Course Outline- Murali sir samiha.gopal@nalsar.ac.

in
Monday, 18 January 2021 10:59 am 9345296145

• Continue to read and make summaries of readings

• Surprise quizzes
• Texts are fundamental- very scholarly
• Practice short answer writing skills
• TESTS:
○ Usually word limits mentioned
○ For readings which say 'any source' you an literally use any good source to get a diff
perspective, nuance on the topic.
○ 1st module is discussion of concepts, independent of philosophers
 Like control, power, influence, authority
 Kind of like a tool box to analyse all the ideas even from module 3 and 4.
○ 2nd module is more philosopher specific- like what Plato thought, what Gramsci thought etc.
• IDEA vs CONCEPT:
• Concept: organised set of ideas made consciously and methodically, cluster of ideas using a
particular type of logic based on some underlying assumptions
○ Result of politically processing of some idea
○ Transforming idea into concept is a political act b/ c it has a purpose, assumptions, using
certain logic, in a certain context.
○ Can be deadly- can move communities, shape thinking and belief systems
○ Controversy over how ideas become concpets
○ Nietzsche says concepts is from emotion and political ideology but then gets detached from
the idea and gets transplanted into a new context, maybe even completely unrelated from
the origin of the idea
○ Foucault- 'historian of ideas' had a diff view

QUESTIONS TO THINK ABOUT:

• What values inform the choices we are making in our lives?
• Whether they go together w/ the institutions we have
• What is the effect of these rules and isn't on our lives
• When is it okay to compromise on these values
• Use your own examples- give your opinions

• Reading summaries
• Answer all parts of the question
○ Second part will be the application of the theory- so think up examples and illustrations
○ Keep intros as short as possible
○ Go to substance first and then analyse and then interpret
2 tests: till 22 nd mar

• 4th modeule: Caste, federalism, secularism, caste and politics, state, parliament, intellectual
history
• 2 10 M , 1 5 M question
Intro to Pol Sci as a Discipline
Tuesday, 19 January 2021 8:51 am

QUESTIONS TO ASK TO JUDGE POLITICS AS A DISCIPLINE:

• Where to look-Sources: can include religion, great texts, great thinkers
• What must be the goal of politics
• What is the place of politics in society- is it optional?
○ We all have some opinion about politics
○ Even we were an not interested in poltics, politics is interested in you- you will be at the receiving
end quietly
○ Interest in politics is not an option- we all are affected by it so must be interested or at least know
about it
• Is politics a science or art of possible?
○ If sci then should be able to predict- causation, so can politics claim to predict political decisions or
behaviours?
 Superiority of physical sciences is this capacity of prediction
 Social sciences can keep track, analyse evaluate
○ Political science v. politics
 Science as a systematic body of knowledge for understanding a phenomenon using logic ,
assumption
 Politics as science only dev after WW II this is political science.
 Colonialism didn't allow raising questions about our systems and hence the first 300 yeas of dev
of politics was not political science
□ How British tried to make it seem like we were
□ EX: Dadabhai Naoroji was writing about Drain theory but the British passed laws banning
press and printing.
□ Precondition for politics to become poltical science is freedom of speech and expression.
 What kind of political system, rules, rulers they wanted were questions that could
only be asked after decolonialisation
 So politics as an activity is ancient as science is modern.
○ Art meaning not inevitable- you can't really predict every action of politician or political group or
people in general- can't apply cause and effect to human behaviour since there is agency.
 Art of possible as in no definite answer possible- like Rahil Gandhi winning the elections-
 'social adventure' part of politics
 Not what is right or best but what can be done.
○ Debate w/ no conclusive answer yet.

TRACES OF POLITICAL SCIENCE:

• Can be found in ancient east and west
POLITICS: several meanings depending on context
i. Art: Greek- Phronesis meaning practical wisdoms- exchanging of views and debates in the city state
among the citizens
ii. Divide b/w public and pvt sphere- West thinks politics is public sphere and pvt is sacrosanct and
state should have min interference in this pvt life
 Habermasian idea of public sphere being natural background of politics as pvt sphere being
natuarlly opposed to politics.
 But feminists question this- violence, patriarchy, male dominance- "personal is political"- there
is power in the home- they want privacy but not at the cost of their right to life and dignity.
 Some see this as a right to privacy v. right to dignity and life debate
 EX: In India domestic violence is a civil and criminal law- women has a right to reside in her
house after complaining b/c in real life most may be thrown out after complaining but after
counselling if the husband does not change then becomes a criminal issue.
 Sexual division of labour esp. in pvt sphere- the idea that domestic work is no work at all.
 This initially had a purpose-to prevent extreme state interference- but these arguments were
made by the elite- like knights, barons, rich etc- seen in Magna Carta, Locke's essay, US Bill of
Rights but in these times women were not in the public sphere- like right to vote was denied
to them so they couldn't express themselves then.
iii. Politics as science of power- Weberian idea- this again questions the divide of pvt and public sphere
since power does exist in the pvt sphere as well.
iv. Activity: mobilising people, demonstrating
v. Political system: as in Parl, govt, judiciary
vi. Behaviour of the state, individuals, parties, govt - whole school created by American thinkers based
on economics, rationality to solidify politics as a science.
 Rajini Kothari brought his to India in the 1960s.
vii. As simply state and govt

• Politics is war by other means- seen in the discourse of politics "opponents", "defeat", "battles"- logic of
war defines politics sometimes
 vii. As simply state and govt

• Politics is war by other means- seen in the discourse of politics "opponents", "defeat", "battles"- logic of
war defines politics sometimes
○ So politics ends up replacing war w/ debate- words become weapons
○ All spheres of life still a manifestation of war, uses the logic of war

POLITICS AS FUNCTION/ACTIVITY:
• Most ancient meaning of politics and most ubiquitous.
• Politics as a part of social adventure, and maintaining harmony- from philosophical tradition
1. AS ACTIVITY:
PHRENOSIS:
 Proposed by Plato and other
 Need: For exchange of ideas, growing together, to make tentative truths from diff perspective-
there is no 'actual' truth
□ Truth function- truth itself not sacred but has a value by making a
□ Gandhi's "Experiments w/ Truth" shows this as well
○ OBJECTIVE IS SOCIAL HARMONY: This is positivist apprach to politics
○ Also selfishness of individuals but need to live together- so art of coexistence necessitates politics
○ Plato: politics defined as art of organising social harmony-
 What we commonly refer to as common ground
 Religious foundations/ sources for politics and political thinking/philospohy :
□ Even before Plato, Buddha was also taking about entropy which leads to conflict, sexual
division of labour, inequality which needed politics to 'bring people together'- religious
source
□ Confucius: One needed a ruler to prevent confusion, disorder, and disturbance
□ Arthashastra: 2 BC-AD almost, Talk about times of decay and decadence- evil- chaos,
starvation and kal yug and hence this needed politics.
□ Mahabharata: Talk about politics as absolute requisite for maintaining peace and order,
Mahabharata in Santhi Parva- after Bhishma's death has a contractual idea of rulers w/
people choosing the rulers
 Romila Thapar says this justification of violence through politics was a response of
Hinduism to Buddhism's emphasis of non-violence and hence written later.
□ Manusmirti: talks about divine right of politics to keep human together
 Linking of social order and peace with peace being necessary condition for order but
brought either through violence (as Hinduism was saying) or non-violence (as
Buddhism or Gandhi talked about)
□ Islam: Tawhid to bring social harmony- through principle of unity of God- recognises
fragmented nature of human society as seen as Prophet Mohammed-
 So religion preaches through politics a way to bring people together and preserve social
harmony and thereby makes politics a social function.
 Today what is happening is politicisation (making religion a source of startification, division,
social hate, communalism, politics undermining the principles of religion) of religion while what
was used before by people like Gandhi was a using religion to promote or make it a basis for
politics to achieve harmony.
□ Harmony here is controversial- since Hinduism evolved caste which although created social
order
□ Anarchy is not absence of politics only absence of an govt like inst.- but the precondition
here is self-control of individuals to respect free choice of everyone and one's self in the
process- this what most are pessimistic about.
 Anarchism is not violence-so the taboo against anarchism is because of this.
 Hobbes: State of Nature- everywhere there is violence and fighting- Arthashastra also talk
bout this- Matsyanyaya- fish eating fish- and made dharma of ruler protecting of little fish
from big fish.
 The emphasis on social harmony means that people are necessarily plural an diverse in their
races, ethnicities, ideas, needs, backgrounds, thinking- religion recognises this and politics
beacme that common ground
□ But today politics says people need to unified/ made uniform by destroying diversity to be
harmonious. But if everyone is alike there is no need for harmony at all.
2. POLITICS AS PRINCIPLE
POLITICS AS A PATH OF RIGHTEOUSNESS:
 Philosophers have proposed tis like Aristotle
 Alienated it to status of good govt or goo d politics for Common or Supreme Good.
 We didn't no if this considers the diversity of people and if one Good for all can even exist
 This also has basis on religion
 Islam promotes righteousness- creates religious duty to protest aginst bad ruler is more imp
than good governance and this is what makes it more radical than any modern constitutions
□ This approach to righteous part is a threat to all rulers
□ Since middle ages, no consti in the world so far have permitted citizens to revolt aginst
govt to protect the consti- rather consti allows it own suspension to allow protection of
 than good governance and this is what makes it more radical than any modern constitutions
□ This approach to righteous part is a threat to all rulers
□ Since middle ages, no consti in the world so far have permitted citizens to revolt aginst
govt to protect the consti- rather consti allows it own suspension to allow protection of
political order- doesn't consider likelihood of an evil government.
□ Gandhi also said that it was his duty to resist evil governance
□ Reason perhaps why political instability is common in Middle East.
 Buddhism and Confucianism also talk about this
 Also talk about virtues of rulers and citizens/common man
 This is a normative approach to politics since it talks about a Good.
 Today acknowledging that dominant sections of society define Good to benefit them, political
scientists have almost written off this approach

• CONTRADICTION b/w harmony and righteousness approach:

○ Need for Harmony implies everyone is diverse in their views and approaches
○ Principle says that everyone should believe the same thing since there is only one Good even if we are
all diverse in religious beleifs, age, ethnicity etc
 EX: Begging is wrong would not affect a billionaire but unjustly penalise a beggar.
○ Hence tension b/w uniformity and diversity approaches to politics.

3. AS INSTRUMENT
○ Instrument has no value of it own but value based on what it can do
○ Politics can be used to commit good or bad
○ Means of using power
• Plato tries to compromise this activity and principle apprach to create a 'philosopher king'
○ He not only performs activities to bring harmony but he also lives according to the principle of
righteousness as a good person- not ambitious, democratic, loves wisdom
○ But this is a very dangerous idea today since it assumes that one person knows everything and
cannot make a mistake and is seen in the way be lionise politicians as humble, perfect leaders.
○ So King being a political head/ruler is an instrument which performs diff functions for the rule of
the subjects and society.

4. EMBODIMENT OF POWER: Community

○ WEBER: ability to achieve one's interest even against another's will. logic choices
○ CRITIQUES:
 20th C. Idea of Usage of coercion, power, will remove the first idea of politics as social
harmony - which was proposed from ancient times
 Power in politics functions only through pure coercion unlike in other sphere of operation of
power like between friends, student-teachers etc.
 Political power is packaged in the larger meaning of power as ideology, social control, social
structure with State at the centre. Coercive power operates at this foundation State level.

