which are its members. It is not
compulsive in its nature, for its decisions are not binding on those who compose
the UN.
The United Nations, though not a state, is not an anarchical system. Its
resolutions, passed by the General Assembly, are more observed than flouted. Its
decisions, approved through the Security Council, are implemented once they
obtain the concurrence of its permanent members. The Economic and Social
Council has helped implement the social and economic charter through the
specialised agencies which work under its supervision. The Trusteeship Council
has, over the years decolonised the colonial world while the International Court of
Justice is creating a system of law and order in the world. The United Nations and
its agencies have built an international society; a social order with its own system
and a culture of its own.
Though the international system within the framework of the United Nations
system is not all bright, but it is not, at the same time, gloomy either. There are
problems in the world; problems such as terrorism, weapons of mass destruction,
and disputes among nations, but the clouds of war do not hang on our heads; we
are not breathing under uncertainties. The area of cooperation, thanks to the
United Nations system, is larger today than the area of conflict; economics
presides over our affairs more than politics; the people of the world have never
been as close as they are today. The greatest contribution of the United Nations
system is the establishment of international civil society which is asserting itself on
the international scenario, and in the process brightening the prospects of
international order. Obviously, the United Nations system would not like to preside
over its own liquidation, for every member-state is contributing to the strength of
the world system in its own way.
I. INDIA’S ROLE IS THE UNITED NATIONS SYSTEM

India, after her independence in 1947, had already decided to follow the policy of
non-alignment. Non-alignment, for India, was much more than a foreign policy; it
was an article of faith essential for peace and security; it was India’s necessity so
to speak, for development and modernisation. The world, after World War II, was
moving towards what was known as the Cold War; a situation more of war than of
peace.
Established in October 1945, the United Nations (UN) was to confront the
consequences created by the war on the one hand, and the emerging problems
raising their head thereafter. India knew her role in the United Nations and the
system the UN was building. During the first two decades of 1950s and 1960s,
India, at the UN and other international forums, sought to:
(a) diffuse the Cold War situation, thereby enhancing the possibilities of
peace;
(b) strengthen the non-aligned tendencies by opposing the fast emerging
military blocs;
(c) advocate decolonisation by supporting the struggling colonial people for
their liberation;
(d) seek disarmament which India thought a threat to world peace and
security.
India’s non-alignment never meant, at any point of time during the cold war era,
either isolationism or non-involvement. She participated in the activities of all the
organs of the UN and its specialised agencies whenever called upon to do so. Her
participation in the UN and its agencies, during the greater part of the cold war
period was notable for her efforts to resist the imposition of superpower disputes or
make the UN a forum for their diplomacy. Rather, India’s focus always had been to
advocate the cause of the newly independent nations, making the UN a world
platform, i.e., espousing the cause of world peace.
During this period she sought to advocate China’s entry into the Security Council
as its permanent member. India played a mediatory role in resolving, among
others, the problem of Korea in the 1950s. India chaired the five-member Neutral
Nations Repatriation Commission while the Indian Custodian Force supervised the
process of interviews and repatriation that followed. The United Nations entrusted,
and India readily accepted, to send forces in subsequent peace missions in the
Middle East, Cyprus and the Congo. India also served as the chairperson of the
three international commissions for supervision and control in Vietnam, Cambodia
and Laos, as established by the 1954 Geneva Accords on Indo-China. During
1950s and 1960s, India made a strong plea for disarmament and an end to all
efforts at nuclear explosive tests, so as to promote an atmosphere of peace. All
through this period, India fought for the enslaved nations, particularly in Africa. It
was largely due to India’s endeavours that most of the nations in Africa got
independence: 1960 is rightly described as the Africa year. India not only helped
the enslaved African and Asian nations attain independence, she also brought the
nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America on the platform of non-alignment: the
formation of the non-alignment movement (NAM) in 1961 was a step in this
direction. With these nations as sovereign countries, the UN and its system truly
became the representative body of the world, rather than of the dominant nations.
During 1970s and 1980s, India’s efforts at the UN and at the meetings of its
other specialised agencies were directed to concentrate on resolving the
unresolved problems of the earlier decades as also on bringing about cooperation
and collaborations on wide range of fields such as social, economic, educational,
scientific, cultural and the like. Her major concern during the 1970s and 1980s was
to seek an equable economic order in the world, especially favouring the
developing countries. India began asking for the economic development of the
poor nations at the UN meetings. She sought for the New International Economic
Order (NIEO), so as to have justice for the disadvantaged nations. Her efforts led
to what is now known as the North-South dialogue on the one hand, and the
South-South cooperation on the other. She was particularly concerned about the
adverse effects of the fast emerging globalisation tendencies which were being
described as the newer forms of colonialism. She made full use of the UN system
to voice the grievances of the developing nations. Additionally, she supported the
world bodies in matters relating to economic development, human rights, child-
care, old-age help, women’s concerns, and other humanitarian activities.
There emerged a different world in 1990s and after. The cold war had ended; the
socialist model had failed, the Berlin Wall had already fallen; the communist
regimes fell one after the other; the USSR had disintegrated as a single nation;
American hegemony had seemed imminent; the liberal-democratic model came to
be introduced; liberalisation came to be welcomed; and globalisation came to be,
willy-nilly, accepted. India too witnessed substantive changes, especially in
economy which in subsequent years led to enormous economic growth. Her trade
grew substantially and she came to view herself as a power in her own right,
especially after the 1998 nuclear test and the Indo-US nuclear civil deal in the early
years of the twenty-first century. Her role in the UN system too witnessed notable
features. Although, not a permanent member of the UN Security Council, India had
already served on the Security Council as a non-permanent member many a time,
and was now making a claim for a permanent UN Security Council seat, being now
a fast emerging fourth largest power after China, the United States and Japan,
probably by 2020. India also had already served as a member of numerous UN
bodies including the Economic and Social Council, and the Disarmament
Commission. She played a prominent role in articulating the economic concerns of
the developing nations in such conferences as the United Nations Conference on
Trade and Development (UNCTD) and the 1992 Conference on Environment and
Development.
India has continued to participate in the UN Peace-Keeping Operations (for
example, during as recent as 1996-97, around 1100 Indian troops in Angola, UN
International Task Force—UNTF, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Indian
peacekeepers in the UN Special Mission in Haiti— UNSMIH). India reiterated her
call in support of an International Convention to Combat Terrorism together with a
related declaration in 1994. Her leading role at various multinational disarmament
fora has been really significant. From the beginning, India has sought total
disarmament, though her objection to signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
(CTBT) of 1996 was that the treaty was not a measure towards universal nuclear
disarmament, that it was discriminatory, and that it was not in India’s national
security interest. She readily deposited the instruments of ratification of the
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) in September 1996 for being of non-
discriminatory character. India supports the strengthening of the Biological
Weapons Convention (BWC).
India’s role in fields relating to economic, social and humanitarian issues has
always been appreciated. Her participation in World Food Summit (Rome, 1996) in
HABITAT Il (Istanbul, 1996), in Commission on Status of Women (General
Assembly debates, 1996) was described as significant. She participated in all the
sessions of the Human Rights Council and always sought the policy of
transparency in the protection and promotion of human rights.
ll. THE UN PEACE-KEEPING OPERATIONS

There is no mention of the peace-keeping forces in the UN Charter, though
Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold in the 1960s joked that they were allowed
under Chapter Six and a half somewhere between the peaceful resolution of the
disputes called for in Chapter Six of the Charter and the authorisation of forces
provided for in Chapter Seven. The Charter requires member-states to place
military forces at the disposal of the UN, purely in response to emerging crises. In
the past, peace-keeping was largely limited to “standing in the middle” between
warring groups; today, its meaning has changed; its role has widened and its
responsibility has broadened.
The peace-keeping forces are subordinate to the leadership of the United
Nations. They are normally deployed as a consequence of a Security Council
decision. The General Assembly can also initiate such steps as it really did in
operations such as the First UN Emergency Force (195667) and the UN Security
Force in West New Guinea (1962-63). The peacekeepers are contributed by the
member countries at the request of the Secretary-General who serves as their
commander-in-chief, though they work under the flag and command of the UN, and
are commonly called “blue helmets”. These forces serve at the invitation of the
host government and leave when that government asks them to do so, as Egypt
did in 1967. Usually, these forces stay for a period of three to six months—in some
cases, they stay even for decades. As per the Security Council’s resolution 1325,
women peacekeepers can also be mandated. Funds for the UN peace-keeping are
voted by the General Assembly. At times, the expenses on the UN peace-keeping
forces exceed the UN budget by more than 2 to 1.
i YY
Peace-keeping, Peace-making, Peace-building
Peace-keeping is designed to deploy UN peace-forces in the field in between

the warring countries.
Peace-making is designed to bring hostile parties to agreement, essentially
through peaceful means. If such measures fail, they may use force, to achieve
humanitarian ends and without the consent of the parties concerned. They are
also called multidimensional peace-keeping or peace enforcement.
Peace-building is designed to develop the social, political and economic
infrastructure to prevent further violence, and to consolidate peace.
=
\ J
Between 1948 and 2005, there have been over 65 UN peace-keeping

operations, 41 of these have been created by the UN Security Council during
1991-2002. Thus far, 123 nations have contributed personnel at various times; 89
are currently providing peacekeepers. As of May 31, 2002, the top contribution of
military and civilian personnel to current missions were: Bangladesh (5,479),
Pakistan (4,831), Nigeria (3,489), India (3,019), Ghana (2,489)—all these from the
developing nations.
In addition to holding military operations, the UN’s role in peace-keeping,
involves a variety of activities. These forces supervise elections, disarm opposing
factions, monitor human rights, and perform a wide range of administrative
functions. Most importantly, they are increasingly involved in providing food to the
needy, repatriating and resettling refugees, building schools, and providing medical
help.
Table 46.1 Completed UN Peace-keeping Operations as of May, 2002
Region/Country Duration
AFRICA
Congo July 1960 - June 1964
Angola December 1988 - May 1991
Namibia April 1989 - March 1990
Angola May 1991 - February 1995
Somalia April 1992 - March 1993
Mozambique December 1992 - December 1994
Somalia March 1993 - March 1995
Rwanda/Uganda June 1993 - September 1994
Liberia September 1993 - September 1997
Rwanda October 1993 - March 1996
Chad/Libya May 1994 - June 1994
Angola February 1995 - June 1997
Angola June 1997 - February 1998
Sierra Leone July 1998 - October 1999
Central African Republic April 1998 - February 2000
MIDEAST
Middle East - 1St UN Emergency

November 1956 - June 1967
Force
Lebanon June 1958 - December 1958
Yemen July 1963 - September 1964
Middle-East - 2"¢ UN Emergency

October 1973 - July 1979
Force
lran/lraq August 1988 - February 1991
AMERICAS
Dominican Republic May 1965 - October 1996
Central America Observer Group July 1991 - April 1995
El Salvador July 1991 - April 1995

Haiti September 1993 - June 1996
Haiti July 1996 - July 1997
Guatemala January 1997 - May 1997
Haiti August 1997 - November 1997
Haiti December 1997 - March 2000
ASIA
West New Guinea October 1962 - April 1963
India/Pakistan September 1965 - March 1966
Afghanistan/Pakistan May 1998 - March 1990
Cambodia October 1991 - March 1992
Cambodia March 1992 - September 1993
Tajikistan December 1994 - May 2000

East Timor October 1999 - May 2002
EUROPE
Former Yugoslavia February 1992 - March 1995
Croatia March 1995 - January 1996
Former Yugoslavia Rep. of Macedonia March 1995 - February 1999
Croatia January 1996 - January 1998
Croatia January 1998 - October 1998
Table 46.2 UN Peace-keeping Missions as of October 2003
Location Region Size Annual Role Since

Cost
(million$)
Sierra Leone Africa 12,000 540 Help 1999

implement
peace
agreement
Liberia Africa 4,600 560 Assist 2003

transitional
government.
Democratic Africa 10,800 600 Observe 1999

Congo ceasefire
Ethiopia/Eritrea Africa 4,300 200 Monitor post- 2000

war border
Western Africa 400 45 Organise 1991

Sahara referendum in
territory
East Timor South Asia 3,900 190 Peacekeeping; 1999

relief;
administration
India/Pakistan South Asia 70 10 Observe India- 1949

Pakistan
ceasefire
Kosovo Russia/E.Eur. 4,500 330 Civil 1999

Administration;
relief
Georgia Russia/E.Eur. 200 30 Observe 1993

ceasefire in
civil war
Lebanon Middle East 2,200 95 Monitor 1978

ceasefire on
Israeli border
Cyprus Middle East 1,300 45 Monitor 1964

Greek-Turkish
ceasefire
Syria (Golan Middle East 1,200 40 Monitor Israel- 1974

Heights) Syria ceasefire
Israel Middle East 250 25 Observe Arab- 1948

Israeli truce
Total 46,000 $2,200
The United Nations Peace-keeping forces act as an impartial third party in order
to prepare the ground for a settlement of the issues that had provoked armed
conflict. If it proves impossible to achieve a peaceful settlement, the presence of
the UN forces may contribute to reducing the level of conflict. Basically, the task of
the UN forces is to maintain or re-establish peace in an area of armed conflict. It is
important to make a distinction between the two kinds of peace-keeping forces—
unarmed observer groups and lightly armed military forces. The latter employ their
weapons for self-defence. The observer groups are concerned with gathering
information for the UN about actual conditions prevailing in an area, e.g., as to
whether both parties adhere to an armistice agreement. The military forces are
entrusted with more extended tasks such as keeping the parties to a conflict apart
and maintaining order in an area. Peace-keeping forces have generally been able
to keep peace. It should be remembered that going into a shooting war requires
military forces far beyond those of the peace-keeping missions. The peacekeepers
are sent only after the ceasefire has already been arranged or has taken effect. To
overcome this problem, i.e., to keep peace, peacemaking has been proposed by
the Secretary-General in 1992, which would help enforce peace. Accordingly, the
peace enforcement forces would help enforce peace. They would be more heavily
armed than peace-keeping forces. The Secretary-General has called for one
thousand soldiers for each crisis to the UN forces. Chapter 7 of the UN Charter
allows the UN to draw on resources of member-states in such a manner. The
member-states have not only refused the request for soldiers, but disliked the idea
of peace-keeping forces as well as of the peace enforcement forces for Bosnia
where the need was more pressing in 1995. However, NATO forces were sent in
Bosnia. Since then, the UN has authorised member-states to provide real military
forces, not just peacekeepers.
With passing years, the size of the UN peace-keeping forces keeps increasing.
“By the summer of 2005,” Moore Jr. and Pubantz (The New United Nations) say,
“more than sixty-six thousand peacekeepers from one hundred and five countries
were serving in multinational missions around the world. Sixty operations have
been undertaken since 1948, costing more than two thousand fatalities among the
peacekeeper contingents. Of the total operations, forty-seven had been
established after 1988. At its peak in 2008, the United Nations deployed around
91,700 personnel. The nature of these missions evolved dramatically from their
initial character (peacekeeping) to include, by the end of the century, humanitarian
assistance, civil administration, combatant separation, truce observation,
peacemaking, refugee repatriation, election administration, disarmament, and
nation building (peace building).”
Table 46.3 Size of UN Peacekeeping Forces 1947-2009
1947 30 1963 12600 1979 13300 1995 68900
1948 600 1964 13000 1980 13000 1996 29100
1949 700 1965 13000 1981 12500 1997 26000
1950 700 1966 13000 1982 12500 1998 14600
1951 700 1967 13000 1983 12500 1999 18500
1952 700 1968 6900 1984 12500 2000 38500
1953 700 1969 7200 1985 12500 2001 47800