Ideology

Social control

Social structure

State/
power

○ There is society in which there are certain inst. who hold coercive power and this organises the entire
society.
○ Coercive power essentially is power to enforce, to create consequences like imprisonment
 Coercive power doesn't need to centralised however- like in panchayats social sanctions can be
used like stigma, reduction of opportunities
○ POLITICS AS SCIENCE OF POWER:
 Religious texts talk about how power should be exercised, says power should be sued as per
certain norms.
 But this doesn't recognise the diversity of humans and leads to totalitarian regimes.

TERRITORY:
• Weber considers is an essential aspect of politics
• If politics is supposed to be art of social harmony, bringing diverse together then physical boundaries
creates artificial divide between people
• Pvt-public sphere is another version of this.
• Also relegation of religion to pvt sphere and secular being political is another manifestation
 • So these boundaries of peace (what is peace and war), religion, pvt, public, secular etc are all conceptual
territories- Ecology of conception within which politics is discussed.
○ We need to keep in mind which sphere one is operating in when we talk about politics
○ Power of determining what is just or good is therefore restrained in the context of spheres- no
monopoly over determining truth or right or wrong.
○ Truth can be dictatorial and the price paid can be genocide of people and culture
 Why development as an ideology is also problematic.
• So even though it is a social fact it is specific in its operation with coercive power being its foundation.

2 Imp APPROACHES TO STUFY OF POLITICS POWER v. INTEGRATION:

• POWER:
○ Poltics is central to soceity
○ It is how society is organised around powerful groups- Hegel, Marx, Weber
○ Weber has 2 conceptions- Macht- might as power and Herrschaft- lordship- like as authority
○ So the powerful groups define society
○ Weber however doesn't consider it a division of labour
 He says that is has its own determinants
 Weber says that power is the explanatory variable for transformation of society- so the govt
creates a new type of soceity like developmental soceity under 1960s
○ Why politics has become so central to our lives-
 Likely due to individualisation- where every person is a power centre and there is constant
resistance power- Foucault's power capillaries
 So it is like a new religion if we take an analogy with religion of the medieval era.
• INTEGRATION:
○ Durkheim- says politics not central but diff groups in society come together and they organise a
power structure to reintegrate all the groups together- so it is a sociological function
○ So society undertakes politics as a function of integration
○ EX: B/c Caesar attacked the Gall area (Britain, Switzerland, France), various tribal groups under one
leader came together to fight against Caesar
○ EX: Like how nations came together.

• Essentially no one way of understanding politics - it is always plural and many sciences have contributed
to pol sci study.
○ Has also changed with times- diff before and after colonialism and post- colonialism
○ Challenged mono-dimensional view of politics as perhaps only for development which was taken
after WWII.
○ People in power promote only one way of politics and this in itself is a politics.
○ Anthropology- says diff societies had diff types of politics- for exmaple some Islamic societies wanted
politics to realise teh will of God as bringing all tribes together, simialrly with Roman empire.
 In modern times cultural background- w/ diff cultures producing diff politics- so political
commentators in one country, culture, group etc cannot use the same understanding to study
another country's, cultures, etc politics
 Conceptual grasp of each could be diff and hence we need an anthropolgical outlook when we
do this.
 EX: Arabic has a word 'Dawlah' which is roughly 'state' but is it not equivalent
• Politics of the market the way companies undertake ethical goals on behalf of the consumer- their ability
to make this choice on our behalf is also politics.

EPITSEMOLOGICAL (science of meaning) BUILDING BLOCKS:

• Epistemology- the study knowledge (methods, validity and scope and distinction b/w justified belief and
opion)
• Ontology- study of the relationship b/w concepts like b/c power and authority
○ Every epistemology may define an ontology b/w terms differently
• Methodology- the method of studying- like using a survey, dialogue analysis in movie etc
• Hermaneutics: how do you interpret knowledge
STUDYING POL SCI
1. MULTI-DIMENSIONAL NATURE OF POLITICS:
○ Subjective and objective dimensions of politics: not exclusive of each other just to know which
influences our thought more.
i. Objective dimensions- take help of physical sciences since there are observable phenomenon
 Like structures- predictability of science operates in our understanding here.
 Like Marxism is largely object oriented by expressing how calss and capitalism affects everything
else. But it can also be normative like Marxism also prescribes what the ideal state would look
like
 Pol objects are studied here- like state, bureaucracy
ii. Subjective: is psychology, emotions, experiences etc
 Meta- theory here is behavioralist and adopted from econ
 So subjective actions of human beings which affects politics- but doesn't recognise normative
considerations pf whether these actions are good or bad.
 iii. Normative dimension: ethics and philosophy- like Plato, Confucius
 Conceptual order:
NORMATIVE

SUBJECTIVE

OBJECTIVE

 Three dimensions are there in each person to understand each other and the society
 This understanding is complex: Which is more dominant in shaping our view of the world or are
they equally influential? Can we transcend subjectivity from self- interest?
 Imp since our judgements are formed based on these factors which we often don't undersatnd
or even consider
 Objective meta-theories use only objective and subjective methods
 Here the hidden objective nature of predictability is adopted even though human nature doesn't
work that way- this can be criticism of this approach
□ Even physical world is not predicatble: Newtonian physics is under attack today due to
quantum theory, the atom was once though indivisible but now we have particles inside
protons- quarks which are posing difficult questions
2. Plasticity and malleability- Karl Popper
○ So there is a cloud-clock continuum- with cloud being the subjectivity of social sciences and clock the
objectiveness and predictability of physical sciences- determinism
Clock Cloud

○ Strategies of physical sciences are not completely applicable to human sciences but doesn't mean
absolutely unpredictable- just no real causation possible.
○ To predict political events, Choice + Human action + Chance (this is what makes it uncertain)
○ Conclusion is that we need to be modest in our claims about causal relationship and universality of
theories in pol sci.
○ Plastic matter is what is between cloud and clock and this is where pol sci lies since it can be a
certain an uncertain science.
○ Hard social science- is more data oriented (like voting data) and soft social science is more
philosophical
3. Self-referential character:
○ Happens unconsciously when one identifies with another we communicate with- can be due to
shared gender, community, caste, religion etc
○ This may 'colour our lenses'- create biases
○ Hermeneutic circle- whole is understand through the part and part understood through the whole-
interrelationship b/w macro and microcosm
 Hermeneutics is the theory and methodology of interpretation- verbal, non-verbal, semiotics,
presuppositions, gestures- this can be used to predict and understand one another
 Psychoanalysis- explains our fear, emotions,
○ Gives rise to constructive interpretation- can dig deep into inner psyche of subject of social sciences,
that is, humans ourselves- so not necessarily a bad thing- can help us predict the essence of our
being- and doesn't need to be one-dimensional can be plural- expressed by Foucault.
 EX: can be used to understand why one section of soceity votes for one particular party.

APPROACHES:
1. Systems-perspective/model: American model
○ System: a concept made of interrelated and interdependent parts
○ Seeks to also identify the elements- inputs, the process, the outputs and feedback loops
2. Linkages of levels of analysis: can be used to understanding voting for example
○ Explanadum is nothing but outputs
○ It tries to explain how one macro concept affects another
• None of these models can be put together at the same time and instaed will be competing

POLITICS and RELATED DISCIPLINES:

• Today politics uses empirical perspective but can be historical, legal etc
• Empiricism came about due to natural sciences' influences- this type of pol sci is diff from political
philosophy, political sociology
• Public law is all about what ought to be while pol sci is all about what 'is'
• Political sci- starts with state and how it impact the society while pol socio starts w/ socity and how it
affects the state.
• Functionalism has been drawn into pol sci from anthropology, game theory and rational theory from econ
• Intl law affect intel relations which is part of pol sci
• Sociology can study communication in pol sci
• Intl association of pol sci- 4 imp sources of identified by them:
i. Philosophers on pol theory
ii. Of jurists in undertsanding govt
iii. Influence of internationalists on subject of intl relations
iv. Behaviourist school of American pol sci on how we study pol opinion, pol parties and groups
 Takes influence from econ psychology- how consumers behave
• Write a summary on epistemes and disciplinary relations
Political Philosophy
Friday, 29 January 2021 12:02 pm

POL PHILO: branch of philo devoted to reflecting on the contents, values and conditions of pol life.
• What kind if social and pol arrangement will facilitate us to achieve the purpose of life
• It decided what is good for society, how things should be distributed
• Branch of philosophy devoted to reflect on the content,
• OBJECTIVES:
1. Legitimacy of pol power
○ Why? Should we have a state? Why do people live under govt?
○ Govt could provide order, prevent discrimination and protect the 'small fish' , tradition as an alternative
mechanism of state,
○ Anarchy need not be lack of order and complete chaos- it can just be dismantling of hierarchy- this is
Gandhi's idea
○ Aristotle says that chain of being (existentialism Jean Satre)- we are all interconnected. We want our
freedom but we cannot escape these conditions.
 Great chain of being is a Medieval Christian line of thought of hierarchy of beings designed by God-
angels-humans-animals-plants and then minerals.
 State and judiciary can help us live together as political animals
○ Hobbes on the other hand considered it legitimate due to the will of humans from descending into the
'natural order of war and anarchy' as outlined in the Leviathan.

2. Mode of pol power

○ What are the fundamental values that help us promote political life? What pol arrangement allows this?
○ Plato's republic says that justice is the most fundamental principle of pol life and this should be the
organising principle
 Says that there are 3 types of people: those guided by reason (these should become the kings and
philosophers), by spirit (should become soldiers) and by appetite should beocme plebians (citizens,
merchants, etc)
○ Machiavelli in 14th C. Suggest politics and morals should be separated and politics should promote its
own values like order and stability- this was in the context of city-state wars in Italy.
 Liberty was the most imp according to him
3. Limits of pol power
○ Are there limits to what pol power can legitimately do? If these limits exist, who do we define them?
○ Jean Locke argues in 2 treatises of Govt that if pol arises from our will to create a state and order, we
should also have a will to limit it.
○ Will may exist w/ everyone but society may limit it
○ Here govt must be limited by the fundamental/human /natural rights of persons such as life and pvt
person.
• These questions have been asked since inception of pol philosophy, but democracy in modern times has given
them a new thrust.