1954 700 1970 7200 1986 12500 2002 46800
1955 700 1971 7200 1987 12500 2003 45800
1956 700 1972 7200 1988 13000 2004 64700
1957 6800 1973 9800 1989 17900 2005 70100
1958 7200 1974 11100 1990 13700 2006 82100
1959 6800 1975 11300 1991 15300 2007 84300
1960 26200 1976 11500 1992 52200 2008 91700
1961 22500 1977 11500 1993 78800 2009 91300
1962 26500 1978 16700 1994 78400
lll. INDIA AND UN PEACE-KEEPING

India has, from time to time, risked the lives of its soldiers in peacekeeping efforts
of the United Nations not for any strategic gain, but for the service of peace and
order in the world. India’s participation in the UN peace-keeping operations comes
into effect only after:
(a) all other means of peaceful settlement of disputes are exhausted,
(b) it is assured that peace-keeping operation will adhere to the principles of
the UN Charter,
(c) the affected state makes a request for such operation, and that too under
the command of the UN,
(d) it is assured that peace-keeping operations would not violate the
humanitarian activities going on in the concerned state, and
(e) the anticipated duration of the peace-keeping mission is tied down to the
clear objectives of the mission.
Indian troops have participated in some of the most difficult operations and have
suffered causalities in the service of the UN. Because of their professional
excellence, the Indian soldiers have won universal admiration. Indian troops have
participated in peace-keeping operations in four continents—Asia, Africa, Latin
America and Europe. Currently, India is ranked as one of the largest troop
contributors to the UN. She has even offered one brigade of troops to the UN
Standby Arrangements. It is said that over 55,000 Indian military and police
personnel have served under the UN flag at one time or the other.
India provided a paramedical unit to facilitate withdrawal of the sick and the
wounded in Korea in 1950. After the ceasefire, India became the chairman of the
Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission. One brigade participated in the
operation in Korea as authorised by the UN General Assembly through Uniting for
Peace resolution. Indian soldiers provided guards for the prisoners of war. The
Chairman of the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission was Lt. Gen. K.S.
Thimmaya and the Commander of the Custodian Force to take custody of the
Prisoners of War (numbering over 22,000) was Maj. Gen. S.P.P. Thorat.
India also contributed to peace in the Middle East. The United Nations
Emergency Force (UNEF) was created in 1956 following cessation of hostilities
between Egypt and Israel. India provided an infantry battalion which accounted for
the bulk of the UN force. Over eleven years, from 1956 to 1967, more than 12,000
Indian troops took part in UNEF.
Pursuant to the Geneva Accord, an International Control Commission (ICC) for
Indo-China was set up in 1954. India was the Chairman of the Commission which
implemented the ceasefire agreement between Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and
France. India provided one infantry battalion and supporting staff until the ICC was
wound up in 1970.
The UN faced one of its worst crises when war between the government and the
secessionist forces broke out in Congo. The UN operation in the Congo, ONUC,
was unique in many ways. The operation involved heavy casualties. It was also the
first time that the UN undertook an operation in an intra-State, rather than an inter-
State conflict. The operation upheld the national unity and territorial integrity of the
Congo. The Indian contingent lost 39 men in action in Congo. The performance of
the Indian troops was distinguished by their discipline, self-restraint and
humanitarian concern.
Indian Army provided a Force Commander and observers for the Observer
Mission in Yemen in 1963-64 (UNYOM). India participated in the UN operation in
Cyprus (UNFICYP) providing three force commanders to UNFICYP—Gen. K.S.
Thimmaya, Lt. Gen. P.S. Gyani and Lt. Gen. Dewan Prem Chand.
When the situation worsened on Iran-Iraq border, India provided military
observers during the period 1988-90. The Indian observers were at work, following
the end of the Gulf War when the UN appointed the observer mission (UNIKOM).
UN operation in Namibia is considered one of the success stories of the United
Nations. Lt. Gen. Prem Chand of India was the Force Commander. Indian military
observers in Namibia were responsible for the smooth withdrawal of foreign troops,
elections and subsequent handing over of the authority to the government.
UN established the ONUMOZ to restore peace and conduct elections in
Mozambique. India provided a large contingent of staff officers, military observers,
independent headquarters company, and engineering and logistics company. The
operation has ended successfully.
In recent times, one of the biggest peace keeping operation which was
completed successfully was the UN operation in Cambodia. India provided an
infantry battalion, military observers and a field ambulance unit.
India has also regularly sent military observers to various UN operations. This
includes ONUCA (Central America) in 1990-92, ONUSAL (El Salvador) in 1991
and UNOMIL (Liberia) in 1994.
The UN Operation in Somalia is considered one of the most difficult and
challenging operations the UN has ever attempted. Indian naval ships and
personnel were involved in patrolling duties off the Somali coast, in humanitarian
assistance on shore, and also in the transportation of men and material for the
United Nations. The UNOSOM II operation involved peace enforcement under
Chapter VII. The objective was humanitarian relief. The Indian contingent
successfully combined the often conflicting roles of coercive disarmament and
humanitarian relief to the civilian population. With stand-alone capacity, the Indian
brigade had operational responsibilities for one-third of Somalia viz. 1,73,000 sq.
km area of responsibility, the largest ever held by any contingent. In spite of such a
large areas of operation, there were minimum civilian casualties in the area of
responsibility of the Indian contingent.
The Indian contingent dug a large number of wells, constructed schools and
mosques, and ran mobile dispensaries and relief camps, which provided veterinary
care, and medical and humanitarian relief to a large number of Somalis and their
livestock. In spite of suffering casualties the Indian contingent exercised utmost
restraint in firing in self defence. It also organised and carried out rehabilitation and
resettlement of thousands of refugees and helped to repatriate them to their
homes. The Indian contingent played a vital role in reviving the political process by
organising reconciliation meetings. The last remaining units of the Indian
contingent were repatriated from Somalia on board Indian naval ships from
Kismayo port. India demonstrated its capacity to provide an integrated force,
comprising land and naval forces as well as air support.
India provided a contingent comprising one infantry battalion and support
elements to the UN assistance mission in Rwanda to help ensure security for the
refugees, and to create conditions for free and fair elections. After successful
completion of the assignment, the Indian contingent was repatriated in April 1996.
The Indian army has participated in the successive phases of the UN mission in
Angola since 1989. The Indian contingent comprised one infantry battalion group,
one engineers company, staff officers and military observers. The contingent has
made a sizeable contribution towards construction of quartering camps. The Indian
contingent was also involved in rebuilding bridges over the Conga, Rio Quisaju,
Rio Mugige and Rio N’hia Rivers. One high risk task was the demining of the main
arterial road connecting Lobito and Huambo and repairing a 60 mile stretch of the
road. The Indian contingent has also built a 3,300 feet long airstrip at Londuimbali.
The Deputy Force Commander was an Indian army officer. India also participated
in the UN Observer Mission in Angola (MONUA) which succeeded UNAVEM III.
The Chief Military Observer of the UN Observer Mission in Sierra Leone
(UNOMSIL) was also an Indian army officer. India provided a medical unit and
civilian police personnel to UNOMSIL.
After the upgradation of the UN Mission in Sierra Leone in November-December
1999, India provided two infantry battalion groups, a quick reaction company, a
field engineering company, a level III medical facility, a special force company, an
artillery battery, transport and attack helicopters and the backbone of the force
headquarters in Freetown. Maj. Gen. V.K. Jetley was the first UN Force
Commander in Sierra Leone.
India has also provided an infantry battalion to the UN Interim Force in Lebanon
(UNIFIL). The Force Commander of UNIFIL is Maj. Gen. L.M. Tewari.
India is also currently participating in the UN Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea
(UNMEE) with an infantry battalion, a Force Reserve Company and a Field
Engineer Construction Company.
Recent peacekeeping operations have tended to be multi-dimensional, and
include police monitors and election observers. India has contributed police
personnel and election observers to the UN peacekeeping operations in
Cambodia, Mozambique and Angola. India provided 123 police personnel to UN
mission in Haiti (Phase Il). India has also provided police monitors for the UN
International Police Task Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sierra Leone
(UNOMSIL), Western Sahara (MINURSO) and Kosovo (UNMIK). In addition, two
companies of
CRPF have been deployed in UNMIK as Special Police units. The Police
Commissioner of MINURSO is an Indian Police Officer, Mr. O.P. Rathor.
India sent Lt. Gen. Satish Nambiar as the Force Commander of UNPROFOR in
former Yugoslavia in 1992-93.
India has also provided senior staff to assist the UN Secretary-General at the UN
Headquarters. Major Gen. |. J. Rikhye served as Military Advisor to the UN
Secretary General from 1960 to 1969.
India also hosted a UN Regional Training Workshop for Peacekeeping
Operations in New Delhi during January 20-26, 1996 in which 17 countries of the
Asia-Pacific region participated. Mr. Kofi Annan, the then Under Secretary General
for Peacekeeping visited India in this connection. India also held an International
Seminar on UN Peacekeeping in March 1999 in which over 70 countries
participated. The United Services Institution (USI) of India hosted another seminar
in New Delhi in September 2000 in collaboration with the Swedish National
Defence College. A Centre for UN Peacekeeping (CUNPK) was set up under the
aegis of USI in New Delhi in 2000. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan visited the
Centre in March 2001 during his visit to India.
India has considerable experience in de-mining activities and has made
significant contributions to the de-mining work in various missions in Rwanda,
Mozambique, Somalia, Angola and Cambodia. Experienced Indian army engineers
have been employed for training of selected personnel from the host countries to
execute mine clearance programmes as also to generate awareness of the
problem among local people. Indian Army has also undertaken mine clearance
projects in support of repatriation and rehabilitation programmes of the UNHCR.
India has currently (January 2008) over 9300 personnel in 11 out of 17 ongoing
UN peace-keeping operations in various trouble-spots around the world.
IV. INDIA’S DEMAND FOR UN SECURITY COUNCIL’S PERMANENT

SEAT
India’s faith in UN and its system has no parallel. She regards the United Nations
System as essential for the peace and security of the world. That is one reason
that she has supported it in all its activities. Sne was one of the original signatories
of the UN Charter when it was established in 1945, though she was, then, not a
sovereign nation. India has always thought of the UN Charter as one that can
ensure world its safety from all wars. She is convinced that if the UN principles are
faithfully adhered to, and the objectives for which the UN stands are seriously
attempted, the world would become a place worth living in and worth enjoying.
India believes in the UN Charter and in its principles. Sne has served on almost all
the organs of the UN System and has contributed her bit in every field that belongs
to the UN System.
India’s support to the UN system is a clear indication that the system need not
be discarded and that it be given a fair chance. The UN accomplishments have
not, indeed, gone waste. The world has not been dragged into any major war like
those of either 1914-18 or of 1939-45; minor conflicts in any continent have met
with immediate and prompt UN assistance in the form of peace-keeping forces;
one such UN operation every year on an average since 1948; the economic and
social activities, together with the humanitarian and human rights efforts have won
the applause of almost everyone; the world court has done its job admirably; the
numerous specialised agencies working under the UN have created a stable web
of social, economic and cultural relationships. The United Nations System has
done well in the tasks for which it has been created.
The handicaps of the UN system are well known. The General Assembly
represents the world, but its proceedings are usually stage-managed. It is
supposed to control the Security Council, but its teeth are often ineffective. The
Security Council is, of all the principal organs of the UN, the most powerful, but it is
itself controlled by its permanent members, which make the council dance to their
tunes. Each permanent member, with veto power, can hold the council to ransom
and stall its decisions. The whole United Nations is dictated by even one
permanent member. Though the Secretary General does not belong to any of the
permanent member states, he cannot afford to annoy any of the permanent
members of the Security Council.
The fact of the matter is that the United Nations is a firm which is owned by the
five permanent members of the Security Council who are effectively its owners,
and who dictate the rules of the firm and carry on its business the way they like.
Among themselves, the owners keep fighting and take sides whenever it suits
them. They very seldom agree, and if they do, the agreement is at best a
compromise or a bargain.
The organisation of the United Nations was hardly founded on any democratic
principle. The veto positions in the Security Council which is the UN’s executive
vital organ, were distributed among the winners of the World War II—the United
States, the Soviet Union (later Russia), United Kingdom, France, and Republic of
China (later People’s Republic of China). Germany, Japan and lItaly—the Axis
Powers —fought the war and lost, and were denied any position in the Council,
much less any permanent seats. The permanent membership of the Security
Council was granted as an award for fighting the enemies as allies. There was,
thus, hardly any other considerations for bestowing the honour as permanent
member of the council; once honoured, the firm stands owned by the five owners—
the permanent members of the Security Council with each having veto power.
Even the General Assembly cannot dethrone any one of these.
India is well aware of the impediments under which the United Nations has been
working since its inception. Of late, India has begun supporting a strengthened and
revitalised United Nations with its various organs functioning within their mandates
in accordance with the UN Charter. In fact, India supports an enhanced role for the
United Nations in development and development cooperation dialogue, for India
believes that cooperation, as central to the UN’s agenda, is indispensable to the
maintenance of international peace and security. India wants the world forum to be
guided by the principles of transparency, non-discrimination, consensus and equal
respect for the dignity of all individuals, societies and nations, and, therefore, wants
the UN to attune itself to such principles.
With regard to the reforms relating to the Security Council, India has a definite
view. India feels that the Security Council has remained largely static since its
strength rose from 11 to 15 in 1965. For the last forty years or so, there has been
no change in the council’s strength, though there has been a considerable growth
in the membership of the General Assembly. The members of the UN have
increased considerably as have its activities. There is, therefore, a strong
argument for the increase in the strength of the Security Council, especially in its
permanent membership. Furthermore, the permanent membership of the Security
Council revolves around the industrialised nations while majority of the UN
members belong to the developing nations. The present Security Council hardly
represents the developing nations and hardly addresses their problems. India,
therefore, favours an expanded, but democratically constituted and a relatively
more representative Security Council which, in India’s views, would enjoy greater
political authority and legitimacy. India favours the expansion of permanent
members’ category to be based on agreed criteria rather than on any pre-
determined relation; the approach to be followed being transparent. India also
wants the expansion of both the permanent and non-permanent categories,
demographically and geographically represented.
India’s demand for permanent membership of UN Security Council has a strong
case though the critics offer numerous objections:
(a) India hardly has such a case; it is only in the media that there is a noise
for India’s permanent membership of the Council,
(b) those who support India’s candidacy (the Africans for example, or certain
European dignitaries) are unfamiliar with the UN working and as such
are likely to wriggle out.
There is also an argument that India had not enjoyed the sitting seat in the
Council for almost fifteen years as of 2008. India, it is argued, lacks diplomacy,
wins more enemies than friends; she is more idealistic than realistic, withdraws
more readily than asserts. Poverty, unemployment and_ illiteracy, rural
backwardness and the like are her liabilities.
India’s plus points, emphasising on her call for permanent membership of the
Security Council, are better placed than those on the other side. India is a nuclear
power; a responsible nuclear power. She is the world’s second largest populous
nation and is the world’s largest liberal democracy. She is also the world’s twelfth
largest economy and fourth largest in terms of purchasing power parity. Currently,
she maintains the world’s third largest armed forces. India is one of the largest
contributors of troops to UN-mandated peace-keeping missions.
India’s bid is unequivocally supported by permanent members of the UN
Security Council; members such as France, Russia and the United Kingdom. The
Chinese government in Beijing has recently advocated India’s candidacy, though
hesitatingly, i.e., permanent seat without veto power (April 2005). The veto power,
however, is the most defining feature of a permanent member of the Security
Council in the eyes of the G4 countries. To be denied the veto power is just
another way for the five current permanent members to retain their superiority.
Although, the USA officially does not support India’s bid, she has privately been
eager to work with India (for example, Indo-US nuclear civil deal).
Taking into account India’s huge population and the fast growing economic and
political powers, there is a strong case for India’s position to clinch a permanent
seat of the Security Council. India, we must remember, is proud of her democratic
ideals which she has maintained since the beginning of her independence.
Secularism is another asset while our relations with the other countries, since
1947, are based on the principles of peaceful coexistence. Our non-alignment
policy has earned for us a position worth cherishing.
Practire Questions
1. Describe India’s role in the UN System. (700-800 words)