METHODS OF POL PHILO:

• Big diff b/w pol sci and philo
 • In philo- Plato was the first type where pol was a part of his general philosophy and Machiavelli was the
second type who wrote primarily about pol philo.
• During Machiavelli's time while pol philo was getting more distinct it was still interwined w/ philo in
• In 20th c. It was decide that pol sci should be value free, positive and not normative- decide 'what is'
• Pol philo on the other hand continues to talk about what should/ought be
• John Rawls is a 20th C. Pol philosophers
• Pol sci has 3 methods of interpreting the world
a. Synthetic: describing the facts of reality which cannot be taken for granted- EX: there are 150 towns in
this country
b. Analytical: explanation of facts, which are self explanatory and tell us more about logic and lang use -
like GDP is gross domestic product
 These two don't add to pol philo at all
c. Evaluative: Justice is the most imp
 This is what pol philo deals with
• Hillary Putnum disagrees with this- says even facts ahve normative judgement
○ EX: Future belongs to cities
○ Says this is also a value judegement since we are saying one lifestyle is better than another, more
progressive, modern than the other
• Another difference is that philo works w/o reference to the world as it actually is while pol sci has to make
systematic reference to the real, empirical world.
○ Pol philo hence also different from history which although not value free at least tries its best to depict
how things have been and is not meta-physical.
• 4 methods of doing pol philo (imp for projects):
a. NORMATIVE PRESCRIPTIONS OF STANDARDS OF CONDUCT: All about principle. How parl is working?
Whether it is behaving well? Why this is wrong? Right?
b. CONSTRUCTION OF THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: no judgements- just construct an understanding of
how Parl is behaving using some theory- like comparing w/ Westminster
 Chiara Bottici: Human beings do not only act on what is rational or reasonable- he argues that we
need to analyse human imagination- understanding of pol psychology of the people
c. DECONSTRUCTIVE UNPACKING OF CONCEPTS AND PARADIGMS: Try to deconstruct the menaing
when one says that parl is working well or poorly- unpacks the statement
 Derrida - 'politics of friendship'- politics of alliances that created space for men but not for women
d. HISTORY OF POL CONCEPTS: Parl as a rep body- what was the meaning 100 years ago, now? Why did
it behave in some way then and what was its purpose then.
 To understand the history of ideas we need to go into history- Foucault was the epitome of such a
scholar- how ideas have served diff purposes across eras (like madness construing diff things)
• DELIBERATIVE METHOD: Habermas and Aristotle used this
○ Pol is not about parl or parties it about how people dicuss, negotiate, arrive at consensus at every level
○ Habermas says we should not discuss what is good or bad for the future- we should use consensus to
arrive at what is good RIGHT NOW given the current context

CHALLENGES TO POL QUESTIONS:

1. Poststatist: Why do we think that state is necessary? We should think beyond state for democracy (David
Held)
2. Feminists question traditional boundaries b/w public and pvt sphere - Carol Pateman
3. Question centrality of human beings in nature that is assumed in human sciences- Green parties use this
thinking- need to take nature as an independent political entity
Political Ideologies • Origin, nature, types, relationships, functions,
Monday, 1 February 2021 8:12 am consequences

• IDEOLOGIES: systems of ideas that shape people's thoughts and actions w/ regard to many things
○ There is nothing that ideologies don't shape in our understanding from nationality, race, role of govt, class,
relations b/w men and women, including spirit of times
○ All actions are called preceded by thoughts and ideologies
○ FEATURES:
 Potent, lethal political forces either intrinsically, explicitly or by default
 Can become pol forces.
○ How do we identify them: liberalism, marxism, gandhism, capitalism, hindutva, religion, fascism, feminism,
environmentalism etc
 Try to alter the lives of all humankind
 Each ideology produces diff types of societies, politics and economies
 They define relations b/w human have been, are and what they might and what they should be.
○ They claim to have visions and define a supreme goal- like equality is first, or environemnt is first, or
freedom is first etc and they act as movements to change the world, have supreme leaders and raise
resources, like armies (in the figurative sense)
 Some ideologies achieve their goals through physical coercion (fascism) while others use ideological
coercion (liberalism, globalisation)
□ Ideological coercion is harder since impossible to escape
○ There are may modern ideologies and they are in a kind of ideological wars- culture wars (culture war is a
cultural conflict between social groups and the struggle for dominance of their values, beliefs, and
practices.)
 Ex: Isis ideology in the name of religion

HISTORY OF IDEOLOGY:
• Coined by Antoine Destutt de Tracy in the 18th C- his followers were called ideologues-called "science of idea"
• Defined it as a "systematic study of the origins of ideas" in the revolutionary decade
○ He drew on the ideas of John Locke: tells us human mind is a blank slate-tabula rasa- and people are born
w/ no ideas of the world or reality and he beleives that every idea we have and know is a result of our
self-experience.
○ The only idea we have as infants is for survival
○ De Tracy however limited the objective of ideology to serve the revolutionary idea of reshaping and
reconstructing the society
○ Locke and Tracy argued that since ideas come from experience they must have some origin and that some
ideas can be misleading, false and wrong
• Tracy thought religious ideas were standing in the way- regarded them as superstitions
○ He wanted to identify how such ideologies were indoctrinated so that it could be replaced w/ ideas which
lead to a "happier, more rational world"
○ This is what associated ideology w/ attempt to shape how people think to move them to act in certain
ways.
○ This threatened traditional authorities of religion in the West and hence they construed ideology as a
 pejorative- called it false, seductive and dangerous.
○ Napoleon although initially given support by the ideologues but once he was in power he needed the
support of the Church to remain there and hence called ideology- sinister metaphysics and considered it a
mask to cover subversive plans of his opponents
 To bring change you need ideology; to stay stable you need religious support
• Marx defined ideology as a set or system of ideas that serve to justify and legitimise rules of dominant social
class and its interest.
○ Called it an "illusion of the epoch" epoch b/c it is an illusion shared by the rulers and ruled alike but
actually used by rulers to maintain the subjugation of the ruled.
○ This conception made ideology a weapon in the class struggle. Revealed that prevailing ways of thinking
about social relations throughout history were merely complex and subtle defences of power and privileges
of the dominant classes.
○ Responsibility of the intellectual or revolutionary philosopher is to see through the ideology, expose the
truth of the ideologies and unravel the interest behind the ideology which would make revolution possible.
 The intellectual may have their own self-interest, yet they may have the ability to be conscious of this
belief they hold unlike others.
 But not every self- interest is sinister- they may not seek power
○ Marx didn't realise that communism would be an ideology in itself to uphold oligarchic rule of USSR and
China today- he in fact denied it was an ideology and called it a science instead.
○ What people think may depend on their class
○ 19th C was progress, 20 C was development
• Karl Mannheim: A system of belief of a social world or Weltanschuung (worldview) b/c it includes everyone
○ Particular conception of ideology- pointing out bias of using ideology and calling someone's ideas distorted
and having a hidden interest- like how de Tracy understood
○ Total conception of ideology -characteristic way of thinking of an entire class, society or period- like the
way Marx saw it
 EX: Photography has changed the way we look at people- Gandhi's image has fixed it him as an old
man and a Mahatma w/o realising he was also once young and troubled.
○ Disturbing conclusion is that ideology is so broad and all-encompassing that no one stands outside of it
making unmasking almost impossible
○ Intellectuals can only do it perhaps by synthesising views of opponents and reach closer to a truth. Even
then it would only be representative of a particular time or place and not of the whole lot of ideologies
that can shape a constant truth of our reality.
○ Some scholars opine that Mannheim's defintion may have been to broad and vague for it to be of any real
use- 27 defining characteristics!
• So ideology is a distorted truth which is difficult if not impossible to overcome
• Ideology makes us feel like we have the closest access to reality and truth by simplifying reality into a certain
perspective and professing that his is the ultimate view.
○ Ideologues claim that their ideas have monopoly over the truth- so either accept or be vanquished- if you
don't believe my truth you must be an enemy of the truth who doesn't want progress, culture, values,
morality etc
• Daniel Bell says that using ideologies gives us old solutions to new problems- we go to ideological 'vending
machines' that automatically gives us solutions for the problems and don't take each issue individually on its own
merits.
○ EX: Party lines defining choices
○ EX: Climate issue- communist would say it is capitalism's problem and only removing this would solve it,
 environmentalism would say that consumerism is the problem,
○ It becomes a heuristic
○ So the option out is to realise the limitations of our ideologies and apprach it as critical thinkers rather
than using one ideology as a blanket epistemology to come up w/ solutions..
○ EX: Caste ideologues would make everything associated w/ caste- if someone is smart, a good artists,
rebellious, meek etc
○ EX: Fascists would say that not saying the national anthem would mean one is anti-national
• Neutral view of ideology is just use it to refer to the pattern of the operating world or a contrasting set of
beliefs, ideas and convictions which is by use not a bad thing- like a political candidate differentiating his
ideology from that of his competitor.
• Both the pejorative and neutral views have 2 things in common:
i. Depart from De Tracy's understanding of ideology as scientific study of ideas
ii. Believes that set of ideas affect the wat people act.

PROVISONAL DEFINITION OF IDEOLOGY: how indoctrination occurs- the instruments of creating ideology
• IDEOLOGY: A more or less coherent and comprehensive set of ideas that explains and evaluates social
conditions, helps people understand their place in society and provides a programme for social and political
action.
• 4 imp functions from this definition:
1. Explanatory:
○ Explain why social, pol conditions are they why they are, esp. in times of crisis and the explanations would
differ across the ideologies
○ EX: What caused covid- conservatives would say it's b/c of angering God, environmentalists it's b/c of
climate change
○ It would all tie back to some set of values, beliefs, place in the society, gender, culture which is influenced
and influential on ideology.
○ It offers a simplistic explanation for looking at complex events and conditions and thereby turn the
maximum number of people to "their side", and do not point out the limitations of their ideologies
2. Evaluation:
○ Ideologies supply standards/criteria for evaluating social conditions- if something is desirable or not, good
or bad
○ EX: are all social conflicts bad or are some morally justifiable, are depressions normal or symptoms of a
sick economy
○ Helps people to assess, judge, appraise social policies and conditions and using this we justify and condemn
these conditions.
3. Orientation:
○ Ideologies supply their followers w/ a sense of identity and our place in the world as an individual, class,
race, group, group, nation etc- hence it is like a compass to locate ourselves in a complicated world
○ EX: feminists may say that gender is the most crucial identity since everything is about sexual identity,
Marxists may say that class is the most imp aspect
○ The ideologies that influence us and we have to reconcile these opposing ideas and sometimes this is
impossible.
○ Usually the ideologies we subscribe to are b/c these are ideas we have stakes in- and not subscribing can
also have a stake.
○ Which is the most fundamental orientation? Economic class has tried to incorporate feminism and caste as
long as it does not affect its ability to make profits.
 ○ What is my ideological compass
4. Programmatic
○ Sets out general programme of social and political action.
○ Ex: libertarians wnat policies that will reduce govt influence in markets while conservatives will wnat the
state to promote traditional values

CONCEPTION OF HUMAN NATURE: ideology + human nature + social change

• Each ideology defines what is fundamental to human beings- their desires, motivations, nature
• EX: So classical liberalists would say that people are naturally competitive since everyone wants the most of the
scare resources. Socialists on the other hand beleive that humans are naturally cooperative and unnatural
sources are making us greedy.
• Each conception and view of human nature sets limits on what it sets to be politically possible
○ EX: neo-liberalism would think cooperation is impossible
• Most ideologies have a fairly optimistic view that people can make changes since undertaking revolutionary is a
risky activity- this is b/c since the French revolutionary some ideology has been at play
• Conservatives however do believe that revolution is dangerous and are suspicious
• Core assumptions about human nature have led ideologies to call for diff types of revolutions- as a sweeping
change, or maintenance of a rigid structure, or slow reform or even return to the 'golden days' of the past.
• No matter the ideology or its call for social change, they ALL HAVE CONSEQUENCES- which can be benign or
dire.