2. Why did India’s role in the UN System change from time
to time? (700-800 words)
3. Give an account of UN Peace-keeping Operations. (700-
800 words)
4. Discuss India and the UN Peace-keeping efforts. (700-
800 words)
5. What role did India play in the UN Peace-keeping
forces?(700-800 words)
6. What improvements do you suggest in the UN System?
(200-250 words)
7. Discuss the case for and against India’s claim for a a>
permanent seat in the Security Council. (700-800 words) —_ |
India And The Nuclear
Question
hat is always permanent in the lives of nations is

VV the permanence of their national interest. The US
Munroe doctrine of 1823, for example, was not
something that the American foreign policy makers wanted to
pursue for all times to come, but it was the American national
interest that had demanded so at that time. Again, it was the
American national interest that sought the American Senate
to refuse approval to the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, as a
consequence of which the USA never entered the League of
Nations. The US national interest during the early years of the
twentieth century did not want America to entangle itself in
the affairs of others. However, barely three decades later,
American national interest was so characterised that it sought
the USA not only to become one of the leaders of the United
Nations, but also lead the Western bloc, which was to preside
over the world’s proceedings in later decades. National
interest is the only meaningful factor in the foreign policy of
every nation. Foreign policy changes in accordance with the
demands of national interest, and national interest is itself
shaped and reshaped by factors working within domestic
atmosphere and environments working outside its borders.
I. INDIA: NATIONAL INTEREST AND THE

NUCLEAR QUESTION
The nuclear question in India’s foreign policy was a later
addition; almost after a half-century of her non-alignment
policy. When India rose as a sovereign nation and began
pursuing her foreign policy under the leadership of Jawaharlal
Nehru, she thought of world peace as a_ necessary
component of her national interest. World peace, as a part of
national interest, was then linked to its basic thrust on
peaceful settlement of disputes and peaceful co-existence,
repudiation of power politics and disarmament. Nehru
believed that total disarmament is an answer to all the ills of
wars: if war has to be won, peace would have to be attained,
and if peace has to be attained, disarmament would have to
be practiced; for armament race is always a threat to peace.
During his years as India’s Prime Minister and until his death
in 1964, Nehru advocated disarmament as a necessary
condition of world peace. His whole philosophy of non-
alignment was directed towards defusing the cold war
rivalries which had always attempted to arm the opposing
camps. Despite all our efforts to seek disarmament the veto-
power countries had already acquired the nuclear weapons or
were on the verge of acquiring them. Our disarmament policy
was Clear: total and universal disarmament, for armaments of
any type were, for us, dangerous and those which could lead
to destruction of the world.
National interest guides the affairs of nations in all times.
The security of a nation is always what constitutes the interest
of that nation. There is no greater interest of a nation than its
own national security. Our security, during the early days of
our independence demanded the policy of peaceful co-
existence, peaceful settlement of international disputes, and
resolution of conflicts through arbitration, and friendship and
cordial relations with all the nations. It was, then, the age of
Panchsheel, fostering friendship with China, extending all
concessions to Pakistan, holding on to the ideals of non-
alignment, fighting for the cause of the enslaved people, and
repudiating all efforts to divide the world into rival camps. The
1960s was a decade when our security came under heavy
strains: the mounting weaponisation of Pakistan through
American arms, the attack on our borders by China in
October 1962, the Pakistani attack on India in 1965. All these
made us realise the folly of ignoring our defence. What should
have been thought as a means of our national interest (i-.e.,
non-alignment as a means) was made by us the national
interest itself. We realised that international politics does not
conduct itself on ideals, but on the realities of politics. By the
end of 1960s, we had to become, and we became security-
conscious.
The nuclear test by India in May 1974 was not a test for
attaining any nuclear weapons. It was a test, as we had then
emphatically stated, for peaceful purposes—a _ nuclear
peaceful explosion (NPE). What we made clear then was that
we are a nuclear country and not a nuclear weapons country,
which meant that we intend using nuclear power for peaceful
purposes, i.e. for agriculture, medicine and the like. The
Indian Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, had stated: “We do not
have any bombs. We do not intend to use this knowledge or
this power for any purpose other than peaceful purposes.”
She wrote to the prime minister of Pakistan, “We remain fully
committed to our traditional policy of developing nuclear
energy resources entirely for peaceful purposes. The recent
nuclear experiment conducted by our scientists in no way
alters this policy.” The 1974 test, however, ensured beyond
any doubt our potential nuclear capabilities.
Twenty-four years later, i.e. in May 1998, India’s
declaration of being a nuclear weapon state through her
nuclear explosions was as much in India’s interest as was the
1974 test or the demand for total disarmament in the early
years of 1950s and 1960s. The 1998 test was a continuation
of India’s nuclear policy as was that of her disarmament one.
By conducting the 1998 test, India’s disarmament policy has
not changed: we do not seek nuclear weaponisation, nor do
we advocate war. The 1998 test only fulfils our demand for
national security. We cannot disarm ourselves when there are
threats at our doorsteps. With regard to our disarmament
policy, we hold the same views as of before. We hold the
view that disarmament is essential for world peace and that if
it has to be there, it has to be total and universal. We neither
endorse the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) of 1968, nor the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) of 1996 on the
grounds that the two treaties were discriminatory. In the
rationale for nuclear explosions of 1998, A.B. Vajpayee, the
then prime minister had rather aptly said, “In the absence of
universal and non-discriminatory disarmament, we cannot
accept a regime that creates an arbitrary division between
haves and have-nots. India believes that it is the sovereign
right of every nation to make a judgment regarding its
supreme national interest and exercise its sovereign choice ...
At the global level, there is no evidence yet on the part of the
nuclear explosion states to make decisive and irreversible
steps in moving towards a nuclear weapons-free world.
Instead, the NPT has been extended indefinitely and
unconditionally perpetuating the existence of nuclear
weapons in the hands of the few countries that are also
permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.”
In the absence of security compulsions, there was no
nuclearisation of weapons in the country, but as the security
needs required, the national interest of the country required
us to have such weapons.
ll. THE EVOLUTION OF INDIA’S NUCLEAR POLICY

When India had become free, the world had already
witnessed the beginning of the nuclear age. The USA had
made known to the world that she was a nuclear power and
that the bombing of the two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and
Nagasaki in August 1945 had demonstrated the American
nuclear capabilities. The other countries, mostly the
permanent members of the UN Security Council, were on
their way to acquire such power. Nuclear tests were being
planned. By 1954, the world had already witnessed about 65
nuclear tests. Thus, at the dawn of our independence, we
found that the nuclear age had already dawned, and we knew
for sure the way in which the world was moving. The tragedy
was that we had not learnt the lessons from the mass
destruction of human lives during World War Il. This strange
argument pleased us most: for attaining peace, we were
arming ourselves, making new experiments with newer,
rather more dangerous weapons; nuclear, biological and
chemical. The world was already asking what was the
rationale behind the bombings by the USA when the Axis
powers, Germany and Italy, had already surrendered, and
Japan was going to surrender at any moment? What was the
logic of dropping another bomb when one bomb had already
done unexpected damage? It is, as it was really difficult to
justify, the use of nuclear power on any ground. Once amidst
the nuclear age, there was no reason for the rival group not to
undertake tests. The USSR followed the USA in 1949 with
her atomic bomb and thereafter started the race for acquiring
nuclear weapons. The power of a nation came to be adjudged
on whether it had nuclear bombs. Very soon, then, all the
veto-power states of the Security Council became nuclear
weapons states.
Independent India began her life amidst a world which was
amassing weapons, a United Nations which was to be
controlled by the five permanent members of the Security
Council and the Security Council which was dictated and
dominated by rival groups. India found herself amidst cold
war, and in a world in which the most powerful sought to bully
the most weak and also a world where peace was the
possible victim. Amidst the mass of weapons, the world was
the most insecure. Lovers of peace and an apostle of non-
violence as we were, we thought of nuclear weapons not only
as weapons of war, but also as weapons of mass destruction.
With us, a nuclear weapon-free world would help secure not
only our national security, but also the security of all the
nations and thus, ensure peace in the world community.
Disarmament, we rightly thought during the initial years of
our independence, alone could ensure us_ peace;
disarmament that is global, universal, equal, and non-
discriminatory. The crux of our nuclear policy is that there
cannot be peace where some have weapons and others do
not have them; we have a bomb, and our neighbour does not.
In fact, there can be no peace if our neighbours and we have
bombs, for in such a situation, there is always the possibility
of war. The best situation is that neither we, nor our
neighbours, and none else have the bomb—t is a situation of
global, universal, equal and non-discriminatory approach
which alone guarantees peace and security in the world.
Immediately after independence, India sought disarmament
and called for an end to all nuclear weapon testing as the first
essential step for peace among nations. In 1954, Jawaharlal
Nehru sought negotiations for prohibition and elimination of
nuclear weapons and in the interim, a standstill agreement to
halt nuclear testing. Until then, around sixty or so nuclear
tests were already undertaken. No one heeded us. In 1963,
an agreement was concluded to ban atmospheric testing, but
by this time, certain countries had already developed the
technologies for conducting underground nuclear tests and
the nuclear arms race continued unabated. More than three
decades later, over 2000 nuclear tests had been conducted
with a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) opening up
for signatures in 1996. India did not sign either the CTBT or
the early non-proliferation treaty (NPT) of 1968 as India found
both discriminatory; and in both, we found our security needs
largely ignored.
Our scientists had shown that India has enough nuclear
capabilities when the nuclear explosions test was conducted
in 1974. We had become a nuclear power, but had no nuclear
bomb with us. We decided to make use of nuclear power
purely for peaceful purposes. Until most parts of 1970s,
1980s and 1990s we had no intentions of becoming a nuclear
power state. Had we the intentions to make the nuclear
bomb, we would not have waited for over two decades. India
was committed then as she is today to global and universal
disarmament. Our reasons in going towards nuclearisation of
weapons were different. We opted to become a nuclear
weapons state because we had no other choice.
The decades of 1980s and 1990s, we must remember, had
been witnessing a further deterioration of our security
environment as a result of nuclear and missile proliferation. A
pattern of clandestine acquisition of nuclear materials,
missiles and related technologies had also come _ into
existence. During this period, India had become a victim of
externally aided and abetted terrorism, militancy and
clandestine war through hired mercenaries. The Islamabad-
Beijing-Washington nexus also worried us. Though Europe
was undergoing a transformation in the wake of the end of
cold war, yet our security concerns remained unaddressed.
We had to think about ourselves, our own security, and not
wait for another attack either from China or from Pakistan. At
the global level, the nuclear weapons states were making no
efforts to bring about a nuclear weapon-free world by
proposing any project of dismantling the nuclear weapons.
Instead, the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) was_ being
extended indefinitely and unconditionally, perpetuating the
existence of nuclear weapons in the hands of the five veto
power states of the UN Security Council.
The 1998 nuclear test was an admission of the fact that
India is now a nuclear weapons state. It is not a conferment
that we seek from others, nor is it a status that we want to be
granted by others. It is our strength which bestows upon us a
responsibility and makes us more responsible. It is not an
instrument of attack, but a means to defend our people. The
1998 tests were not directed towards any country, but only
assured the people of India that they would be secure from
any attack. Our nuclear policy has not changed, nor has it
violated any agreement; in the tests of 1974 or of 1998, we
had only kept our nuclear options open and left to ourselves
as to what decisions we have to make. These tests did not
alter our relations with other nations. We continue to remain
engaged in substantive dialogue with our neighbours to
improve relations with them, especially neighbours such as
China and Pakistan. We remain committed to our ongoing
confidence building measures, and to the promotion of peace
and stability.
The 1998 tests are not repudiation of our disarmament
policy, but are a continuation of what we had already
committed ourselves to. We are for universal disarmament
and not disarmament for some and armaments for others; we
are for total disarmament, and not for piecemeal
disarmament; we are for equal disarmament, and not for
discriminatory policies.
lll. INDIA°S NUCLEAR POLICY

Former Prime Minister, Moraraji Desai, in an interview to
Barbara Walters of American Broadcasting Company, talked
about the nuclear policy, saying that “even if the entire
country is destroyed in their absence”, he would never go in
for nuclear weapons. However, when the supreme national
interests eventually dictated that India had no option, but to
go ahead on the nuclear road, India adopted a_ purely
defensive nuclear policy, summarised in one phrase: “no first
use nuclear policy.” In accordance with the 1925 Geneva
Protocol on a no-first-use treaty on chemical weapons and
toxins, the nuclear policy of India is not only consistent with its
culture, but is also extremely responsible and aware of the
horrendous destruction that nuclear weapons can cause.
The country opted to develop a “credible minimum” nuclear
deterrence due to the widespread recognition that nuclear
weapons are political weapons and not weapons of war-
fighting, and their sole purpose is to deter the use and threat
of the use of nuclear weapons. There is, thus, a broad
national consensus on the development of a credible
minimum nuclear deterrent capability and the doctrine of no
first use. Beyond that level of deterrence, India does not
foresee any more nuclear capability. The concept of
deterrence, in India, goes by denial rather than by
punishment. In an interview with /ndia Today, soon after the
1998 nuclear tests, the then prime minister, A.B. Vajpayee,
had said that there was no need to cover the nuclear
explosions, “with a veil of secrecy ... India now is a nuclear
weapons state.” On May 27, 1998, Vajpayee made a
statement: “We do not intend to use these (nuclear) weapons
for aggression or for mounting threats against any country;
these are weapons of self-defence, to ensure that India is not
subject to nuclear threats or coercion. We do not intend to
engage in arms race.” On May 29, 1998, the day following
Pakistan’s nuclear tests at Chagai, Vajpayee said in the
Parliament that India had declared a voluntary moratorium on
further nuclear testing, was ready to engage in negotiations
for Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), had undertaken to
exercise stringent export controls on nuclear and missile
related technologies as well as those relating to other
weapons of mass destruction. India had offered to discuss a
no-first-use agreement with Pakistan and other countries,
bilaterally or in a multilateral forum.
On May 11 and 13, 1998, a total of five nuclear devices in
the deserts of Pokharan were tested. These took both, the
people of India and the world by surprise, raising eyebrows in
some quarters. A number of questions began being asked by
domestic and foreign analysts: How does India view nuclear
weapons? Would it, after having conducted tests, use nuclear
weapons? How do these new developments fit in with the
traditional Indian policy of non-alignment? Would India join
the nuclear club or remain aloof? How would India react to
the world public opinion opposing India’s explosions and
tests? Together with these, numerous analysts, including N.
Ram, Praful Bidwai, and Achin Vanaik too have questioned
India’s nuclear tests, though some of the arguments they
offered were not very forth-right.
The statements made by the Indian leadership including
those by the Prime Minister and the official versions given
from time to time suggest a number of broad guidelines with
regard to the nuclear policy as a consequence of nuclear
tests. These guidelines may be stated as:
(a) minimum deterrence;
(b) no-first-use (NFU) and non-use of nuclear weapons
against non-nuclear states;
(c) a programme of missile testing;
(d) a moratorium on nuclear tests and accession to the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT);
(e) negotiating a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty
(FMCT);
(f) export control; and
(g) promoting global nuclear disarmament.
In her nuclear policy, India is committed to a credible
minimum deterrence. The Prime Minister stated in a major
statement on December 15, 1998, “Just as our conventional
capability has been employed in order to safeguard the
territorial integrity and sovereignty of India against any use of
threat of force, the adoption of our nuclear deterrent posture
has also followed the same logic. We have announced our
intention to maintain a minimum deterrence, but one that is
credible.” The major question involved in “minimum
deterrence” is: ‘what number of deterrence?’ The government
policy does not indicate it, though ‘minimum’ would refer to
the fewest possible, and the fewest necessary to dissuade
the adversary to undertake a nuclear strike; though the USA
remains dissatisfied on what constitutes ‘minimum’ for India.
With regard to no-first-use or no use against the non-
nuclear powers, India’s position is more than clear:
(a) nuclear weapons with India are defensive and not
offensive, meaning thereby, that India would not
use nuclear weapons first, on her own;
(b) these weapons are weapons of self-defence and
not of war;
(c) India would not, these being weapons of defence,
amass nuclear weapons; nor would she use them
as instruments of blackmail or coercion.
Vajpayee had made it clear, “India shall not engage in an(y)
arms race. India shall not also subscribe (to) or reinvent the
doctrines of cold war.” India’s offer of a _no-first-use
agreement to Pakistan has not been received well by that
country. Missile testing is essential in so far as a minimum
deterrent would require an appropriate delivery vehicle. As
things stand, India has strike aircraft which could be used to
deliver gravity bombs. The Mirage 2000s, Jaguars and
Sukhoi-30s would be India’s future striking instruments.
However, deterrents, in the longer run, would probably
include on-ground and sea-launched missiles as well.
The 250-kilometre range Prithvi missile can be configured
to carry a small Hiroshima type nuclear device. Though these
may help assure India against Pakistan, they would not
against China. India needs to develop a long-range surface-
to-air missile and a sea-launched ballistic missile for a
submarine force. This was the reason that despite the
pressure from the United Nations, India has insisted on its
right to test various missile systems. After the successful tests
of May 1998, the Prime Minister expressed satisfaction and
stated that the tests have achieved their desired objectives
and that there was no further testing required. He, thus,
declared moratorium on further nuclear testing. He also
stated in the Parliament that India would be willing to sign
the CTBT. In his address to the fifty-third UN General
Assembly, he had said, “We are prepared to bring these
discussions (with key interlocutors in the international
community) to a successful conclusion, so that the entry into
force of the CTBT is not delayed beyond September 1999.”
India’s signing the CTBT had two conditions:
(a) permanent members of the Security Council also
adhere to the treaty, and
(b) there is the positive environment so as to enable
the accession to the CTBT, especially by India’s
interlocutors.
With regard to negotiating a fissile materials cut-off
treaty, India agreed to join and participate in the negotiations
in Geneva at the Conference of Disarmament, provided the
treaty would not be discriminatory and meets India’s security
needs. However, the government ruled out a moratorium by
India on fissile material production, and without prejudice to
the existing stockpiles. India reiterated her stand to
strengthen export controls of the proliferation-related items.
She even sought export control laws on nuclear missiles,
so as to bring them in line with the global norms. Addressing
the UN General Assembly, the then prime minister had said,
“We have an effective system of export controls and shall
make it more stringent where necessary” stating that India’s
position is better than those who have signed NPT. Despite
the May 1998 tests and India’s weaponisation, the country is
committed to support the goal of global disarmament.
Vajpayee declared, “India remains committed to the basic
tenets of our foreign policy; A conviction that global
elimination of nuclear weapons will enhance its security as
well as that of the rest of the world.”
IV. NUCLEAR DOCTRINE

The nuclear policy of India as it came to be seen in the world
had mixed feelings, most of these did not approve of India’s
policy. In India, there had begun a debate, with view points
summarised as:
(a) rejectionism;
(b) pragmatism; and
(c) minimalism (see Kanti Bajpai’s article “India’s
Nuclear Posture after Pokhran II”).
The rejectionists hold the view that the nuclear weapons
are regrettably necessary in a world where there are others
with nuclear powers who refuse to give them up and who may
threaten India’s security. Arundhati Ghose, India’s permanent
representative to the Conference on Disarmament in 1996
had argued, “I would like to state that for as long as we
continue to live in a nuclear world, we would need nuclear
weapons for our security.” Muchkund Dubey, India’s former
foreign secretary, had also pointed out, “Acquisition of nuclear
deterrence is necessary; even indispensable condition for
safeguarding our security, for gaining the bargaining clout
which has so far been lamentably missing and for making an
effective contribution to shaping a new world order.” Thus, the
rejectionists conclude that if peace is to prevail, nuclear
disarmament is both, desirable and feasible; desirable in so
far as nuclear weapons may lead to catastrophic damages;
feasible in so far as the nuclear weapons are ethically
repugnant if they are not illegal under international law. The
pragmatists believe that the nuclear powers are vital for
India’s security especially in a world which shows no signs of
moving towards abolition of nuclear weapons. They may
argue that India’s security is encircled by Pakistan and China,
the two neighbouring nuclear powers of India. And then, the
nuclear weapons states have always kept reaffirming the
importance of their nuclear weapons. The pragmatists argue
that under such circumstances, why should India not
concentrate on her security? The maximalists want India to
arm itself as quickly as possible with nuclear powers for
security reasons. They go beyond the “minimum deterrence”
level, some proposing as large a number as 300-400
weapons warheads, so as to fight and not just deter nuclear
war.
India’s nuclear policy is neither directed towards
aggression, nor towards invading and dominating others.
Nuclearisation of weapons was the product of circumstances
in which India had very limited choice. In fact, we had to
nuclearise our weapons only to ensure security of our country
and the safety of our people. When there are nuclear
weapons at one’s doorsteps, there is no hope of peace and
stability. We chose to have nuclear weapons so as to tell
those who had them that we can hardly be bullied. The very
fact that we too possess power would deter others to take any
liberty with us. Nuclear weapons are not weapons of
destruction and in fact, should not be so construed. They
should help to save us and not destroy us, and as such have
to be defensive instruments of self-defence. They have to be
deterrents, regarded only as political weapons, sufficient to
act as prohibitives.
The Indian government through a task force constituted a
three-tier National Security Council (NSC) with a full-time
National Security Advisor and a National Security Advisor
Board (NSAB) in mid-1998 so as to formulate India’s nuclear
doctrine whose key features were:
(a) India to pursue a credible minimum deterrence
strictly under civilian control;
(b) any threat of use of nuclear weapons against India
would invoke measures to counter the threat; and
(c) any nuclear attack on India and its forces would
result in punitive retaliation with nuclear weapons.
It is clear that India would not first initiate any nuclear strike,
but would respond with punitive retaliation should deterrence
fail. India would not resort to use nuclear weapons against
states which do not possess nuclear weapons or are not
aligned with nuclear weapons powers. Thus, the nuclear
doctrine provides a broad framework for the development,
deployment and employment of India’s nuclear forces. While
establishing a nuclear capability, the doctrine proposes to
have a sufficient survivable and operationally ready nuclear
force based on the principle of no-first-use of nuclear
weapons. It emphasises that the level of India’s nuclear
capability needs to be consistent with maximum credibility,
survivability, effectiveness, safety and security. It also
provides for the establishment of effective intelligence and
early warning system. It recommends that India’s nuclear
forces be based on a triad of strategic bombers, land-based
ballistic missiles and submarine launched ballistic missiles
(SLBMS). Though, the sea-based nuclear capability would
take some decades to develop, nuclear forces are expected
to survive a first strike having no option, but to ensure that at
least 50 to 60 per cent of the arsenal is made comparatively
invulnerable by being maintained as SLBMs. The doctrine
highlights the cardinal supremacy of civilian control over
India’s nuclear weapons and proposes that the final authority
for the release of nuclear weapons must vest with the Prime
Minister or his designated successor(s).
The doctrine rejects the concept of nuclear war fighting and
does not propose to match the nuclear warheads and delivery
system with those of any of its potential adversaries. Nor
does the doctrine seek to indulge in any nuclear blackmailing.
The doctrine, in its nature, lays emphasis on retaliation and
not on the use of nuclear weapons at the first instance. This is
so because India regards the use of nuclear weapons as the
gravest threat to humanity and to peace and stability in the
international system.
The nuclear doctrine had a mixed reaction. Amitabh Mattoo
called it “an unapologetic realpolitik articulation of the
principal raison d’etre of India’s nuclear weapons.” R.
Prasannan called it a wish list attached to the collective
speeches of the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues.
Bharat Warlawalia criticised the minimum deterrence to be of
different meanings vis-a-vis China and Pakistan. Though,
most of the Western media did not think kindly of India’s
nuclear doctrine, France welcomed it as “a logical and a
wanted step”.
Numerous analysists have concluded that India has gained
nothing and has, through the proposed nuclear doctrine,
unnecessarily decided to bear the horrendous costs of a
nuclear strike by choosing to adopt a purely retaliatory
nuclear policy. The question sometimes asked is, ‘will India
commit a nuclear strike, if deterrence fails?’ The answer,
Rear Admiral Raja Menon, says, “Hardly! The first launch
decision itself would take so much time that it would delay the
whole operation.”
The country’s nuclear doctrine is not all foolproof. For
some, it is not even retaliatory, but is merely self-declaratory
while, for others, it is only rhetorical. One would do well to
peruse the following comments:
1. India’s nuclear policy helps deter the use of nuclear
weapons. Accordingly, they are not meant to deter the
use and threat of the use of conventional weapons,
chemical weapons, and biological weapons.
2. India’s nuclear weapons are narrowly focused in so far
as they defend India through deterrence. Our nuclear
weapons do not provide deterrence in all circumstances,
especially in limited conventional conflict such as in
Kargil in 1999.
3. India’s first use of nuclear weapons would operate only
when deterrence fails, and only when the adversary uses
nuclear weapons against India. All this would, obviously,
circumscribe severely the potential development,
deployment and employment of our nuclear arsenal.
4. India’s no first use doctrine is a defensive doctrine, a
precautionary step, and retaliation would ensue only
when the weapons are used against India. This is acting
in selfdefence. Does this mean that India can use nuclear
weapons against a state which attacks India and which,
in itself, is not a nuclear weapon state? Is India obliged to
use nuclear weapons whether they are necessary or not?
The questions have not been addressed by the nuclear
doctrine.
5. The doctrine is based on the concept of minimum
deterrence that implies that India’s nuclear policy;
strategy and posture would be guided by the minimalist
principle. The emphasis on the ‘minimum’ does not at
times work to the advantage of the concerned country.
To sum up, India’s desire to develop a credible minimum
deterrent against nuclear blackmail and the threat of the use
of nuclear weapons is a_ justifiable national security
imperative. India’s no-first-use, retaliation-only nuclear
doctrine is both morally befitting and culturally worthy of our
civilisational heritage. India’s nuclear doctrine is operationally
sound, though the country is yet to demonstrate it.
India and France nuclear deal

India has signed a deal to buy nuclear reactors from France,
following talks between President Nicolas Sarkozy and Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh in Delhi in 2010. The agreement
was signed at a ceremony attended by the two leaders. The
president said that France had clinched deals worth about
$20 billion (£13.5 billion) with India.
Under the civil nuclear deal, two French reactors worth $10
billion (£6.3 billion) are expected to be built at Jaitapur in the
western Indian state of Maharashtra, one of India’s most
industrialised states. India has 22 nuclear reactors and is
seeking to expand its energy sector, opening up a market
estimated at £90 billion (£55 billion) over 15 years. There are
issues with regard to the other technical matters, including
prices. These are the subject matter of negotiations. France is
competing with American and Russian firms for a slice of
India’s civilian nuclear energy market, worth an estimated
$150 billion, after Delhi signed a series of civilian nuclear
deals that ended its status as a nuclear pariah. France, the
world’s second largest producer of nuclear energy after the
US, hopes to lead an international revival of the industry,
which is expected to benefit from worries about global
warming and soaring energy prices. Hungry for energy to fuel
its booming economy, India has a population of 1.2 billion, but
gets only a tiny fraction of its electricity from nuclear power.
Supporters of the deal say that having more nuclear plants
in India could help reduce global demand for oil and gas while
at the same time significantly reducing the country’s pollution
levels. France has backed India’s bid for a permanent seat at
the UN Security Council, and supported India’s membership
of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a gathering of countries that
export civil nuclear technology.
Analysis of the nuclear deal and issues under Narendra