• Ideologies cannot all be put on a left-right spectrum- oversimplifies them too much
• A system of govt is not an ideology but maybe a tool used by ideologies to bring chnage- like how fascism
supports dictatorship , liberalism supports democracy.
• Terrorism, revolution, is an activity that could be used by ideologies
• Capitalism is not an ideology but an economic system

COMMON IDEOLOGY: Overlap all the time

• Communism: no private ownership of means of production and everyone is supposed to be equal, all are
remunerated equally
• Conservatism: different in each country- stick to traditions of our society and drastic change is bad
○ Need not mean being religion- like in Europe you can be conservative w/o being religious
• Environmentalism: environment should take precedence in policy- geocentric > anthropocentric
• Identity politics: Feminism, LGBTQ+, religious fundamentalism, or white supremacists, nationalism (but to some
extent)
○ Feminism is not the same as other political ideologies b/c no one comes to power based on feminism.
• Liberalism:
i. modern: fundamental rights and emphasis on recognition of identities, harmonious living
ii. Neo-liberal/classist: free market- laissez faire capitalism- the govt has min intervention- don't mind state
intervening for social rights
• Libertarianism: State should be min in EVERY aspect of life- state should only intervene to protect pvt
property- pvt property is key!
• Socialism: imp , essential industries should be govt owned, but can have pvt property, and no equal
remuneration unlike communism
• Anarchism: beleif that all hierarchies should be abolished and everyone should voluntarily cooperate w/ each
other
 ○ Most anarchism is against capitalsim , but anarcho-capitalsim does exist
• Fascism: formed by nationalist right wing ideology, traditional roles should be reinforced, surveillance and state
control over al aspects of life.
• Thoughts about V for vendatta

Power
Wednesday, 3 February 2021
GUIDING QUESTIONS:
○ You can dicuss and distinguish them
7:53 am ○ Think about relation between influence, control,
power and authority
○ Legitimacy and belief and how it defines authority
○ Also sources of power

STUDYING POWER?
• Power research has been confusing because of the high moral load associated with it - whether it is right or
wrong to exercise power
• Weberian epistemological norms-werturteilsfreitheit- freedom from value judegement -are under extreme
pressure from critical analysts and rest of public to take a moral view on the power.
• Objective method of understanding of power is in itself biased since they hold that only objective methodology
of analysis can give objective knowledge- this is the criticism levelled aginst them
• Power analysis is thereofre on slippery ground- scholars of power are prone to be influenced by ideologies and
cultural images of power.
○ EX: approaching power from liberalism you analyse it from a particular way diff from a conservative
view
• 2 images of power
i. All power is bad: think that powerful suppress meekest members of society and make them dependent
on powerholders. They believe concentration of power undermines value of democracy like equality,
justice, freedom, etc.
 This is largely as physically power- violence
 Outcomes: "real power" is seen as hidden , male dominated research, looks into bloodless violence
rather than brute force- intellectual
ii. Power is good: Power is generally associated w/ gifted and qualified men and women constituting an
'elite' and they are associated w/ know-how, trust, expertise and vision and they use it for the overall
well-being of soceity
 So power here works on the basis of non-physical coercion using mainly intellectual means
 Elite is associated w/ power since they want to maintain their legitimacy through non-physical
coercion.
 This view is hence biased and usually held by the already elite and already hold power.
 Common people may also have this view by internalising that power in the hands of elite is good.

DEFINITIONS:
• Weber: " Power is the probability that one actor in a social relationship will be able to carry out his own will
despite resistance regardless of the basis of which this probability rests"(Macht)
• "probability" here meaning that all conceivable combos circumstances, qualities and will makes it possible for
that person to impose his will- this is what makes it possible to mobilise power and exert the will in all
situations and makes it sociologically undefinable or amorphous in any one specific way.

4 ELEMENTS OF POWER TO EXERCISE IT:

1. Relational: B/w A and B one imposes and another complies
○ Richard Tawney: "power can be defined as the capacity of an individual, or group of individuals, to
 modify the conduct of other individuals or groups in the manner which he desires."
○ Robert Dahl: A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something which B would not
otherwise do.
 B can resist A's will by mobilising counter-power
○ How do you break relational power: Popitz gives 3 ultimate ways in withdrawing physically: by escaping
the relation, by committing suicide, by being prepared to be killed.
 Like terrorism- the most powerless in a system are willing to give up their life b/c of it.
2. Intentional: If B conforms w/ A wishes even w/o A intending to impose his will on B- this is not power but
influence. Influence is at play even in anticipated reactions- where one follow or 'falls in line' since they know
what would happen if they didn't comply
○ Friedrich- calls influence lack of visible pressure, power relationship may exist due to past experience and
changing behaviour based on 'anticipated reactions'
○ EX: like people agreeing w/ dictators to save their lives and the wrongful thinking this is voluntary when
it is really indirect coercion.
○ Control is also close to power but DISTINCT
 Means of control is what differentiates them w/ only power having coercive power
 Powerful person uses diff resources, including violence to enforce his or her will.
 Control is however used when other's behaviour is supervised or guided w/o wanting to change it-
controlling mechanisms include media, judiciary, opposition, election commission
□ 'w/o wanting' is usually 'unable' to change it
□ Used to supervise power resources
□ Ex: the powerless UN peacekeeping force instead of controlling the militias of the Congo
actually ended up joining them
 This is since controller cannot have coercive power of the executive since then there would be no
controller.
 Also coercive power holding inst. is the one that creates controlling bodies like judiciary, media- so
why would they give controlling body coercive power
 "master's tool will never dismantle master's house"- here tools are controlling mechanisms while the
master is the executive.
□ EX: RTI act amendments, US blocking appointments to WTO appellate body making its
control ineffective, ICJ
 Control w/o power can be very inefficient if the powerholder becomes too strong
○ Intention to exert power can be expressed explicitly by writing it out- this is an order to obey
○ Authority (Weberian Herrschaft) = power + explicit expression + formal manner + intention to change
explicitly
 Also happens when power extends
 Informal manner become power since it prevents accountability- this is why it is difficult to control
 Influence is informal manner and implicit intention
 Power is informal expression of intention
□ EX: The universal reverence given to CMs in temples and non-governmental activities like
attending a marriage. This is the "power of authority roles" as described by David Easton
 Easton also says that authority decides/allocates the values-"authoritative allocation of values" - EX:
How the govt thinks they know what is good for the farmers- that privatisation is efficient and
good.
 Power can be expressed through subtle body langauge as well- informal expression.
  Control and infleunce are based on power, sort of its forms

3. Based on social resources: like qualities of one person- like wealth, education, political, capital, fame,
popularity, value making
3 foundations/basis of power (Lepsius) :
a. Market: refers to what Marx called ownership of menas of production-capitalists
 Those who own means of production have more power than even the State and associations in
most cases- they can push through their will.
b. Association/organisation: can be opposition, Ngo, trade union, political party, lobbyists
 Refers creation of will into political will
 "Organisation is mobilisation of a bias"- Schattschneider which allows one to get power
 Ex: Naxal power is weak and fragmented
c. State
 Legitimate use of violence only by the state body - that's why they have the monopoly of coercive
power- as authorised by the poeple by a social contract usually.
○ Combination of these 3 will make one more powerful
○ EX: RSS + State+ corporates would allow this and they have greater chance to succeed. Organisation
allows this success to be greater.
○ Strong power resources tend to attract each other- Western democracies have created the illusion that
each powerful inst. compete w/ each other but the relaity is that they collude more often than not.
○ System theorists like Talcott Parsons also envision power as a medium of communication that changes
the actions of actors in the process of interaction.
 Sort of like money- so it has a currency
 Says power also operates as per diminishing returns with more power being less effective but
doesn't know when.

4. Related to context:
○ Context can be formal or informal
○ Informally- values, norm , sanctions regulate power relations and these aren't well defined. Again
contributes to unaccountability but risk here is that it could be disobeyed since it is informal
 Like the folding of the banana leaf after a meal is based on expectations and practices of the socety
but this is quite arbitrary
○ Authority= power + legitimacy
○ Weber proposes that authority can be distinguished depending on context. He gives us 3:
i. Charismatic authority: creates an image and based on personality of the leader- media helps in
creating this image. Like businesses and cult leaders- unstable usually since only as longas that
person lives
ii. Traditional authority: in social structure and conventions, by implicit norms and values
□ Usually need coercive power for it to be exercised
□ Like the eldest male is the head if the family customarily- so he followed only for this reason.
iii. Rational legal authority:
□ Derived from rules- consti acts as this source in India
 Legitimacy and belief: among the 3, decisive criteria b/w the relations of A and B is legitimacy
claimed by A and belief in legitimacy of B.
□ Problem arises when B's belief is weak compared to legitimacy claimed by A.
 □ If legitimacy and belief are equal than B will comply to all directions of A and A need not use
coercion.
• SUMMARY:
○ Power is exertion of one's will agianst another
○ Unintentional power is influence
○ Legitimate power that other believe is authority
○ Control regulates power

LEVELS OF POWER:
• Micro( individual, everyday) , middle (communities) macro( systems or regimes) levels exist
DISTRIBUTION OF POWER (ownership and exercise also):
• Can be discovered using reputational (asking people who they think is the most powerful), positional (deeing
who holds what offices) and decisional (who were the decision makers and of they were the same people in
diff spheres) methods
• ELITIST: Social and economic power are integral and inseparable from political power
○ Floyd Hunter reached this conclusion through a reputational analysis of power in Atlanta- flawed b/c
not all who hold power are visible and also conflates prestige with power (like beloved actors)
○ C Wright Mill used positional analysis and countered pluralists by showing that American democracy was
dominated, if not monopolized by a few, esp the military-political-corporate nexus.
○ Features:
○ Power is held by a small elite who have the monopoly over resources like edu, wealth and high incomes,
prestige
○ Claim essential divide b/w elite and masses and masses rarely if ever become elite
○ Says based on economic wealth accumulation- so real power not w/ political actors alone but
business/corporate
○ All elite have same basic values since small homogenous grp of people
○ Say power is pyramid structured in a soceity and few have resources to reach the level of power
○ No accountability to masses since have no power over them and are misinformed
• PLURALIST:
○ Power here exists as differentiated groups of elites- found using positional analysis and hence criticism
includes lack of wealthy, powerful always having positions or offices or visible power (ex: anon pol
financers, lobbyists, media influences)
○ Robert Dahl attempted to counter Wright using decisional analysis- based on whether the same people
held decision making power in three imp spheres- found no overlap and hence supported pluralism.
○ Criticized b/c decision making has 2 sides: (Bachrach and Baratz)
i. Visible face which appears to be taking the decisions and is less influential comapred to the invisible
face
ii. Invisible face: Decisive in preventing certain decisions and unobservable since they operate in the
'dark'
□ Rejection of certain topics even for discussion is also power
□ But acknowledge it is difficult if not impossible to study non-decisions
□ The very fact that every movement has biases (Schattaschneider) acknowledges that every
movement suppresses some issues and bases itself on some biases- this is the structure of
power
○ Multi-dimensionality may help us address this: means that we need to look at power from multiple
 ways:
 Steven Lukes considered the decisional approach- 1D, nondecisional-3D and multidimensional as
3D.
 Religious leaders once had power, then social leaders, then political leaders, today economic leaders
and even media and technology
□ How twitter can wipe away a tweet it wants, shut down an account
 This allows us to understand boundaries of power and their effects
 The structure must be referenced to understand power.
○ Features:
○ Also think that power is acquired through managerial capabilities, superior leadership skills, and greater
knowledge of democratic process. Claim power can 'pass on' to others
○ Therefore, no real divide b/w elite and masses- anyone can come into power if they are interested
enough in the matter.
○ Say power operates like in an onion w/ neither the top nor bottom exercising power but the middle
○ Competition of values among elite since represent diff groups and values.
○ Accountable to their communities, esp through mechanisms like elections.