Modi
Taking civil nuclear cooperation forward was high on the
agenda of the Indian PM’s visit to Paris. France was the first
country to sign a bilateral civil nuclear pact with India after the
Nuclear Suppliers Group’s landmark waiver in September
2008. France, which depends on nuclear energy for the bulk
of its electricity needs, is also special in India’s quest for civil
nuclear energy as it supplied nuclear fuel to the Tarapur
nuclear plant when the world’s big economies were shunning
India for the nuclear tests. Now, the India-France civil nuclear
cooperation is set to fructify with the two sides set to resolve
some lingering issues to finalise administrative arrangements
for French nuclear giant Areva to set up six atomic reactors in
Jaitapur in Maharashtra.
The space partnership shows that sky is virtually the limit.
Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) and its French
counterpart,Centre National de Etudes Spatiales (CNES),
have been collaborating for decades on space technologies
and jointly launching satellites. The ISRO and CNES jointly
developed the Satellite for ARGOS and ALTIKA (SARAL)
carrying a radar altimeter to study sea surface altitude and a
data collection platform for collecting data from ocean buoys
and weather data centres (ARGOS). It’s a_ win-win
collaboration: CNES provided the payloads and ISRO was
responsible for satellite platform and launch using PSLV and
operations. The integrated SARAL satellite was launched on
February 25, 2013.
Defence Ties
Defence cooperation remains the bedrock of the growing
strategic partnership.The two countries have held three
editions of joint army exercise entitled SHAKTI and five
editions of the Indo-French Air Exercise Garuda. The Indo-
French Naval Exercise, VARUNA, was held in_ the
Mediterranean sea off the port of Toulon from 19-22 July,
2012.France is among the top suppliers of cutting-edge
weapons systems to India.
India and Japan nuclear deal

India will be able to access a new generation of nuclear
reactors, over 1000 MW and hi-tech safety features, with the
finalizing of the Indo-Japanese nuclear agreement, with
Westinghouse ready to offer a deal under which India would
buy six of its state-of-the-art AP1000 reactors by March next
year. Though a US-based firm, Westinghouse is a wholly-
owned subsidiary of the Japanese firm Toshiba.
Prime Ministers Narendra Modi and Shinzo Abe have gone
for negotiations for a bilateral civil nuclear agreement that
have been successfully concluded. A lot of technical details
ratification by the Japanese Diet still have to be completed,
but the diplomatic paperwork is mostly over.
Japanese companies are world leaders in nuclear
technology. Whether a reactor is France or South Korea, key
components like reactor vessels are the monopoly of
Japanese firms like JSW. Only Russian reactors are not
dependent on Japanese parts, but their reactors are limited to
1000 MW and have outdated safety technology. Indian
Officials noted that there were actually no “American
reactors”, only Japanese.
In other areas like nuclear fuel fabrication and breeder
technology the Japanese are the best or at the least very
close to being so.
India and Japan have struggled with civil nuclear talks
since India struck a similar deal with Washington. Because of
the Hiroshima-Nagasaki legacy, Tokyo had asked for further
commitments from New Delhi on issues like nuclear testing
and disarmament. India, however, insisted it could not go
beyond what it had agreed to with the US.
The diplomatic compromise was to explore areas of nuclear
cooperation which were not covered in detail in the Indo-US
agreement. This way, the substantive part of the detail
remained true to the template of the Indo-US agreement. Of
these grey areas that the two found common ground was
nuclear safety, a Japanese concern since their own
Fukushima disaster.
It is known that earlier rounds of negotiations were
successful in everything except three areas. Two of them
were resolved in talks between April and October. The last
pending issue revolved around termination—the
circumstances under which Japan could cancel the
agreement, and how this would affect bilateral work in the
ultra-sensitive field of reprocessing technology. Reprocessing
allows a country to separate potentially weapons-grade
plutonium from nuclear waste. There are some tricky areas
where India and Japan have reached an agreement to not
write down specific clauses, but allow the other side to revert
to its own internal procedures.
Analysis
The nuclear deal has been a sensitive subject between Delhi
and Tokyo for the past five years. In 2005, the United States
spearheaded the effort to recommence international nuclear
commerce with India, urging the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to
consider Delhi’s excellent nuclear non-proliferation and safety
credentials and make an exception for the South Asian
country despite its refusal to accede to the NonProliferation
Treaty.
The international legal infrastructure was in place by 2008,
and India has since concluded several nuclear cooperation
agreements enabling it to purchase nuclear equipment and
fuel from the international market. Delhi’s increasingly warm
relations with Tokyo had led the former to believe that the
latter would also ink such an accord once the United States
and other major powers had done so. Mistakenly, as it turned
out.
Japan holds an important position in international nuclear
commerce. Over the years, the island nation has developed
expertise in manufacturing several critical reactor
components of high quality and become a key node in the
supply chains of at least three of the major nuclear vendors,
namely the French firm Areva and the American firms
General Electric and Westinghouse.
Among the major players, only Russia’s Rosatom and
China’s two major state-run nuclear vendors — China
General Nuclear Power Group (CGN) and China National
Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) —are independent of Japanese
components. As per Japan's strict export controls stipulating
end-user certification and other conditions, US and French
nuclear firms would first need the permission of their
Japanese suppliers before doing business with India. Tokyo’s
consonance on nuclear cooperation with India thus achieved
a greater import, not to mention the symbolic value India put
on such an agreement as an indicator of its nuclear
normalisation.
The declaration at the India-Japan Summit falls
considerably short of a nuclear deal. The two sides merely
signed a memorandum of understanding that has punted the
legal and technical differences further down the road. In
essence, this means that Japan has only agreed to the
principle that it can conclude a civil nuclear cooperation
agreement with India, that it will make an exception to its rule
of not conducting nuclear commerce with a state that is not a
signatory of the NPT. This is progress, no doubt, but what
price Japan will extract for its concession in terms of technical
requirements or how long the nuclear deal will take to
operationalise the deal is anyone’s guess.
If the joint statement between the two countries is any
indication, Japan’s pound of flesh will probably include Indian
concessions on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)
and the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT). India’s view
has been that both these treaties perpetuate the nuclear
apartheid regime, of which the NPT forms the foundation.
Although India has of its own volition declared a moratorium
on future nuclear tests, being party to a legally binding
agreement is a bridge too far from Delhi’s perspective.
Furthermore, a historical perspective on the fate of India’s
MoUs may be had by looking at the country’s role in
upgrading the Iranian port of Chabahar or its Medium Multi-
Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) contract.
Even if India and Japan had succeeded in signing a
comprehensive civil nuclear cooperation agreement, the
chances of it having much impact on India’s nuclear energy
sector are slim. As part of its agreement with the United
States, India agreed to bring into force a nuclear liability law
like all other states with nuclear facilities. However, Delhi’s
interpretation of liability, informed as it was by the Bhopal Gas
Tragedy of 1984, was not in congruence with the international
standard that limited damages and made the operator solely
responsible for economic compensation.
Consequently, no vendor is willing to enter the Indian
nuclear market. Westinghouse has been remarkably silent on
its interest in India since January 2015 when US president
Barack Obama and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi
achieved an expensive and convoluted workaround on
supplier liability by establishing an insurance pool for nuclear
vendors.
The only benefit India is likely to accrue from an agreement
on nuclear cooperation with Japan is the transfer of
technology for reactor components, particularly Japan Steel
Works’ forging of large, single-plate reactor pressure vessels.
India may also diversify its suppliers and develop its
indigenous nuclear energy industry. While both of these are
welcome developments, they will not amount to the rapid
expansion of nuclear energy in India that was envisaged in
the wake of the Indo-US nuclear deal in 2008.
Another possible benefit, if Modi is capable of being so
bold, is the acquisition of plutonium and spent nuclear fuel for
use in India’s Fast Breeder Reactors (FBR). This will expedite
the introduction of thorium reactors in India, which are safer,
cleaner, cheaper, and more _ proliferation-resistant than
conventional reactors.
There is some debate about why Japan has made even
this slightest of shifts in its position on nuclear cooperation
with India. The Yomiuri Shimbum, arguably Japan’s leading
daily, suggests that China’s forays in emerging as a major
nuclear vendor has Tokyo worried. By various means, Beijing
has acquired advanced Western technology and incorporated
it into its own designs that are now being marketed to the
world. China’s large reserves of foreign exchange also allow it
to extend generous lines of credit to its customers who would
be happy with a greater range of international partners.
Additionally, by retreating from the international nuclear
market and refusing to supply major customers, Japan will
lose its technological edge in the field as Britain has.
This is a plausible explanation but betrays the newspaper’s
conservative leanings more than reveal Tokyo’s reasons: any
argument along these lines must also take into account that
there is still a large lobby against nuclear relations with a non-
signatory of the NPT like India as well as the opposition to
nuclear energy expansion in Japan; restarting the country’s
fleet of 43 idling reactors has itself been a challenge for the
Abe government.
From an Indian point of view, there are strategic as well as
economic considerations at play here. Abe is not unaware of
this, but he must also be able to sell this deal to his domestic
audience and have it approved by the Diet. It might be his
thinking that this is best achieved in small, incremental steps
as the MoU was. In the meantime, there is much Modi can do
to maximise the gains from a nuclear deal with Japan when it
comes. It involves reforming the Atomic Energy Act to allow
active participation by the private sector, establishing a de
facto and de jure independent regulatory authority, improving
transparency in the nuclear sector, and amending India’s
nuclear liability to conform to international norms. Whatever
the potential benefits of a civil nuclear cooperation agreement
with Japan may be, India has not achieved them today.
India-Australia Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement
On September 5, 2014, India and Australia signed a MoU for
‘Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy’ during
the Australian Prime Minister’s visit to India. The agreement
was signed by the Secretary, Indian Department of Atomic
Energy and the High Commissioner of Australia to India.
The much awaited part of the civil nuclear cooperation
agreement was Australian acceptance to become ‘a long-
term reliable supplier of uranium to India’. Besides, both
countries underlined the need for cooperation in production of
radio isotopes, nuclear safety and other areas not spelt out in
the release. This may lead to comprehensive nuclear science
and technology cooperation between India and Australia if the
bilateral strategic partnership increases the newly acquired
level of mutual trust.
In the India-Australia civil nuclear cooperation agreement,
India was praised for continuing its nuclear energy policy.
Unlike few countries, India had not done reflexive reaction to
the Fukushima incidents by shutting down its nuclear power
plants. After a few years or decades, when some of these
countries resume nuclear energy, they may find losing
several valuable years. The statement rightly pointed out that
India’s commitment to nuclear energy is to promote
‘sustainable development’ and energy security.
The government of India has frequently been notifying
about the proposed plan for the nuclear energy expansion.
The nuclear power capacity is expected to reach 10080 MW
by 2017.
India also plans to start work on 19 new nuclear power
reactors by 2017. If this plan materialises it may have a total
capacity of 17400 MW more in its energy basket. Earlier,
India had planned to install about 20 GWe nuclear power by
2020 and 274.56 GWe by 2052.
The plan may witness some adjustments. The current
nuclear expansion plan needs uranium. Though India has
relatively large reserves of thorium oxide, its uranium
reserves are comparatively modest. As of May, 2014, India
has 2,11,473 tonne in situ U308 (1,79,329 tonne Uranium )
reserves.It regularly assesses the “techno-economic viability”
of extraction and development of uranium resources. Not all
uranium deposits explored are mined and processed. On
various occasions, mining and exploration of uranium
reserves have been discontinued because of the low
economic feasibility.
The Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) admitted in the
past that shortage of uranium had affected the functioning of
the power plants. In an answer to a question in the Indian
Parliament, the government stated, “The Country’s Uranium
requirement in the 12th Five Year Plan [20122017] period is
estimated to be 5057 tonnes. This includes 318 tonnes of low
enriched uranium for Tarapur Atomic Power Station (TAPS)
-1&2 and Kudankulam (KK) -1&2.”The Indian nuclear
establishment maintains that the known uranium deposits can
feed nuclear power plants with a capacity of about 10,000
MWe only.
After the 2008 NSG exemptions, India signed agreements
and contracts with several countries for the supply of
uranium. It signed agreements with countries such as
Namibia and Canada for uranium supply. However, so far, it
has signed contractual agreements with the companies of
only four countries — M/s AREVA, France (during 2008), M/s
JSC TVEL Corporation, Russia (during 2009), M/s NAC
Kazatomprom, Kazakhstan (during 2009) and M/s NMMC,
Uzbekistan (2013). The Prime Ministers of India and Australia
have instructed their respective negotiators to work out ‘the
administrative arrangement’ as soon as possible. Only after
signing the contractual agreements, the Australian supply of
uranium may come to India. The contractual agreement may
incorporate the price, the period of supply, the form of
uranium and other relevant details. India wants to diversify its
uranium supply, and it is strategically important to have
diversified suppliers. This helps in not only getting access to
the uranium market for procuring the material on reasonable
price but also to have an uninterrupted supply of uranium for
its existing and new nuclear plants. India has already planned
to build a uranium stockpile.
Currently, Australia is considered to have the largest
reserve of recoverable uranium. Its dominance appears to
probably remain unchallenged in the coming years. The
World Nuclear Association and the Australian government
both inform that Australia ranks third in terms of production of
uranium. Kazakhstan and Canada produce more _ than
Australia. If it opens new mines, which it is planning to do, its
production may easily increase, and possibly, it will become
the top producer within a few years. Australia produces
uranium basically to export as it does not operate any nuclear
power plant. So, Australia may become the most important
uranium supplier to India.
Quite significantly, before signing the agreement, the
Australian delegation announced that the safeguards issue
had been resolved. The Australian Prime Minister stated that
suitable safeguards will be applied to the supplied Australian
uranium to India. It seemingly means that the umbrella
agreement of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
will continue to be the template for the agreement. Any extra-
IAEA best practice was resisted in the past by Indian
negotiators. In fact, the 2012 announcement by Julia Gillard,
the former Prime Minister of Australia had in fact harmonised
the NPT framework for Australian uranium export policy to the
framework for the 2008 NSG-exemptions for India. The
administrative arrangement will, with all probability, reflect this
harmonised Australian uranium policy and India’s willingness
to embrace the umbrella safeguards agreement it signed with
the IAEA. This heralds India’s accommodation further within
the global nuclear order.
As Australia and India have to deepen their security
cooperation for a peaceful prosperous and stable Asia Pacific
region, both the countries will have to manage global nuclear
commerce together. The civil nuclear cooperation agreement
needs to be treated as an important step towards
accommodating India in the NSG.
Practice
Questions
1. Correlate the concept of national

interest with the nuclear question. (700-800
words)
2. What imperatives forced India to pursue
a nuclear policy? Give arguments. (700-
800 words)
3. Make a distinction between a nuclear
power country and the nuclear weapons
country. (200-300 words)
4. Give an account of the evolution of
India’s nuclear policy. (700-800 words)
5. Evaluate India’s nuclear policy and give
its key principles. (700-800 words)
6. Write a detailed note on the proposed
nuclear doctrine. (700-800 words)
7. How far do you agree that India was
justified in acquiring nuclear weapons?
(700-800 words)
8. Write a short note on:
(a) India-France Nuclear Deal
(b) India-Japan Nuclear Deal
(c) India-Australia Civil Nuclear 4
Cooperation Agreement iy
A
V
Recent Developments In Indian
Foreign Policy
: n a fast changing world, developments occur too swiftly.

These changes influence events not only at home, but
also abroad. More the events, more are the changes, and
more are the impacts of the phenomena around. Our study of
International Relations near or far proves that events and
developments occurring in one part of the world have
influence over other parts.
I. INDIA’S POSITION IN THE NEAR NORTH-WEST:

AFGHANISTAN
Afghanistan has never been, in larger part of its history, a
unified country or a nation-state, but has at best been a buffer
zone intended to separate the old dominant regional powers
—Britain, Russia and Persia. It lies at the crossroads of the
middle-eastern, central Asian and south Asian security
environments. In fact, it is more of a connector between the
surrounding security environments than an insulator. It draws
together various security-related issues (for example, narco-
terrorism) and spills them over to all bordering regions.
Afghanistan is important for all the countries around her—
near or far; countries such as Iran, Pakistan, India, Russia,
Uzbekistan, China and Japan. Iran is contributing significantly
to the reconstruction of Afghan infrastructure (Western
Afghanistan is better connected with Iranian electricity and
transportation networks than those of the rest of the country).
Japan, as another example, is the second-largest donor of
reconstruction and development aid to Afghanistan. India has
offered $750 million for Afghanistan’s reconstruction making it
the largest donor to Afghanistan. China may soon become
the largest provider of foreign direct investment in
Afghanistan. All neighbours of Afghanistan are stakeholders
in regional stability. China and Russia worry about the spread
of Islamic extremism in Central Asia affecting their respective
provinces. lran-Afghanistan relations have hit rock bottom
during the Taliban years. India is affected by the Islamic
terrorism in Kashmir and increasingly also in its heartland.
Even Pakistan is now a target of this kind of terrorist violence.
Whenever there is trouble in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran
are the preferred destinations of Afghan refugees. What is
important to state in the end is the fact that all of these states
are interested in the secure passage of energy through
Afghanistan. It is this interest in Afghanistan that all these
states have in it.
Lying close to Middle East, Central Asia and South Asia,
Afghanistan’s position is important from the points of view of
the securities occupying these regions. Left to itself
Afghanistan is least interested in the dominant conflict of the
Middle East, especially in the Israeli-Palestinian tussle.
Afghanistan is connected to the Middle East arrangement
only through Iran, which, of course, has interest in what goes
on in the Middle East. What worries Iran is the American
military presence in Afghanistan. Russia’s attempt to integrate
Afghanistan with Central Asia has failed (the communists had
killed the rightists and the Mujahadeen, the leftists), although
northern Afghanistan in particular has close economic, ethnic
and cultural ties with the post-Soviet republics of Central Asia.
In terms of arrangement and security purposes, Afghanistan
is much more close to the South Asian complex. The
inclusion of Afghanistan in South Asian Association for
Regional Cooperation (SAARC) would go a long way in
establishing lasting peace and stability in the region. Thus,
Afghanistan’s accession to the SAARC and the fact that it
was prompted by India can be interpreted as a sign of India’s
willingness to engage durably in Afghan — security
management and to integrate Afghanistan into the South
Asian regional order.
India’s relations with Afghanistan demonstrate shared close
cultural and political ties. India has always supported
successive Afghan governments until the rise of the Talibans
in the 1990s. Following the 9/11 attacks and the US-led war
in Afghanistan, the relations between India and Afghanistan
have grown stronger again. India has restored full diplomatic
relations and has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in
aid for Afghanistan’s reconstruction and development, though
India’s growing relations with Afghanistan and the stability in
Afghanistan have not been appreciated by Pakistan. India
regards Pakistan as of strategic importance, a gateway to
energy-rich Central Asian states such as Turkmenistan and
Kazakhstan. India wants the countries of the region either act
favourably towards India or at least remain neutral in its
conflict with Pakistan. Afghanistan, on the other hand, looks
to India as ‘a potential counterweight’ in its relationship with
Pakistan.
Since 2001, India has offered large amounts of money for
Afghanistan’s reconstruction. In August 2008, India pledged
some $450 million to contribute in building a new Afghanistan.
For India, Afghanistan is important and therefore, she wants
to counter Pakistan’s influence in Afghanistan. India, an
observer in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, has
been pursuing better relations with Central Asian states for
energy cooperation, giving Tajikistan a $17 million grant for
the modernisation of a hydropower plant and signing a
memorandum of understanding with Turkmenistan for a
natural gas pipeline. India also wants the security of some
four thousand Indian workers and security officials working in
Afghanistan. Furthermore, India is actively involved in a wide
array of development projects in Afghanistan; it is building
several key roads, including the Zaranj-Delaram highway in
south-west Afghanistan near the Iranian borders; it has
helped Afghanistan to build its new parliament building; it is
training Afghan police officers, diplomats and civil servants;
and it has provided support in the area of health, education,
transportation, power and telecommunications. Bilateral trade
between India and Afghanistan has been on the rise,
reaching $216 millions for the fiscal year 2006-2007.
Significantly, it is to be noted that Pakistan permits Afghan
exports to India, but does not allow transit facilities to India
reaching Afghanistan. The Indian television soaps are very
popular in Afghanistan. Pakistan believes India’s influence in
Afghanistan as a threat to her security. Hence, it supported
the anti-Soviet Mujahadeens first and then the Talibans to
use them against India, in addition to using the Afghan land
and air space for its own benefits. It is, thus, well to conclude
that India and Pakistan find themselves opposed to each
other in their perception about Afghanistan. Robert Kaplan
writes in the Atlantic Monthly, “Afghanistan has been a prize
that Pakistan and India have fought over directly and
indirectly for decades.”
ll. INDIA’S POSITION ON THE CRISIS IN IRAQ

India’s position on the crisis in Iraq was in accordance with
the decision taken by the UN Security Council. The UN
Security Council’s resolution called for the _ strict
implementation of searching whether Iraq possessed any
weapons of mass destruction (WMD,) or whether it was
capable of producing them or had destroyed them. What India
rightly opposed was the unilateral action by the United States
and the United Kingdom to search such weapons in Iraq.
India firmly believed that it is only the Iraqi people who are
competent enough to take a decision on Iraq’s polity and that
neither the United States nor the United Kingdom have any
right to dictate any kind of terms to the Iraqi government; it is
the people should have. Even the United Nations, India felt,
had no right to take any action with regard to the Iraqi
government. India took the stand that why should any
external power decide whether Saddam _ Hussain’s
government is legitimate or illegitimate, humane or inhuman?
This is a power that rests with the people of Iraq if democracy
has any meaning; a system which the Americans and the
British profess to love and for which they claim to have made
sacrifices. In any case, India does not approve the unilateral
action taken by the USA and the UK to search for the deadly
weapons in Iraq. It supports the UN Security Council's
resolution on the issue relating to that country. India does not
support the American and the British views that the Saddam
Hussain government in Iraq is illegitimate or inhuman. What it
seeks to advocate in Iraq is that the country should have the
government which the people of Iraq want to have.
lraq’s case was not nearly as bad as was projected by USA
and UK. Though the allegations that link between Saddam
Hussain and Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda were not
proven, Iraq did not condemn the 9/11 attack. It was well
known that Iraq has had contacts with the organisations of
Carlos, the Anti-Teheran Mujah-Ildeen-e-Khalq and the anti-
Shia, and that the leakage of WMD from Iraq to anti-India
terrorists through Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LEJ) elements. Iraq’s
efforts to support terrorism in Israel by describing the
terrorists as freedom fighters and announcing cash rewards
for the families of the suicide terrorists were condemned.
However, several other allegations were quite baseless; for
example the allegations against Iraq that it is attempting to
have an Islamic bomb, that it is important for Iraq to have
weapons of mass destruction in order to protect Islam, and
that it is supportive of the Al Quada and of Osama bin Laden.
lraq was an Islamic state, but the allegations leveled against
lit as a fundamentalist nation were far from true.
We must remember that no other nation in the Islamic
world has been as modern, as forward-looking and as
moderate as Iraq in Saddam’s times; no other government in
the Islamic world has acted as_ decisively against
fundamentalists and Pan-Islamic elements as did Saddam
Hussain’s government of Iraq. It has never been heard that
the madrasas in Iraq have been acting as Jihadi factories. We
have not heard officials and non-officials in Iraq having any
collaboration with the fundamentalist and extremist elements.
The Saddam Hussain government has never made such a
statement as did late Zulfiquar Ali Bhutto that when the
Christians, the Jews and the Hindus had nuclear weapons,
there was no reason as to why the Muslims should not. Even
so, one regrets the killing of thousands of Israeli men, women
and children being butchered by terrorists with approval from
the Iraqi government led by Saddam Hussain at one point of
time.
The Anglo-American unilateral action in Iraq is subject to
condemnation, one that cannot be justified on any ground.
What irks India is that the US-UK action was without any
approval of the UN and also against the democratic rights of
the people of Iraq. The USA has acted similarly in the past as
it had acted in Iraq: it bombed Libya in 1986 after an attack of
terrorism directed against its nationals in West Berlin, and Al
Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan in August 1998 after the
explosions outside its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. But
these were only punitive actions, and not meant to be
strategic, so as to occupy a country and forcibly change the
regime. This is what the USA and the UK tried to do in Iraq
and this is what India sought to oppose.
This is not to say that terrorism has to be encouraged or
supported. India is one with the USA and favours all those
countries which want to eliminate terrorism. India is opposed
to terrorism whichsoever country advocates it. No country has
the right to hold the world to ransom, whether it is the USA or
Iraq.
lll. INDIA AND THE WEST ASIA AND CENTRAL

ASIA
What was earlier known as the Near East and the Middle
East (in relation to Europe) is described by international
organisations such as the United Nations as West Asia or
Western Asia. West Asia is primarily arid and semi-arid, and
can be subject to drought; though there are vast expanses of
forests and fertile valleys. The region consists of grasslands,
rangelands, deserts and mountains. Water shortages are a
problem in many areas of West Asia. Among the countries
included in the UN subregion of West Asia are countries such
as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Georgia, (all in or partly in
Europe), Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon,
Oman, Palestinian territories (Gaza strip and West Bank),
Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey (partly in Europe), United
Arab Emirates, Yemen. In the UN sub-region of South Asia,
Afghanistan, and in the UN subregion of northern Africa,
Egypt are the countries included. The Central Asian states
include Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan
and Uzbekistan.
The history of West Asia for over a century is one long
history of how colonial and imperialist powers, both old and
new, have arrogantly looted and plundered a region for their
unbridled self-interest. It is a history of total disregard and
callous disrespect for the people of this oil rich region. Such
policies are still in place. USA, UK, France and others are
part of the problem in West Asia and not part of the solution.
At a time when West Asia is passing through a phase of
unparalleled political, economic and social changes, India is
expected to play a larger role in West Asian affairs: a possibly
visible role in Iraq, use its leverage on Iran to curtail its pursuit
of nuclear weapons, help build and enhance its ties with
Israel without antagonising the peoples of Palestine, Iran,
Saudi Arabia and other Islamic nations of the region. There is,
however, a feeling in India that despite her efforts to have
pro-Arab stance in West Asia, she has not been adequately
rewarded by the Arabs who remain sympathetic towards
Pakistan, though they are not vocal about being against India.
In fact, the Arab world, on its part, does not want to lose India
wholly to Israel, and hence, it is playing a very cautious role
vis-a-vis India. And India, on its part, wants to be friendly with
the Arab world as she has been in the past.
India’s West Asian approach is influenced by its energy
requirement, which constitutes about 65 per cent coming from
the West Asia region. India, we must remember, is the sixth
largest energy consumer in the world. How can India ignore
her ties with West Asia which has employed over 3.5 million
Indians in the Gulf? India will emerge as the fourth largest
consumer country in another couple of years. How can West
Asia ignore India as its ally?
China is attempting to build its ties with West Asia. This
forces India to shape its foreign policy towards Asia in such a
way that it competes with China adequately. India is making
efforts to redefine its interests in West Asia to become more
outcome-oriented. India is moving and in fact should move
fast from energy security to defence ties; from countering
China to pursuing stability in the region.
India regards West Asia as her extended neighbourhood.
Their ties can usually be traced back to ancient times. Our
relations with West Asia are both civlisational as well as of
significant contemporary relevance. Trade relations between
India and West Asia go back to the early years of our history.
There is evidence of trade between the cities of Mohenjadaro,
Harappa and Mesopotamia nearly four thousand years ago.
The Arabs traded with South West India for spices to carry
these to Europe. There have been ties of inter-marriages and
their descendants belong to the community of the Mopplars in
South-Western India. The arts and sciences ties between
India and West Asia are well known. The translation of the
stories of the Panchatantra is but one example of the
exchanges of ideas and knowledge that also extend to
mathematics, astronomy and medicine. The influence of
Persian and Arabic learning in India and the impact of
architectural styles and aesthetics of West Asia can be seen
in contemporary Indian society.
Our long-standing ties with West Asia make us interested in
peace and prosperity in West Asia. West Asia is the third
largest destination of our goods and exports to West Asia
account for nearly 16 per cent of our global exports.
Obviously, any upheaval in the region affects us, as has, for
example, the Iraqi attack on Kuwait in 1990 or the war in Iraq
in 2003.
The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) offers tremendous
potential for cooperation in trade, investment, energy,
manpower, etc. Information and Technology exports to GCC
stand at US$ 170 million and are likely to move upwards.
Both, India and West Asia, share a need for continued
political stability and security in the region.
Bilateral ties of friendship, mutual understanding and
cooperation with West Asian nations are further strengthened
by building the momentum imparted by the visits of the two
leaders to each others countries. There is mutual
understanding at intellectual, academic and cultural levels
between Egypt and India. The relations with Israel continue to
develop satisfactorily, particularly in areas of trade, economic
and_ technological cooperation. The _ traditional friendly
relations with Jordan have bolstered with regular contacts at
various levels: exploring the bulk of commodities from India
and promoting bilateral trade. Progress is being made in
strengthening bilateral relations with Syria. The relations with
Lebanon have further strengthened. During Israeli military
offences against Lebanon in April 1996, India had extended
political support, calling for immediate cease-fire and the
implementation of UN Security Council resolution No.425.
India despatched humanitarian assistance for the displaced
Lebanese. India’s relations with Libya were characterised by
efforts to strengthen economic cooperation. A consignment of
essential drugs and medicines was dispatched to Sudan in
November 1996 for the flood victims. Delegations were
exchanged with Tunisia in several fields including trade,
agriculture, science and environment. India’s relations with
Palestine have been friendly. We have maintained our
support for the Palestinian people. We feel concerned at the
developments affecting the peace process, and urge all
concerned to ensure successful conclusion of the peace
process within the agreed time schedule. India has continued
its moral, material and technical assistance to the Palestinian
people for their legitimate aspirations. India has maintained
traditional cordial relations and cooperation with the regional
organisations, namely, the League of Arab States (LAS), the
Union of Arab Maghrab (UAM) and the Gulf Cooperation
Council (GCC). The consultations are held with these
organisations on matters of common interest.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, five new
Central Asian republics have emerged as new neighbours of
India: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and
Uzbekistan. India’s involvement in Central Asia includes
energy ties, trade and investment, and the beginnings of a
military relationship. Not surprisingly, the energy cooperation
is at the heart of India’s engagement of Central Asia.
Kazakhstan has the largest oil resources in the region with
three of the world’s richest hydrocarbon fields. The Indian
ONGC already has a 15 per cent ownership stake in
Kazakhstan’s Alibekmola oil field and has announced a $ 1.5
billion investment in the joint Russian-Kazakh Kurmangazy oil
field in the Caspian Sea. Authorities in both India and
Kazakhstan are as yet unclear about how they are going to
export Kazakh oil to India. Additionally, Kazakhstan has
offered India rights to develop the Karzahanbas oil field. India
is looking into importing gas from Turkmenistan though the
latter is sending most of its already discovered gas to Russia.
Uzbekistan has more modest hydrocarbon resources. Export
of electricity to India from Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan is
under discussion. These two states are developing only a
relatively low percentage of their potential hydro generating
capacity.
IV. INDIA-US NUCLEAR DEAL