INTL SYSTEMS AND POWER;

• Balance of power has been talked about in Europe -esp during the 18th-19th C.
• Power not only about physical resources but also how these resources are mobilized, organized, oriented and
deployed
• Power has two forms- hard power- through military show of power and soft power based on diplomacy,
persuasion and manipulation
○ Soft power imp when physical violence can not concur minds.
○ Power has changed in its appearance and study b/c of this- no longer just ability to mobilize resources
but to make deals, negotiate- which why econ concepts like game theory, bargaining theory come into
play
• Here again there is disagreement on whether US is the only superpower or covert actors exist
• Regimes can be divided into democratic, authoritarian and totalitarians depending on the relationship b/w
power and orgs
○ If competition is limited and pluralism irresponsible- then authoritarian
○ If one party, one actor- totalitarian
• De-powerisation (enmachtung): double process of reducing and relocating social power in society
○ A division is created in the existing power-structure and a charismatic leader swoops in (Hitler aka)
• Development of supra-national bodies like EU where power is shared may create joint-decision traps where
power no longer enables quick decision making and reduction of alternatives.
• Weber has recognised that power may be sought for aims or for itself- multifunctionality of power
Hegemony
Monday, 8 February 2021 11:01 am

• Closely related to debate regarding power

• Organised coercive power is monopolised by the state so we need to understand non-coercive/ non-violent power
• Albert Camut "The Plague"- how the ability to cause violence against others is ingrained in humans like a plague
• HEGEMONY: means to lead in Greek- to control and lead w/o violence
○ Part of cultural ideology, Barthew, Machiavelli, Nietzsche, Gramsci talked about
○ Controlling someone's belief can control their actions
○ Power comes from an innocuous agreement where the agreeor has no idea what they are agreeing to
○ EX: how no one knows the T&C when downloading apps
○ People don't control ideas but ideas control people- powers of ideas determines our ideas and actions.
○ Ideas → beliefs → loyalty → actions
○ EX: Neo-liberalism in France banned everything except succeeding in life
○ How we have no idea how we do certain acts- like our habit of drinking tea
 Was cultivated by the British by providing it for free and then making it a paid service like Jio
 Our idea of breakfast being so normal and accepted when it was unnatural for a long time.
○ It is psychological, epistemic violence.
○ Education is ideological in this sense
○ Cultural hegemony goes beyond pol ideology
 Consent is manufactured by civil society inst.

• Antonio Gramsci postulated about hegemony- questioned where fascism came from during WWII
○ So found violence was there everywhere in society
○ Marxist thinker
○ Part of his "Philosophy of praxis(activity)"- was a enquiry and technique to pinpoint the source of legitmacy
afforded tot he capitalist class.
○ Defined as " system of class alliance in whcih a hegemonic class exercise political leadership over subaltern
classes by winning them over"- "rule of lower class w/ their consent"
○ Intellectual and moral leadership is a MANNER of how hegemony happens
○ Also called it "predominance by consent"
○ Society exists as the political soceity/State and the civil soceity- what we today call the public/pvt divide-
 Generally, consent lied in the civil soceity and use of coercion lies in the political society
 Therefore civil society comprising of inst like school, family, religion(church) etc must be 'won' at that
level using consent and not coercion. Pol society is the public inst like police, military, courts, State,
bureaucracy.
 The hegemonic class essentially defines through its articulating principle where coercion and consent will
be used.
○ Hegemony as appropriation, and not imposition of ideology, which is rearticulated as per the articulating
principle adopted by the class attempting to becoming hegemonic.
 This refutes earlier Marxist ideas that ideology was fixed across classes adn hence that hegemony was an
antagonistic battle of ideology.
 Gramsci argued that for a group to be hegemonic they had to rule not by coercion but consent which
meant exercising leadership not only in the superstructure but also at the economic level. This meant
 that the hegemonic class needs to make some small sacrifice to be supported by the subordinated classes.
 In this way he countered economic determinism, and showed how the dominant class' role in the
superstructure of culture, intellect and ideology established their power.

• Pierre Bourdieu takes this further- talks about how democracy is everyone's responsibility and equality- proposes
'field theory'
○ Habitus are socialised norms that guide our actions and thoughts- they are dispositions cultivated over time
and experience through the intermingling of our socio-cultural environments and ourselves leading to
unconscious pursuit.
○ We navigate through any number of social fields which consists of number of social networks-like where they
work, where they ahve studied and each field gives power- fields are comparable to arenas where our habitus
are expressed in pursuit of capital (which included cultural capital, essentially all resources)
○ When we enter each field, we take up a new personality, new actions which creates new balances of equality
and inequality among people in the field. And these codes of control are pre-decided. And we adopt this "web
of symbols" and navigates according to situations and circumstances.
○ Doxa are those ideas that are taken for granted and become 'common sense'-
 "an adherence to relations of order which, because they structure inseparably both the real world and
the thought world, are accepted as self-evident" as per Bourdieu

○ Very similar to soft power.

○ Who is authentic in us? Can this individual ever be expressed in a way exclusive of web of symbols? Our
identities are given to us- we don't create it ourselves.
 If we assume there is a distinctive 'us' the bubble around us is what Pierre calls Habitus and helps us
measure where we are in the network of culture.
□ State manages inequality through subsidies, welfare- which is why Marx considered welfare states
insidious.
□ And serves the purpose of the elite/ powerful
 Hegemony is conditioning one group to have attitudes of a certain way and there exists a group with
these characteristics it can be predicted that the first group will learn to hate the other.
 When one habitus collides w/ another, there can be compromise or conflict and its a constant
negotiation- this is the site of non-violent power.
 Foucault calls it governmentality- where the state dictates what is good or bad
□ Hegemony contributes to this
 Code-switching is when we change our fields- and hegemony is at play here since it creates limited
choice and this is comforting to many people which is why it is difficult to break fee from them.
 Learning to observe code-switching in our behaviour we will understand where we are in the cultural
ideological network.
○ Locale plays a very imp part in determining the type of hegemony and sociology of knowledge means that the
society conditions the knowledge.
 Oscars- the idea of good acting is affected by how we see someone exercising their skill- white,
protestant male much more likely to win.

Political Correctness- Rule by ideology
Wednesday, 13 January 2021 10:39 am

• In light of need for Phronesis and deliberative democracy, open discussion is extrememly imp
• Since each ideology, conditioned by hegemony, believes that they are the one truth, there is always tension between
ideologies and political discussion is crucial for this
• But PC comes in the way of open and free speech
• PC: Single correct stance or line of action on a specific political issue under prevailing conditions.
○ This was the Marxists initial conception of this- Mao started this- they believed that workers being under the
influences of hegemony would have 'false consciousness' which needed to be corrected through PC.
○ Appropriated by Conservatives in US, Latin America and Europe in 1980 to assert the irony of seemingly
liberal left in dictating a single correct view
• Also used within an ideology to set in stone one opinion on a topic.
Essence:
○ Best thought of as narrowing political thought, intolerance and silencing of dissenting views on subjects
 EX: all criticizers of reservation are casteist, all supporters of INC are enlightened,
 Conservatives use this against the Left to show that themselves are not rigid
 Liberals have retorted that conservatives have their own type of PC
○ Manifested as discouragement of open discussion on certain topics as off-limits- kind of censorship
○ Actually used across ideologies to silence other views like radical feminism calling out anyone against affirmative
action sexist or like nationalists calling anyone against military campaigns anti-national or centrists calling
anyone not walking the middle path extremists.
○ Ashish Nandy says Hindutva is based on this- to overcome the inferiority complex that Hindus felt in
comparison to the West
Problems:
○ The benfits of PC- give a clear view on a subject esp for like-minded, and protect marginalised groups
 It provides clarity and comfort for a group of people
○ Limits vision
 PC could undermine one's own cause by discouraging self-correction and improvement of ideologies
○ Harold Lasswell calls it a self-defeating cognitive behavioural process- "unresolved personal conflicts displaced
onto public objects and rationalised in terms of public good"- psychological equation for PC.
 It would be good for parties on the other hand to encourage PC among other parties and reduce you own.
 You can identify personally w/ a movement/cause/advocacy but not at the cost of stifling dissent or alt
views.
○ PC is often taking safe positions of political life- JS Mill says that "opinions are seldom completely right or
wrong- open discussion is the only way for partially correct opinions to come closer to the truth."
 Will prevent opinions from becoming fossilised truths- dogmas
○ Self-defeating usually, esp party interests
○ PC has no solution for excesses of PC
Losses:
• Politically incorrect are deprived of their positions or opportunities
• But politically correct also end up subscribing to dogmas rather than living truths that come about through open
and lively discussion and are only approximations of the truth (paraphrased from John Mill Stuart 'on Liberty')
Relations:
1. Political dogmatism- form of it as historically situated
○ We should be humble enough to be corrected and learn.
 2. Culture wars-the fights over deciding the core values of a society- as between conservatives and liberals- can be Pc
if intolerant and dogmatic
○ Discussion can then take place using PC or not- being tolerant and open-minded
○ Cultural wars of 20-21 C. experiences a good deal of PC
3. Censorship- informal, even subconscious of the ways to think
4. Politeness- appropriate or excessive in treating groups w/ history of marginalisation/discrimination.
○ Like people who choose to be apolitical
○ Today commonly used in the language used- like avoiding of slurs

PC Today:
• Abound today in mass media- Arnab
• PC has beocme a substitute for political correction- where one just shouts their own opinions
• Canada has used PC to help deal w/ multiculturalism
Plato's-Philosopher King
Wednesday, 10 February 2021 11:59 am

• From 'The Republic'

• If politics is so complex (w/ power, hegemony, ideology etc), who is qualified to rule us? What type of
skills does a perosn need if any to rule?
• Essentially anti-democracy
1. Philosopher King
• Plato feels the person should be very intelligent, have high level of memory he should have decision
making skills, not very ambitious, and deal w/ people's emotions rationally.
• As human beings, we may not even ahve the capability to rule ourselves with will power and agency-
how much control do we have on ourselves, how much of a sacrifice can we make to achieve our goals
and is this even right.
• Plato believed that common people cannot rule themselves, esp. those who are loud and not rational.
Rulers need to be trained- to be tempted to be corrupt. Like how we go to a trained doctor to get an
illness cured, we need a trained ruler to decide what is good for soceity- normative critique called the
'craft analogy'
○ Here human health is an analogy to the health of the state which requires not consensus of the
commons for a remedy but by an expert.
• Like all spheres, politicians require professionalism and statecraft requires a specific skill
• That's why he says that philosophers should be king and king needs to philosophers
• But how do we handle fallibility of experts like doctors or lawyers over which there is little accountability
today.
○ But cannot dismiss everyone b/c they are fallible but cannot have unaccountable power
○ Those who can judge better should rule- 'better and not best'
○ Gandhi challenged the idea of expertise though
• Plato's answer to curb corruption is that philosopher kings should not have wealth. But what about
inheritance, heirs (nepotism)- replied should have no family, fame- should not have ambition
○ Why should he then become the king? That he doesn't want to be ruled by other idiots- Plato
implies that everyone needs to be interested or is affected in politics or at least politics is interested
in people.
• King should understand all the competing intentions of the people- training cannot help - Plato said
that people are poor judges or their short and long term desires and a Philosopher can do this
• So essentailly Plato advocates for a benevolent dictator.
• PK knows what is good for people so he need not consult people at all- so he has a very poor view of
people and it is true among almost all experts- it is a colonial mindset.
• The kings are trained by being taken away as children and then trained for 35 years- from this group,
the best could be decided based on their brilliance b/c training is finally only means or methodology and
the personality has an impact on the qualities of the king.
• Arguments against Aristotle:
○ Knowledge: Can such knowledge even be acquired- no really given that all knowledge esp in post-
modernism is subjective and fallible- but still it needs to be conceded that some have better
 knowledge than others. If not a discipline, ruling is at least a craft- some have better personality
traits for it.
○ Rule for the people has to be by the people- cannot assume that PK just knows what the people
want-best defence of democracy- this is what voting allows- but this may also be possible w/ a
dictator taking a detailed opinion poll- people may also not vote for their own interest but due to
other interests like morals, what they think is good for everyone, as per ideology, etc
○ Condorcet shows us mathematically that if we assume:1) that people vote to for their idea of the
common good and 2) people ahve a better than avg chance of being right, the majority vote will be
right, so equal to the decision by experts. But assumptions themselves are somewhat problematic
and not a given in the real world.
○ Values are assumed: politics need not just be an instrument- logic of enjoying the journey and not
the destination- the valued espoused within democracy may be more imp than the goal of 'common
good' like equality and freedom. This is the strongest argument for democracy