With the American Congress approval in October 2008, India-
US nuclear deal lifted a three-decade US moratorium on
nuclear trade with India. The deal provided American
assistance to India’s civilian nuclear energy programme and
expanded India-US cooperation in energy and _ satellite
technology. Through the deal, India agrees to allow
inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Association
(IAEA), the UN’s nuclear watchdog group, access to its
civilian nuclear programme. By March 2006, India promised
to place fourteen of its twenty-two power reactors under IAEA
safeguards permanently; included in them are domestically
built plants which India had not been willing to safeguard
before. India also promised that all future civilian thermal and
breeder reactors would be placed under IAEA safeguards
permanently, retaining the sole right, as the prime minister
had said, to determine such reactors as civilian. Through the
deal India also agreed to the following:
(a) Committing itself to signing the additional protocol
which allows more intrusive IAEA inspections of its
civilian facilities;
(b) Continuing moratorium on nuclear weapons testing;
(c) Strengthening the security of its nuclear arsenal;
(d) Negotiating a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty
(FMCT) with the United States banning the
production of fissile material for weapons purposes;
agreeing also to prevent the spread of enrichment
and reprocessing technologies to states that do not
possess them; and
(e) Allowing US companies to build nuclear reactors in
India so as to provide nuclear fuel for its civilian
energy programme.
The deal would make India eligible to buy US dual-use
nuclear technology, including materials and equipments
which could be used to enrich uranium or reprocess
plutonium, potentially creating the material for nuclear bombs.
The deal allows India to receive imported fuel for its nuclear
reactors.
The India-US deal is expected to bring India and the United
States closer to each other, especially when the two nations
are forging a strategic relationship, to pursue common
interests in fighting terrorism and strengthening democracy.
The deal recognises that India is a responsible steward
nuclear power and that it is, in no way, a nuclear proliferation
risk. Terosita Schaffer, Director of the South Asia programme
at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, has
rightly said: “This (deal) is a part of a process of making India
a more durable and reliable nuclear partner.” Furthermore,
the deal would help make India’s existing electricity grid more
efficient, restructuring the country’s coal industry and
expanding the use of renewable energy sources.
Indeed, India is not a signatory to the non-proliferation
treaty (NPT), which can force India to give up its nuclear
weapons or make it accept international inspections and
restrictions on its nuclear facilities. As Seema Gahlaut of
Georgia University writes, “President Bush’s bilateral deal
correctly recognises that it is far better for the non-
proliferation community if India works with it rather than
against it. The IAEA director-general Mohammed El Baradei
has also strongly endorsed the deal, calling it a pragmatic
way to bring India into the non-proliferation community. India,
it may be remembered, has itself maintained strict control on
its nuclear technology and has not shared it with any other
country. In 2005, India had passed the Weapons of Mass
Destruction (WMD) Act, which criminalises the trade and
brokering of sensitive technology. The United States has
admired India on voluntary controls on its nuclear technology.
The Indo-US deal, it was feared, may pose serious risks to
the security of the United States by:
(a) allowing the Indian companies to proliferate banned
nuclear technology around the world,
(b) bending the international rules on the part of the
other leading nuclear technology suppliers such as
Russia and China so as to sell their nuclear
technology to countries hostile to the United States,
(c) encouraging countries like North Korea, Libya, Iran
and Iraq to promote proliferation, though they had
already cheated the world by doing so after having
signed the non-proliferation treaty.
The People’s Republic of China was not apparently happy
about the Indo-US nuclear civilian deal, for it stood against
her in becoming a power in the region, finding India, through
the efforts of the USA, to grab such a position. The deal,
critics allege, may lead to a nuclear rivalry between India and
China. Similarly, it was also felt that the US favouratism
toward India could increase nuclear rivalry between India and
Pakistan. There is the likelihood that the deal would feed the
Indian nuclear weapons programme and, thus, weaken
deterrence;at least it was being felt in the Pakistan quarters.
Some experts rightly worried that the Indo-US deal could
prompt Pakistan to look elsewhere; for instance, to China for
a similar deal.
V. INDIA AND THE GULF WAR (1990-91)

Throughout the second half of the twentieth century, if there
was any region rife with all kinds of disputes, crises and wars,
it was the Gulf region. The region witnessed the overthrow of
Mossadeq (1951), the Suez Crisis (1956), the Six Day War
(1967), the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88), and the Gulf War (1990-
91). The Gulf crisis of 1990 was the result of numerous
factors: disputes between Iraq and Kuwait with long-standing
differences, emergence of Iraq as a military power following
its war with Iran, Saddam Hussain’s ambitions of dominating
the Arab world, and the intra-Arab-Gulf relations.
With Iraq’s independence in 1932, her territorial claims
against Kuwait began mounting year after year. Iraq thought
of Kuwait as a part of the Ottoman Empire and a region under
the district of Basra. Since Iraq rose as a successor of the
Rumallah empire it claimed Kuwait as its part. The two
attempts at Kuwait, one in 1930s and another in 1961 did not
yield any tangible results. In the months preceding the
invasion in 1990, Saddam Hussain made several threatening
charges against Kuwait: Kuwait’s attempts of taking crude oil
in the Rumallah oilfields and her illegal occupation of Warba,
Bubiyan and the Failaka Islands. He accused Kuwait of “over-
production of oil” which lraq regarded as “... a war against
Iraq”, warning Kuwait that its overproduction was “a poison
dagger in Iraq’s back”, and that it was “an evil against Iraq ...
an American plot to deplete Iraq’s revenues.” He threatened
to use force, “... cutting a few throats is better ... to put things
aright.” Consequently, and therefore, finally, the 100,000 Iraqi
troops and 300 tanks rolled into Kuwait, with little resistance.
Iraq announced that it would withdraw as soon as the
situation stabilises or when the Free Provisional Government
of Kuwait asks them to withdraw. However, things happened
the other way. On August 28, 1990, Kuwait was formally
annexed to Iraq and became the 19t Iraqi province. On
November 9, 1990, it was announced that Kuwait “no longer
exists, and the world should forget Kuwait’s independence.”
After several resolutions were passed by the UN Security
Council condemning the action and imposing sanctions on
Iraq, finally, resolution 678 passed on November 29, 1990,
authorised the coalition forces to restore international peace
and security in the area by the use of “all necessary means”
and asked Iraq to end its occupation of Kuwait by the end of
January 1991. Nothing could happen; Kuwait could not be
liberated “Operation Desert Shield” was __ ultimately
transformed into “Operation Desert Storm”; Iraqi military and
other installations were bombed; Kuwait was finally liberated
on February 27, 1991 with the US-led forces in command,
and by March 4, 1991, the Kuwaiti government resumed
functioning in Kuwait city.
Soon after the ceasefire, the UN took steps to actively
participate in reconstruction and rehabilitation efforts in lraq
and Kuwait. Several UN missions and teams went to Iraq and
Kuwait to assess the humanitarian situation there. Whatever
was possible was done, though there was not much either for
reconstruction or for rehabilitation.
In retrospect, it can be said that the Gulf War (1990-91)
was not a UN war at all. The UN was marginalised on all
occasions. It was not the UN which ran the whole operation,
but the United States which was always active from the
beginning. The UN Secretary-General remarked: “. the war in
the Gulf is not a UN war . it is not the UN war in the sense
that there is no UN flag. They (the forces) are not in blue UN
helmets. There is no UN control over military operations”. It is
said that the Americans had used the Security Council the
way it suited them, calling it into action again and again when
lraq invaded Kuwait . But once the war began, the Americans
with enthusiastic British support did all they could do to stop
the UN Security Council playing any part.”. The UN
Secretary-General, who should have been a man at the
center of events, was never consulted, and war never
informed of what was going on.
As India and Iraq had good relations all through, it was a
dilemma for India to take a definite position on Iraq’s invasion
of Kuwait. India could neither offend Saddam Hussain who
had never sided with Pakistan on Kashmir, nor could India
openly advocate the UN stand in whose Charter India had
demonstrated her faith. On Iraq-Kuwait issue India decided to
toe a middle line saying that “India opposes the use of force
in any form” and advocates peaceful settlement of disputes
among the states.
VI. INDIA AND ISRAEL

Though Israel was founded in 1948 and India recognised
Israel in 1950, its full diplomatic relations with Israel were not
established until 1992. This was mainly because of India’s
active support and sympathies with the Palestinian cause.
India, it may be remembered, was one of the first non-Arab
states to recognise Palestinian independence and also one of
the first to allow an embassy of the Palestine Liberation
Organisation (PLO) in New Delhi. The causes of anti-Israel
stance were numerous: the Indian strategy to counter
Pakistan’s influence in the Arab world; safeguarding its oil
supplies from Arab nations; ensuring jobs for thousands of
Indians in the Gulf and keeping the foreign exchange
reserves afloat. Despite this, India and Israel found
themselves together on a range of issues such as:
(a) close collaboration between the Indian Research
and Analysis Wing (RAW) and Israel’s Mossad;
(b) their secret cooperation agreement in the area of
security, intelligence and military equipment.
Israel had come to India’s defence in most of her major
conflicts such as the Chinese attack on India in 1962 and the
Pakistani attack in 1965, though the two countries were far
away from each other in the war of 1967 in the Gulf region. It
is important to note that Jews have lived in India without any
fear and without any persecution for a long time, their number
estimated now to be around 6000, though many of them,
about 25,000 had migrated to Israel between 1950s and
1970s.
The 1990s brought substantial changes in India’s relations
with foreign countries following enormous economic growth
as a consequence of privatisation and liberalisation of India’s
economy. Such changes included India’s relations with Israel.
Both India and Israel opened their full diplomatic relations
with each other in 1992, and about a decade later the Israeli
prime minister Ariel Sharon visited India in September 2003.
The two countries had convergence of interests. One of the
areas where India and Israel find themselves close to each
other was combating terrorism. Both face the scourge of
Islamic terrorism sponsored by their respective neighbours.
This shared dilemma has helped the two nations to a better
understanding of each others concerns. Though the
suggestion made (May 2003) by the former Indian National
Security Advisor, Brijesh Mishra, to have an alliance between
India, Israel and the United States so as to fight Islamic
fundamentalist terrorism has not materialised, India and Israel
have definitely started cooperating on terror front; India
having learnt a lot from the Israeli experience of fighting
cross-border terrorism.
India and Israel not only exchange crucial intelligence
information on Islamic terrorist groups, but Israel is also
helping India to fight terrorism by providing support such as
specialised surveillance equipment, cooperation in
intelligence gathering, joint exercises and cooperation to stop
money laundering and terror fighting. The tactics used by the
Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) in the guerilla warfare against
terrorists can well be learnt by the Indian security forces.
Israel’s long experience in training, equipping and operating
elite undercover units deployed in terrorist areas to gather
intelligence is useful for Indian security forces facing similar
situations in Kashmir and the Northeast regions in India. The
other areas where Israeli know-how can be of use to India
include tactics aimed at using infantry and commando units
seeking out and destroying arms, terrorist bomb-making
capabilities and the use of dogs, robotics to detect hidden
roadside mines.
Defence collaboration is another area where India and
Israel find their interests converge. Following Sharon’s India
visit, India and Israel decided to hold joint military exercises
for their special forces to further strengthen their defence
collaboration. Israel is expected to train the Indian soldiers for
specialised anti-insurgence strikes, adding to their training in
deserts, mountains, forests, counter-hijacking and hostage
crisis situations. Such training would help India in tackling
cross-border infiltration. India has emerged Israel’s largest
arms market while Israel, as India’s biggest arms supplier.
With the end of the cold war the lure of the Russian arms
market for India has diminished, Israel now satisfying India’s
requirements of hi-tech procurement. From _ anti-missile
systems to hi-tech radars, from sky drones to night-vision
equipment, Indo-Ilsrael defence cooperation has attained new
heights in recent times. A large part of the imported
equipment to modernise the Indian Army battalions as part of
the Rs.3200 crore (over $700 million) investment is likely to
come from Israel. Israel is likely to help the Indian Army’s plan
to bolster its lethal firepower, anti-IED (Improved Explosive
Devise) and communication capabilities. Israel was bidding to
upgrade Indian Air Force’s Mig-27 strike aircraft, the Indian
Navy’s Ka-25 anti-submarine helicopters and maritime patrol
aircrafts. Israel’s Soltain 155 mmj. Howitzers are one of the
three contenders for the Rs.5000 crore (over $ 1 million) deal
to buy about 1000 Howitzer guns, evaluations of which are
currently being conducted by the Indian Army. Israel and
India also are involved in close cooperation in upgrading the
Russian Mig-21 Bison aircraft and T-72 tanks, especially to
make the tanks capable of conducting night operations.
India has also shown its interest in acquiring unmanned
aerial vehicles with ongoing negotiations for the joint
production of high altitude Herons with Israel. The Indian Air
Force is also looking to acquire the Israeli Harpy missile used
for silencing enemy radars, which would be a significant force
multiplier. India also has shown keen interest in Israeli Delilah
Il bombs, crystal maze bombs, Pechora Ill, surface-to-air
missiles and Popeya beyond-visual-range air-to-air missiles.
It would, however, be wrong to view the Indian defence
spending as being directed mainly towards Pakistan. India, it
may be kept in mind, has larger aspirations of becoming a
global political and military power. Israel’s sophisticated
weapon systems are likely to help India restructure its armed
forces to meet the requirements of the future.
In addition to the cooperation between India and Israel on
areas relating to combating terrorism and collaboration in
defence, there are other fields in which the two nations are
seeking to cooperate. There has been a six-fold increase in
India’s trade with Israel in recent years. India is Israel’s
second-largest trading partner in non-military goods and
services in Asia. India’s non-military trade with Israel reached
$ 1.27 billion in 2002 from just $ 202 million in 1992;
diamonds as a single product accounting for nearly 65 per
cent of total trade. New areas of cooperation have been
identified by the two states. These include areas such as the
agricultural sector, farm research, science, public health,
information technology, telecommunications and cooperation
in science. The two countries are setting up a joint economic
committee to identify new measures to stimulate trade. Given
India’s strong scientific and technological base, Israel is keen
on strengthening scientific and technological ties with India,
both the countries are planning to double the investment from
$ 0.5 million in 2003 to about $ 1 million in a short period of
two years.
The relationship between India and Israel is getting
stronger year after year. While India stands to strengthen
itself in defence and security apparatus, Israel, on the other,
finds India as its biggest market.
There are a number of constraints within which the two
countries, India and Israel, have to chart out their bilateral
relations. One such significant constraint is our concern for
the Palestinians who are trying to find their place vis-a-vis
the Israelis. The world knows India’s sympathies for
Palestine, a cause which is so dear to India and the Indian
Muslim populace of about 14 crore: India has been a strong
supporter of the Palestinian self-determination. A significant
change in India’s policy towards Israel has been that before
1992, we had made the normalisation of our relationship with
Israel subject to the resolution of the Palestinian issue, but
now, we have delinked the two, though the Palestinian cause
is as dear to us today as it was in the past. Our policy, in this
regard, has been similar to that of Jordan which keeps its
traditional ties with the Palestinians intact while building at the
same time a new relationship with Israel. The same policy
works up in regard to India’s relations with the other Middle
East nations. India seeks to balance its growing relations with
Israel without sacrificing its core interests (oil coming from the
Middle East to India and hundreds of thousands Indians
working in the region) in those countries. Another significant
constraint between India-Israel relationship is lIran-lsrael
differences. Israel has a deeply antagonistic relationship with
Iran; Israel regards Iran as the main supporter of the anti-
Israeli Hezbollah group in Lebanon. It also blames Iran for
supporting actively the extremist Palestinian groups which
use terrorism against Israeli civilians. Iran’s friendly relations
with India are well known to the Israelis. Israel fears that India
may help Iran by using the Israeli-given military assistance
against Israeli itself. Though such a possibility barely exists,
the fear still hangs among the Israelis.
India-lsrael relations are strengthening year after year. The
current international environment has favourably deepened
India-Israeli ties. There are significant mutual benefits which
the two can gain from their growing relationship. India has to
pursue a cautions policy towards Israel and benefit the most
from her ever-enhancing friendship with Israel, guarding her
interests so perfectly that Israeli neither goes the Pakistan
way nor the China way.
Vil. SOUTH CHINA SEA ISSUE
(a) Context
US President Obama hosted the first ever US-Asean summit
held on American soil, pointedly, at the same desert estate in
Sunnylands, California where he had entertained Chinese
President Xi Jinping in 2013.
Although officials have offered assurances that this is not
going to be an anti-China gathering, the summit aims to
strengthen the group’s collective spine against an aggressive
China.
It will be one of the last major acts of Obama’s presidency
to rally Asia in support of his signature initiative to rebalance
Chinese regional power.
The summit’s outcome will demonstrate whether Asean
countries’ security concerns outweigh their growing profitable
economic and political linkages with Beijing.
(b) The problem USA sees in South China Sea issue

resolution
US wants a negotiated settlement of the South China Sea
dispute rather than have it resolved by an unnamed read
China “bigger nation bullying a smaller one’.
For the past several years, the US has_ sought
unsuccessfully to nudge Asean members to take a unified
stance against China’s aggressive moves in the South China
Sea.
Although member states Vietnam and Philippines strongly
protested Chinese expansion, including its construction of
airstrips on artificially built islands, the wider group has only
expressed its concern without specifically naming China.
Resistance to staking out a clear position on China’s
aggressive moves has come mainly from countries with close
economic and military ties with China, such as Cambodia,
Laos and Thailand.
These countries also have been accommodating of
Chinese efforts to deport Uighur and other dissidents, and
more recently to kidnap a Hong Kong book publisher who ran
afoul of Chinese censors.
As one Thai official recently admitted in a newspaper
interview, ten million Chinese tourists visiting Thailand every
year is a major consideration for staying in Beijing’s good
books.
Vill. PRESENT SITUATION BETWEEN ASEAN AND

CHINA
The fact remains, however, that China’s phenomenal
economic growth over the past two decades has proved a
boon to Asean members that have been major commodities’
suppliers and supply chain partners for the mainland’s export
sector. In the last five years alone, bilateral trade between
China and Asean has doubled.
While aggressively asserting its claims in the South China
Sea, Beijing has tried to woo Southeast Asia with economic
carrots ranging from free trade to state investments and offers
to build high-speed railway lines and ports.
(a) China’s policy on the issue

In essence, China’s approach to Asean has mirrored the one-
party state’s contract with its own populace: accept our
dominant position and you will be rewarded; challenge us and
you will pay.
It is not surprising that anxious Asean members, especially
maritime nations like Vietnam and Philippines, which have the
biggest disputes with China, have openly welcomed US
presence in the region.
For example, Philippines has given access to US Navy and
Air Force, while Singapore and Malaysia have quietly allowed
US warships and surveillance aircraft to use their airports and
ports to conduct patrols in the South China Sea.
Last year, the US earmarked hundreds of millions of dollars
for maritime security initiatives designed to bolster the naval
and coast guard capabilities of Indonesia, Malaysia,
Philippines and Vietnam.
(b) ASEAN members and USA policy

However, not all Asean members have been so enthusiastic
about US efforts to blunt creeping Chinese expansion. When
US navy vessels recently sailed within 12 miles of artificial
Chinese islands, exercising their right of freedom of
navigation as allowed by the Law of the Sea, the silence of
most Asean countries was deafening.
Only Philippines and Vietnam welcomed the move and
Philippines even proposed joint patrols with the US. The US
has tried to win over skeptics through personal diplomacy,
inviting the leaders of Indonesia and Vietnam to the White
House.
In the economic sphere too, the US is applying pressure on
Beijing. The Obama administration succeeded in enrolling
Asean members — Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam
in its Trans-Pacific Partnership. The ambitious trade and
investment group, which aims to create new rules for global
business, strengthen intellectual property laws and
environmental protections, notably does not include either
China or India.
The Sunnylands Summit was not about building an anti-
China alliance, which is unrealistic given China’s historic and
geopolitical position and US’s reluctance about foreign
entanglement.
But it has achieved Obama’s rebalancing goal of Asean
leaders who are encouraged by economic opportunities and
assurances of military support to take a firmer stand against
Chinese bullying.
IX. INDIA’S STAND ON SOUTH CHINA SEA

In recent years, India has started to become increasingly
more vocal about what it feels is the correct way for the five
main territorial disputants in the South China Sea to resolve
their differences. What’s particularly interesting is that the
rhetoric coming out of New Delhi seems to be growing more
specific and pointed as time goes on. India explicitly supports
international law and arbitration in resolving these disputes.
Its position has always been that India stands for freedom of
navigation on high seas. India would like to ensure that all
countries in the region adhere to the international conventions
on the law of the sea on this issue. Indian policy with such
kind of disputes is that, the claimant countries should observe
international law and norms that disputes are to be settled
peacefully.
A stable maritime environment is essential to realise South
Asia’s collective regional aspirations.
India welcomes the collective commitment by _ the
concerned countries to abide by and implement the 2002
Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea
and to work towards the adoption of a Code of Conduct in the
South China Sea on the basis of consensus.
It also welcomes the establishment of the Expanded
ASEAN Maritime Forum for developing maritime norms that
would reinforce existing international law relating to maritime
security.
X. INDIA AND THE VISION OF A NEW WORLD

ORDER
Following the failure of the socialist model and the
disintegration of the Soviet Union, there was the emergence
of a new world order: the cold war had ended, the liberal
democratic order had emerged victorious and market
economy had given birth to a world of neo-liberalism. In India,
the economic liberalisation of the 1990s with a growth rate of
6-7 per cent per annum had made India’s global presence
visible. Two things had clearly emerged: one, India’s rise as
the largest democracy in the world; second, its growing
economic status. Both these headed towards making India an
acknowledged leader of South Asia, a vibrant regional power
of Asia along with China and staking its claim to be a major
power in the world; all these being a part of the ongoing
process rather than any accomplishment of a status.
India’s record of an_ independent nation — since
independence in 1947 has been remarkable. It has acted as a
soft power, playing a significant role in the decolonisation of
enslaved people, strengthening the United Nations so as to
make it a world forum, leading the non-alignment movement
along with other nations to help the newly independent
nations to safeguard their sovereignty and modernise
themselves, diffusing the cold war rivalries so as to make the
world safe for democracy and safer from all wars. India has
stood for peace and security, progress and development,
modernisation and humanitarian values. She has pledged
and advocated for one world as one people.
India, on the economic front, is managing the transition
from a developing society to a developed one. India is well
ahead of China in soft infrastructure with its exceptional
growth in Information Technology and these have changed
the perception of the Indian economy to a great extent.
Politically, India is a nuclear weapons state and views itself as
a responsible nuclear power. This has been recognised by
the world and this is one of the reasons for the United States
to have entered into a nuclear civilian deal with India. The
country’s position as the largest democracy in the world has
been acknowledged by all nations.
India has a special place in the South Asia region. It is the
only country which shares borders with six other countries—
Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and the
Maldives which together constitute the South Asian
Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC). Afghanistan
joined the regional organisation only recently. Because of her
geographical position, size, population, natural resources,
history, power, and civilisational role, India is a major
undisputed power in the region. Differences do exist among
the countries of South Asia which have led to regional
tensions and which have also led to slow progress in the
objectives and goals of SAARC, but in no case has India ever
tried to dominate her neighbours. In her relations with each
members of SAARC, India has helped in numerous projects
being developed in each of these nations. India, instead of
entering into any confrontation, has extended all help; more
than what was sought by any neighbour. India is not a liability,
but is an asset to her neighbours; she does not intend playing
politics of power in the region, but wants politics of peace.
Some major powers of the world such as the United States,
the European Union, Russia and Japan view the Asian world
order with India and China competing for supremacy of the
region. Most of the Western powers want India to balance
China in Asia. That is the reason that powers such as the
European Union, the United States, Russia and Japan have
strategic partnerships with India and regard India as their
contemporary and future partner. The other regions such as
the South East Asia, West Asia and Central Asia have a
favourable perception of India. The ASEAN was formed, it
may be noted, to keep communist China at a distance; the
Central Asian former Soviet republics have bid goodbye to
the socialist regime. The West Asian countries do have
cooperation with the erstwhile Soviet Union, but the
cooperation was more from the Soviet side than from the
countries of the region. China, in the eyes of most nations of
the world as stated here, is not favourably received. India, on
the contrary, has kept up her traditional ties with these
countries.
For India, the perception of the new world order is today
different than what it was during the cold war period. The cold
war period was marked by India’s non-alignment. It now
pursues the policy of neo non-alignment i.e., engaging the
nations, far and near, to meet its different requirements such
as security, external and internal; sustained economic growth;
energy; maritime; and access to technology. The world order
India seeks to project beyond the region is to have and
ensure stability so as to seek security, energy and economic
growth on the one hand, and exchange what it has for what it
does not have, through means both bilateral and multilateral,
on the other. The globalisation process is easing India’s
efforts rather than obstructing them.
It is not just that India is in the process of engaging with
other nations regionally as well as globally, the world is also
engaging India. The Indo-US nuclear civilian deal is a striking
example of this engagement. The two erstwhile “estranged
democracies” are becoming the “engaging democracies”; a
strategic partnership which recognises India’s current and
future potential for both the region as well as the world as a
nuclear power.
The two world orders face each other: the old order
represented by the USA and Europe, and the new order
represented by countries such as India, China, Brazil and
South Africa. There are two ways to approach the old order:
(i) The new order may seek changes in the international
system;
(ii) it may Cooperate with the old order.
The second possibility seems remote because the power of
Europe is dwindling and that, along with the USA, Europe
may not yield to the demands of the new order—seeking
changes in the international system by asking for the
democratisation of the international organisations, including
the United Nations. The new order seeks an international
system which is equitable, caring and just.
Practice
Questions
1. Describe India-Afghanistan relations in

detail. (700-800 words)
2. What makes Afghanistan important both
for India and Pakistan? (200-250 words)
3. Why did the USA decide to take action
in Iraq? How did India view the Iraqi
problem? (700-800 words)
4. Describe India’s interests in West Asia.
Why is India interested in Central Asian
states? (700-800 words)
5. Write a detailed note on the Gulf War
(1990-91). (700-800 words)
6. Describe the salient features of Indo-US
Nuclear Civil Deal. (700-800 words)
7. Explain India and the vision of the new
world order. (700-800 words)
8. Write a short note on “South China Sea
Issue” and India’s stand on it. (700-800
fA
words)
V
Tad Free; 7800 109 5875 Emait nsechosfinbedueation.com Bay € wawmbeducation.co.is
ae Canna! ott ue i ff Motrnet int ducationmN [3 urEdueationty

Upsc Book Political Science

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Upsc Book Political Science

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ce el 0

N D Arora was an Associate Professor in PGDAV College,

McGraw Hill Education Offices

ebook ISBN(13) : 978-93-5260-490-6

Information contained in this work has been obtained by

ebook Creation : Alok Ranjan

visit us at: www.mheducation.co.in

It is a privilege, indeed, to have a second edition of one’s book

An endeavour to write for competitive examinations such as for

From a competitive examination perspective, the author has

| am greatly indebted to many friends and colleagues, in

Preface to the Second Edition

. Political Theory: Meaning and Significance

. Political Theory: Approaches, Debates, Trends

4. Justice: Rawls’ Theory of Justice

5. Equality: Types, Forms, Relationship with Freedom, and

6. Rights and the Concept of Human Rights

7. Democracy:Representative, Participatory, and Deliberative

8. Concepts: Power, Hegemony, Ideology, Legitimacy

9. Political Ideologies: Liberalism, Socialism, Marxism,

10. Indian Political Thought I: Dharmashastra, Arthashastra,

11. Indian Political Thought Il: Sri Aurobindo, M.K. Gandhi,

12. Western Political Thought I: Plato and Aristotle

13. Western Political Thought Il: Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke,

Niccolo Machiavelli: 1469-1527

14. Western Political Thought Ill: Marx, Gramsci, Arendt

15. Indian Nationalism: Strategies and Perspectives

16. The Making of the Indian Constitution

17. Salient Features of the Indian Constitution

18. Indian Constitution: Amendment Procedure and Basic

19. Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and

20. The Executive in India: The President, The Prime Minister,

21. The Legislature in India: Parliament of India and

22. The Judiciary in India: The Supreme Court, the High

23. Grassroots Democracy: Urban and Rural Government

24. The Statutory Institutions/Commissions

25. Federalism in India

26. Planning and Economic Development

27. Party System and Pressure Groups in India

28. Caste, Religion, Ethnicity, Social Movements in India

29. Comparative Politics: Nature, Approaches, Perspectives

30. The State in Comparative Perspectives

31. Representation, Participation, Party Systems, Pressure

32. Globalisation: Perspectives

34. Key Concepts in International Relations

35. Changing International Political Order

36. Non-Alignment Movement, Soviet Disintegration,

37. International Economic System: WTO, CMEA, NIEO

38. The United Nations System

39. The Regionalisation of World Politics: EU, ASEAN, APEC,

40. Contemporary Global Concerns (Democracy, Human

41. India’s Foreign Policy and Its Role in NAM

42. India and South Asia

43. India’s Relations with Neighbouring States (Pakistan,

46. India and the United Nations System

47. India and the Nuclear Question

ll. POLITICAL THOUGHT, POLITICAL

lll. POLITICAL THEORY: MEANING, DEFINITIONS

IV. POLITICAL THEORY: NATURE

e “what can | know?”,

and this is what makes philosophy a lodestar of life. With

i. “Social structures, unlike natural structures, do not exist

This is where the social sciences are different from the

V. EVOLUTION AND GROWTH OF THE DISCIPLINE