2. Ship of State Analogy:

• Sophist culture is critiqued here- they used pure rhetoric to win arguments, and were known for their
extraordinary public speaking and writing styles which could move, persuade and win people over, even
at the cost of the truth- believed that there was only a subjective reality.
• There is an owner of the ship and everyone is competing for captaincy. The ship owner is deaf and short-sighted and he has
knowledge of sailing. None of the other crew members was trained in sailing and they believed that it was not a trainable
skill.
• They cajole the ship owner to hand over the captaincy to one of the them. If one got captaincy, the other try to kill him, fight
him, and drug and bribe the owner to get him to give them the captaincy.
• They praise the crew members who take the captaincy by fraud and force, and praise his navigation even though it does not
follow the actual art of navigation.
• The owner is the property owners since in Rome only propertied were part of the Republic- and the
crew members are common folk. The subtle point here may be that democracy is manipulated by the
propertied/capitalists- the owners are attached to wealth but not interested in politics or virtue
• SUMMARY:
○ Self rule generates over-confidence is each of them even though no one is an expert- threatens
existence of state.
○ Democracy creates dissonance, disunity not consensus
○ Members of democracy lack distinct pol expertise
○ And the sailors deny the existence of expertise and are ready to bury anyone who claims such.
○ Also that lower classes will start revolutions to steal away the property
○ Common people are susceptible to demagogues and flattery
• The merits of democracy: that people should only obey law when their consent is part of the law

3. Allegory of Cave: (finish the understanding)

○ Plato attempts to give us an understanding of why he thinks commoners lack knowledge to rule
○ 'Realities' is ideological, symbolic, linguistic and 'Real' is just material-unmediated by langauge-
Jacques Lockes.
○ Realities sensed through sense perception is imperfect as per Plato- "we are all prisoners..."
 In the US 700 cases a year based on eye-witness have proved wrong
○ He explains this w/ allegory of cave
  In the US 700 cases a year based on eye-witness have proved wrong
○ He explains this w/ allegory of cave

Philospoher
Reality Sun

Shadow of reality
through sense CAVE

○ Ideologies

Wall Particular of sun

Rulers
Common man

○ The common captives have been in the cave since birth. Plato supposes that one of them is freed one
day and dragged out of the cave
○ To see the sunlight and reality-there is initially hurt caused to the eyes and skin due to the
brightness but if he is able to sustain it, then he can realise the beauty of the truth.
○ When he comes back to tell the others, the do not believe and are hostile towards his attempts. The
free man here is the philosopher who is treated as crazy by the common ignorant and stubborn
man. When the man reenters the cave, he is blinded by the darkness he was once adjusted to and
the captives take this blindness to mean that he was harmed outside- reinforcing their resistance to
going outside.
○ The politicians are the puppeteers behind the wall who change the relaity seen by common man to
manipulate them
○ The wall is used by the politicians to prevent people from escaping.
○ Fire is the particular of the form of the sun- so its not the perfect through but we think it is.
○ The puppets used are ideologies and teh shadows are how they construe the truth.
○ The capes of the rulers could signify the 'invisible face of power'
4. Theory of Forms or Knowledge
○ Physical world is not as real or perfect as timeless unchangeable ideas
○ This theory is contested
○ Forms are ideas and good, perfect and ultimate reality- like 'rainness, treeness' are categories of
perfection we use to classify imperfect relaity into perfect ideas of these things.
 Ideas are immutable.
 EX: sleet, drizzle, downpour, storm etc are all rain but they are not the same, ideal 'rain', they
exhibit characteristics of 'rainness'- and this is what makes reality imperfect. Like 'catness'.
 But there is a question of how many particulars are required to create a from and how does
the essence of the particular affect the conceptualisation of the form. How do the form and
the particular interact? No answers...
  So our basis for knowledge is the idea of these things- the qualities we associate with it, not
the things themselves.
 Socio-linguistic-symbolism is how we access the world- so these categories are human made as
well- they don't explain the many-sidedness of the truth- this is the main criticism aginst this
theory of forms.
 So Plato says that common people only know the imperfect relaity through sense perception
and only philosophers can understadn the forms of things they access the whole better truth
and this is what makes them the ideal ruler.
• Plato creates 3 major classes as per the parts of the soul
○ The guardians- the ruler- this is the rational part of the soul and
○ The auxiliaries- soldiers- spirited part- loves honour, glory and valour,
○ The producers- farmers, artisans who know perception only through sense- the appetite part of the
soul
○ Justice is realising one's proper role and doing what dominates your soul. Each class has his
obligations to his society and this results in a harmonious and just state. If one doesn't do their
duty- they will be punished.
○ This is an artificial division of the human soul
○ Gandhi had a simialr crisis- wrote to Raj Chandra Rajiv Bhai Mehta- jain mystic- and wrote that
every human being has a soul w/ conscious, knowledge, bliss and freedom
 We are all tied to our bodily constraints and this is why we cannot under stand the whole
truth
 Swaraj is then realising your soul and allowing it to rule your human life.
• JUSTICE: giving what is due to oneself- so everyone does not deserve the same thing and should get what
they deserve.
Arthashastra
Monday, 15 February 2021 10:59 am

CONTEXT:
• About King, law and governance
• Indian thinkers were as capable of thinking complexly as the Western thinkers
• Indian theory of state and knowledge for Indian people
• This is contrary to the popular colonial view that India had no system of statecraft- the difference w/ the Western
thought was really that of core value and nothing else
○ In fact first emerged in China and then in India
• Lots of continuities from Kautilya time to now whereas means other that are no longer relevant
Kautilyan penalties: classified into 3 standrads- low, medium and highest w/ those involving liberty of enslaved and
enslaved of liberty unduly receiving highest punishment.
• 4 methods to deal w/ conflict: sama (conciliatory attitude), dana (placating w/ gifts) , bheda (sowing dissesenion
among enemies, danda (using force), with dana, Bheda and Danda being 2X, 3X and 4X harder to commit than
sama.
a. Sama: praise of merits, extoll mutual connections, explian mutual benfits, induce w/ benefits, rank and
honour, place at disposal of other (essentially mediation tactics as well!)
b. Dana: relinquishing what is owed; continuing -apayment already being made; return of something received;
giving something new out of one's own wealth; permission to take something from the enemy
c. Bheda: creating mutual suspicion, threatening
d. Danda: deprive of liberty, property and life, including open or secret war
KAUTILYA:
• Realist
• 1-2 C. Ad or 2 C. BC even
• Practical guide to governance
• 'Dandaniti"- or Battle Policy would have been the original name- "science of upholding order by just punishment"
• 12- 13 centuries ahead of Machivelli
• Many scholars today think that the govt uses the Arthashastra esp in foreign policy
• 15 books, 180 topics
• Discovered in 1908 in India- in Mysore Maharajas' library by a dalit scholar
• Talks about a pre-Buddhist society
• Uniqueness: talks about givernance, material culture in ancient India and givernance
• Discussions about king, fort, taxes, judicial processes
• Some scholars think that Manu used this to write his chapters on the king
• Description of buildings, forst , fortifications are extremely accurate and supported by archaeological evidence
○ Believed that the work is deeply rooted in socio-pol reality of the time
○ Addressed to kings and ministers who wnat to be successful and how their success it dependent in the success
of their kings
• Has preserved for posterity the expert traditions of masons, architects, farmers, jewellers- how are called Plebians
in Western thinking- and these are genrally oral traditions passed down among generations or from gurus to
apprentices.
• Equality is a modern force and obligation which did not exist at that time.

FOUNDATIONAL CONCEPTS:
• ARTHASHASTRA: The science of wealth and welfare
• Normative in nature- talks about dharma and immutable and absolute concept of righteousness
○ In line w/ religious texts in general: Apart from social harmony, the other object of religious texts is to preach
righteousness to the rulers and the people and these are preached across religions
○ Basically transgression of one's dharma is a punishable offence.
○ Your social status form birth needs to be upheld at all times
• 4 kinds of religious behaviour:
a. Duty to oneself: cannot waste my life, what individualism preaches alone today
b. Duty to ancestors:
c. Community:
d. Universal order: imp for climate change today
• Both rulers adn ruled are governed by their own dharma- controversial when studied in context of caste.
a. Dharma- righteousness,
 Judge is called dharnastha- duty to uphold righteous behaviour of ruler and ruled
 So dharma gives what is law is good, bad ,etc- so source of law comes from above and flows below
 Purpose of law is to maintian social order but what is this social order in the first place
 This is varna social order- hierarchy was clearly established w/ Brahmin on the top
□ People belong to 4 orders of life when governed by punishment so that's how king maintains the
varna.
□ On punishment- sir- Machiavelli says that people follow law for 2 reasons- when they love their
king or when they fear their king. But if theor following law if they love their king they may violate
it easily but if it is the latter the chances of sticking to law is stronger- essentially fear dominates
humans and so systems should be based on punishment.
□ This idea of fear as central has prevailed for the first 20 centuries and Kautilya talks about this as
well
b. Kama- pleasures
c. Artha- wealth
d. Moksha- salvation
• Statecraft: highly developed system of governance w/ 7 elements of state:
○ Theory of state:
 King, minister, countryside, fort, treasury, army, ally/friends
 And the reaction of the king in a state of conflict in determining who gets protected among these 7
elements
 Sir compares Kautilya almost w/ Sun Tsu the military strategist- "the Art of War' of ancient China
1. King:
 Absolute monarch and complete governance control, esp. war
 Absolute power is theoretically true but he has to negotiate w/ multiple sources of power- including
enemies of the state, tribals
□ Kautilya praises tribals for them being so independent and that winning them over is the great
achievement
□ Jay pal Munda- was part of Constituent Assembly debates- says that Hindus and Muslims have
always compromised w/ foreign elements like Hindus compromised w/ Muslims for Muslim rule
and both of them compromised w/ British and only tribals are the ones who have never
compromised
□ He questioned when the Hindus would leave
□ He said that culture preservation was the main point of the Constitution but the prohibition of
liquor would be against his tribes own culture
 Like king needs to resort to subterfuge and assassination to get rid of some people- indicates he is not
 all powerful.
 Ideology of king as protector and father of the poeple would prevnt him from attacking his own people
 Legitimacy of taxation is dependent on the king providing protection of to the people.
 Other objects like nobility, moderate, likeable would prevent the king from becoming a despot- so not
like how the British described them
 No distinction b/w revenue and state governance or wealth of king and state
□ Even today the collector is governance and revenue head for the district
□ Lack of distinction b/w state and king is close to the situation of EIC rather than modern state
 On bureaucracy- very evolved-
□ King should construct good bureaucracy to carry out his functions
□ 40 plus forms of corruption found by Kautilya and 40 + forms of embezzlement
2. Ministers
 The inner most were most imp- like purohith
 No specific task to carry out but he king was supposed to consult them beofre undertaking any new
endeavour- essentially 'think before you act'
 2 officers were head of treasury- collector (Samaarthatar) revenue collection outside the capital and
nagrika- city official/mayor
 Collector helped by magistrates to control crimes- like how today
 Dharmasta- judge
3. 35 dept. of the state were identified- today 56 are there
 Like prisons, mint, mkt place, shipping, courtesans, slaughter houses, weights and measurements
 Proposes divison of country into several admin units and centre for revenue collection at various levels
like at 10 villages, then country collection for 500 villages, district municipality for 400 village s and
provincial capital for 800 villages
 Revenue officers were supposed to govern 5 villages conducted census of fields, households
4. Secret service:
 Divided into clandestine establishment and mobile agents-
 5 types of agents- crafty students, apostate recluses, undercover agents as householders, merchants and
saints
 4 types of mobile agents, assassins, incognito agents, poisoning, female wandering ascetics, one secret
assassin can achieve more than what an army can achieve
 Method to handle neighbours.
 Why- to spy on the population- surveillance- to get rid of powerful people who cannot be dealt w/
lawfully
 Spy on enemy states by creating disharmony and carrying out assassination.
• Deals w/ 4 schools of thought and 13 teachers of the past are engaged w/ and these older sources have now been
lost so Arthashastra is the only source of these sources and teachers
• On Knowledge:
 Critical enquiry, 3 vedas, economics and govt- types of knowledge.
 Kautilya avers w/ those who claim there are 4 types-econ, politics, vedas, philosophy. The
understanding of dharma (spiritual welfare) and artha (material welfare) being the base 'illuminated' by
philosophy. while Manu claims that there are only 3- science, vedas and economics, w/ philosophy being
a special branch of vedic studies. Brihaspati believes only in 2- politics and economics, claiming the use
of vedas to as a cover while Ushanas believe politics is the only knowledge.
 Essence is to know the world
 Critical enquiry- meaning method of enquiry- into politics and what is contrary to it and so on for
economics, law and governance and policy- tests weakness adn strength of knowledge systems- Kautilya
 says therefore it keeps as steadfast in prosperity and depression
□ Also to gain mastery over our senses- very similar to what Plato says- we need to overcome our
guilt, anger, vengeance, pride etc
 Ties into how to overcome ideological thinking
 3 ways of punishment
□ Very strict- terrifies the people- punishment in contempt will lead to even ascetics to revolt
□ Very lenient- people treat him in contempt- law of fish will come about- so punishment and law
should allow the weak to be resilient in the face of the powerful.
□ Appropriate- just and reasonable to appear kind and just to the people
 No dichotomy of pvt and public in this era- so law and religion controls everything.
 "The maintenance of law and order by the use of punishment is the science of government."

• On dharma: describes the 4 varnas and their dharmic duties, the 4 stages of life. Living as per one stage of
life and varna- or following dharma ensures maintenance of world order as per the vedas leading to ever-
prosperity of the world. That's why king's duty is enforcement/ maintenance of dharmic ways.
 Witness oaths, punishment , death and cremation place etc all should be based on varna and caste.
 Kautilya advocated higher punishment for lower caste
□ If Brahmin takes 'unprotected' women then only chastised but if shudra takes a women- he will be
hanged
□ Allowed torture but not for Brahmins, blinding was the highest torture offered to Brahmins
 Perosn can be punished only once on a particular day and on alternate days- this method of
torture actually leaves no sign on the body- sophisticated torture
 Cannot result in death
 18 methods elaborately described- and these are still followed
◊ Water tube treatment, pricking of finger under nails is universal and even mentioned
here
□ Gave scale of punishment
 Caste still used for allocation of jobs to prisoners and it is actually mentioned in the prison
manual and Raj HC changed the manual in 2021 for Rajasthan.
◊ "Any Brahmin or sufficiently high caste Hindu prisoner from his class if eligible for
appointment as cook.”
◊ "Sweepers shall be chosen from among those who, by the custom of the district in which
they reside or on account of their having adopted the profession, perform sweepers
work, when free. Anyone else may also volunteer to do this work, in no case, however
shall a person, who is not a professional sweeper, be compelled to do the work"
 From Sukanya Shanta's article for the Wire
 Who can be suspected?
□ Impersonation of caste, varna etc
□ Poor income but lavish lifestyle
□ Who has wounds secretly tending to wounds
□ Those who are infatuated
□ Who pretends to be a monk
□ Those who are previously convicted
 Incest is punishable, any man having sexual relations w/ the Queen would be boiled alive

 Sir has found that 1L people are detained today w/o trial - most belonging to SC/ST/OBC criteria and
the ones form these that the media talks about are intellectuals- classism today.
 https://thewire.in/rights/india-preventive-detention-laws-freedom
□ I994- data on custodial deaths for 10 years- out of 225 only 5 were upper caste

• SUMMARY: we had a very sophisticated system of punishment and law and order- but it preserves the inequalities
and hierarchies of the soicety and it still persists today and the western system is just a garb over this inner
Kautiliyan system.
• In terms of state- he gives us to ideas- maintaining social order and for statecraft- it just didn't meet the
liberal ideas of equality
• Shastra- here is a roughly translated as a system- reality keeps changing so our body of knowledge cannot
ever be complete and thereofre cannot exhaust all reality and predict it. That's why 'science of govt' has been
used but it doesn't really mean 'science' in the modern sense
• Rule of law was developed here with law being above everyone but not eqaulity before it like we think about
today.
• LEAD QUESTIONS:
• Contemporary political perspective to Kauiliyan system
• How diff is his system to today
 Caste pervasiveness
 Use of spies surveillance
 Extra-legal ways of dealing w/ adversaries- like encounter killings of Hyd rape case and Vikas Dubey
 Diplomacy-sama to danda
 Admin system w/ dept
 We do explicitly have equality principles unlike his explicit inequality ones
• What is the status of rule of law and equality in Arthashastra
 There is rule by law in the sense of dharma and varna restrictions that everyone is expected to follow
 No equality-inequality in fact basis, both in terms of caste and gender- also class- people could prevnt
mutiliation as punishment by paying a fee- comparable to bail today
Thomas Hobbes- Social Contract
Wednesday, 17 February 2021 12:25 pm

• How do we develop a system that exercises the power which accommodates the desirable power
• 4 social contract theoreticians:
a. Rosseau- 18th C.
b. 20th- John Rawls
c. 17th C had 2- Hobbes (Machiavelli preceded him)

• The early debate of social contract

• Different from Plato since Plato puts justice as the core value of the state whereas all contract theoreticians think of peace and
stability as the central core.
• Rule of justice arose from a contract between the state and the people- created no political authority enforce rules of justice
• Church had a social contract- arguments of ltd authority developed in the church- said members of the Church delegate their
authority to the officials for a limited period of time
○ The implications were seen in the way 2-3 people fought for the post of Pope- Constance- declared authority of counsel
over the pope and resolved this fight- so authority of pope if conditional and depends on people who elect counsels in the
Church
• Influenced the Americana and French revolutions at the time
• Rational reconstruction of what life w/o state would be- diff for Rosseau and Locke
○ Rosseau and Locke think the state of nature is not rational but actual and hence proposed more liberal states
• Starts w/ State of Nature:
○ Theoretical conditions of human being before forms of norms and social strcuture.
○ They analysed the instincts of people in the state of nature and from this they can construct models of state which will
allow liberty, property etc.
○ State of human beings even beofre formation of society
○ Believes humans are independent, absolutely free and have no duty to one another
○ If you can think beyond self-interest for common good then democracy is possible
○ But of the instinct is for self- interest, promotion and preservation then we need a strong authority to prevent civil war,
crisis etc
 Self- preservation is intrinsic and basic right whereas self- interest goes beyond this and promotion goes even further
 Alos time of state of survival- that's why pre-emptive attacks may be taken on others- some attack to seek resources
and others do it for power and clothing- dog eat dog world or "war of all agaisnt war"
□ So beleives freedom is an ill-afforded luxury that leads to war and hostility
 So if people are left w/o soceity, they will terrorise each other
○ Life is brutish, nasty, short and lonely and weak are vulnerable from pre-emptive attacks.
○ So futile to challenge royal power and we must enter into a social contract to subject themselves to a soverign who will
protect them in return.
 If human beings are rational, they should believe that state of nature and freedom is undesirable
 They should hand over their freedom to take arms and arms to a third party state to gain protection.
 Also implies that state of nature is driven by passions and emotions not rationality- raison d'etre of State
○ The contract is b/w individual situations and not w/ the sovereign as such- the sovereign is born consequently- imp in
constitutionalism and can help us understand power
 All enlightenment tinkers believed in the existence of some contract- explicit or implicit
 People only have 2 choices as per Hobbes- w or w/o govt
 Recognises that state is evil but justified to curb the destructive freedom of individuals- so necessary evil.
 So satte is the result of manifestation of rationality
○ Contract changes duties of individual to surrender completely and duty of soverign is to be bound by the social contract-
this is what we mean when we say the Constitution is supreme- that it controls the sovereign.
  Soverign must not make people insecure, which may make them lose their rationality and drive them to passion,
making no body, not even the sovereign secure
 Soverign not immune to self- interested passions as well - so acknowledges possibility of soverign behaving iniquitously.
 Those who no fear for life they have no obligation to obey the sovereign and the unseated sovereign is likely to feel the
anger of the poeple who put him in power
○ Rationale: based on physic's theory of motion which was vogue at the time- that things including thoughts in the human
body were actually driven around in some way-acted upon by forces

• So price of order is freedom

○ Individuals can have right to defend themselves if the sovereign threatens them but soverign can only protect your life if you
follow the contract-
○ Irresoluble theory
○ Hobbes proposed no revolution but wanted peace and stability
• SOVERIGN:
○ Absolute power to prevent chaos and factional strife
○ Of soverign fails in this duty, the contract is broken- it is intact if he protects the life of the people- if broken, individuals
can take up arms and revert to a state of a nature.
○ State can also be a monster like Leviathan
○ It is an artificial soul, but it gives life and motion to the entire body politique
○ Leviathan has greater strength and staus than individual
○ State is cruel, artificial, coldly-rational but necessary

• CONTEXT:
○ Jean Bodin- wrote about Sovereignity and divine rule theroy was published a few decades back and Leviathan has a
dialogue with this
○ English civil war form 1641 to 1642 and led to establishment of supremacy of Parl over monarch temporarily. King
Charles the I was killed and Charles II was exiled and a republic commonwealth was established under Oliver Cromwell-
Hobbes was also exiled to Paris when he wrote this
 This may have influenced his idea of 'State of Nature'
 Westphaliaian Treaty being culminated during this time is why intl relations is a part of pol sci.
○ Renees Descartes was a good friend of his- so every intellectual
○ 30 years of religious war in Spain where the Moors were ruling from the 8th- 16th C. And the Catholics were fighting
against them before the Westphalian agreement
 Catholic and protestants had diff type of states and the Muslims were given only 2 options
 The Muslim Spanish state was actually extremely diverse but the war destabilised Europe and led to 4 years of
negotiations
 Probably why he gave so much imp to stability over justice and negotiation later.
 During period of enlightenment
□ Features of such thinking is that bad in human beings can be rectified through rationality
• Believed everything could be reduced to a some basic qualities including human nature- based on Cartesian theories of everything
being reducible in maths and science to theorems- so used the same logic to form theories to ensure peace and stability
• Leviathan is a sea monster in the book of Job- dialogue b/w philosopher and a common English student
○ Biology as a science influences politics today
 ○ Says that a part of a body can be cut away if it is not performing its function well- and that the head and the heart is the
most imp
○ In politics state is the head and other parts of the body politique can be cut off is it is infected- seen as per the cover- with
the king holding rule of law and the Norman symbol
 State is craeted by the rationality of the poeple and is a monster
• CRITICISMS:
• Rosseau critiques the portrayal of people as egoistic and power-hungry- his romantic depiction thinks people are innocent and
naïve in the state of nature and only beocme self- interested in the State
○ Believes like Gandhi that people have capacity to be empathetic and suffering
○ But he lived in Geneva in a time of great peace
• Called him absolutists and anti-democratic
• Many sarcastic responses- men are so foolish that they ...lions
○ In a panchayat, an accused is at least dealt with with empathy, unlike the cold judiciary
• State of nature is pre-political but pre- social for Locke
○ This may be closest to history- like the medieval state whcih only governed in terms of taxes and the social order had its
own set of principles.
• David Hume believes that in the state of nature individual did not have right to harm others.
• Hobbes argues that subjects retain an inalienable right to life and from this comes other rights like right to self-defence, not
testify against oneself (basis for art 22), right to food.
○ Silence of the law
○ Liberal policy of religious tolerance- based on his beleif that individuals are known only to themselves so ruler should let
them do whatever they want so long as they externally comply w/ the contract.
○ Wants an absolute govt, w/o constitution
○ Collapses distinction b/w natural and positivist law
• Today most consider him a pessimist and pragmatist
○ Realist school uses lens of Hobbes to study Intl relations
• To explicate this contract theory:
○ Role of social contract
○ The role of parties
○ Role of agreement
○ Object of the agreement
○ What agreemnt is supposed to show
○ Democratic consent is given by constituent power and the poeple, expressed through the assembly.
 This is delegated to the Legislative assembly and then to the govt and on the dismissal of the legislature, the governor
comes into the role of authority, directed by the prez, who relied on his own advice...so where is democratic consent in
India today?
John Locke Social Contract
Tuesday, 23 February 2021 9:02 am

• "Father of Liberalism"
• Contemporary, little later to Hobbes
• Lived in exile in France b/c accused of conspiring to kill Charles II
wrote "Two Treatise of Govt"- actually established the new balance and supremacy of Parl in 1680s
• Foundation for Bill of Rights
• Right to life, liberty and property and pursuit of happiness emphasizes
○ Echoed in the American Consti
○ Also wrote "second Treatise of Govt"
• Was trying to argue w/ Sir Robert Filmer (accepted feudal hierarchy and believed in divine right theory) and Thomas Hobbes in
his work
○ Disagrees w/ Hobbesian State of Nature
○ Says it is possible to live in the state of nature w/o a govt.
• "Nature" is metaphorical- physical nature and nature of humans both
• Was Protestant- can be seen form some of his ideas as well - like 'servants of God'

• STATE OF NATURE:
○ 3 main components- state of liberty, equality and Operation of Law of Nature verbally
 State of nature is also a state of abundance In the beginning which is why right to punish is not really needed since
no one really needs to interfere w/ other's things, possessions- Hobbes could still argue that some anti-social lazy
elements could still fight another to get consumable goods
○ State of liberty and perfect freedom
○ State of equality also-moral claim that all are equal- and no one person has a so called divine or natural right to
subjugate others.- not Hobbesian meaning of equally capable.
○ Not license to do anything but governed by the Law of Nature Verbally even in State of Nature
○ State of nature → laws of nature → discovered by laws of reason
○ State of nature is moral so we restrain ourselves from killing each other- like caring for old unable and children.
○ Don't attack each other or bodies- no Hobbesian license to do 'anything'
○ Locke therefore thinks freedom is different from license to kill based on moral duty to self
 Implies that we don't need any one to control ourselves
 Believes there is equality as well- it is a moral claim not physical
 Traces right to life through religion and says God creates everyone equally- we all have equal right to live under god,
we're property of God and therefore we cannot take life into our own hands
□ This is why American conti says "all are created equal", where created has a very religious connotation
 Theology is what admin of religion write/create like by pundits, priests- always aligns w/ powerful and elite.
□ Even Kautilya says the priest is the most imp minister- legitimates the power of the king
 Believes God has given us a purpose and that's why He has created us and prevents us from harming each other.
□ Many believe that theological basis for treating everyone equally through fear of Hell and repercussions in the
next life actually ensured a more equal world than today
 We are property of God and servants of God on Earth w./ purpose
□ We are made to last as humans in the Pleasure of God and bound to preserve ourselves and others.
□ We all have right to preserve ourselves, everyone has this right so everyone has the duty to preserve others as
well. Epitome of community life.
 This is why suicide was seen as a sin even in religion, natural law and now laws of the State as well.
□ So no dog-eat-dog, fish eat fish world.
□ If at all he needs to harm others it is limited to the extent of right to self-defense
 And we can even kill if we have to
  Fundamental right today
□ So do we believe that humans are automatically inclined to follow God's will and moral- do we need govt-
would fear and suspicion, selfishness disappear
 Says it is not enough, since those in power could misuse it.
 Says laws of nature require and enforcer to protect innocent and this is where Govt comes in.
 If anyone transgresses the state of nature, as equals we must all have equal power to punish them
"Executive Power of the Law of Nature" - but its impossible for all of us to be able to have this right since
all of us cannot agree on the type, mode, of punishment
◊ Distinguished b/w right to self defense- which is an individual right and right to punish which is a
collective right- since the violator transgresses the state of anture which concerns all of us.
◊ Cannot relegate the right to punish to the victims since they could be dead, weak, powerful
◊ This is why the society needs to pitch in
◊ Degree of punishment should make it an ill-bargain to transgress and give chance to repent.
◊ This is why we need a govt and crimes are prosecuted by the State and not the victim
◊ All crimes are a threat to society so negotiation b/w the victims and violator will not do enough to
restore justice
 Proposes executive nature of govt wherein law-abiding citizens come together to defend rights of the weak
□ Believes that sovereign is part of state of nature unlike Hobbes where State is created artificially
□ Governed by principle of natural justice- and not laws of the land which the executive make artifically- this is
why natural laws bind the State as well
 Respects due process of law
 But India does not have this in art 21- we just have "procedure established by law" which means the laws
created by the State and not natural laws.
 Laws of nature spawns many other rights
□ Like land since God wants us to survive- need land for subsistence- and this must exclude others to feed
ourselves- based on what Locke calls "natural reason" that we do not need anyone's permission to keep ourselves
from starving
 Downside- American Native Indians were defending their land but the Britishers were doing just that
 Hobbes might argue that people would steal way the lands and crops of others which would make others
feel like there was no point cultivating crops
 That's why Locke argues that punishment would be meted out for this
□ The constant reference to God which does not fit well w/ secular ideas has been retrofitted to emphasize
"natural reason" in recent times.
□ Hobbes possible retort to Locke to Right to punish- one mighyt gang will fight another and they will determine
who has the right to punish and therefore either the state of nature is state of war. OR if one authority has this
right to punish than state if nature in itself is a state.
 Leo Tolstoy "letter to a Hindu", which was translated by Gandhi, addressed to Free Hindustan magazine-
was arguing against right to take up arms
◊ Asked why only some have this right at any point of time
◊ Ignores the fact that those who are punished may feel like they can mete out punishment when they
come in power- endless cycle if violence
◊ Argues priests and pontiffs during the time of kings supported violence to maintain freedom while
modernists argue that for the interests of the majority it is legitimate to punish the minority. Tolstoy
and Gandhi say that both of these arguments are in fact an extension of the same thing to preserve
the divine right to rule.
◊ Western theory of violence is dangerous- that's why were critical of radical freedom fighters
◊ Argue that manipulation by people in power legitimize violence in the name of the majority to
maintain their own power- this is the political side of it.
○ Need for govt by Locke- why did we leave state of nature and need a state
 Related to admin of justice- to decide how right to punish of each will be collectively exercised.
 Abundance of land may turn into scarcity due to greed and money- money would be hoarded but not land making
 land scarce
 This will create tension- the initial peaceful state of anture may become almost unbearable- a civil govt will prevent
this
 Civil govt will protect already existing freedoms, rights- not to take away these rights like Hobbes argues. So govt
does not give freedom and rights but PROTECTS IT.
 So law of the state should preserve, promote and enlarge freedoms
 So nature of state should be a limited and not absolute govt.
 Supremacy of parl is established here since people are represented in the parl
 The executive state simply enforces the rights and laws that already exist.
Rosseau 's Social Contract
Wednesday, 24 February 2021 11:59 am

BIOGRAPHY
• Father of French revolution and "Liberty, equality and fraternity"- no property
○ US has included property which is different from Rosseau's idea
• Was a son of a freeman from Geneva
• Had no formal education but was a reader
• His wife was older than him and elite and was a big infleunce on him
• Wrote 3 books - Emily, Social Contract and Confessions
○ His writings were banned in Geneva and Paris

STATE OF NATURE:
• He thinks Hobbes and Locke both talk about civil soceity and not savage man in the state of nature- just a society w/o govt not
pre-societal
• Says Hobbes exaggerated human capacity for conflict
○ Says that though savage man would need to protect himself, greed is not the primary quality of savage man- he also had
compassion- this is simialr to what Locke says- 2 imp characters- compassion and self-preservation.
 Say killing makes man miserable and hecne compassion is innate in humans although not enough to form a civil society.
 The savage man was solitary and had absolute freedom- no language
 There was right to self- preservation and compassion- pain and suffering were understood by the savage and lived w/
primary instincts- no ideals- compassion would prevail as long as other means w/o violence and suffering could achieve
the desire.
□ Like sleep, hunger, sexual gratification
□ Understanding of suffering created compassion in man and hence savage is not as brutal as Hobbes claims he was
• Says not state of nature was not state of war, beleives that training makes civilised man corrupt
• Says we cannot reach state of nature again since society has made us "soft" and dependent and prefers it to civil society
• State of nature is created by God.
• Beleives that science and art has done more to corrupt than purify morality of human beings
• Savage man has few needs and largely lives in isolation, rarely meeting others- no chance for even fmailies w/ children lviing
mothers as soon as they are able.
• Since we live in solitude he has no reputation, glory and not desire for power since no one to coerce- this is an attack against
Hobbes who believes that greed for glory would lead to war in state of anture
• Savage man has no foresight or imagination- does not anticipate future desires- lives in the present- unlike Hobbes who says that
power, glory ect would be availble in state of nature for future desires
○ Like how education today is considered an investment or golden ticket for future needs.
SO WHY DID WE FORM SOCIETY:
• Scarcity in soceity creates 3 options for the savage
a. Compete and confiscate- war against others who have the resource- this is in agreement to Hobbes
 But this would create pain and suffering which our compassion would not like, but have to endure to survive.
b. Starts innovating w/ free will and self-improvement- so there is intelligence in common man
 This drive to innovate happens due to increase in population and scarcity- since we are trying to avoid harming others
even though there are fewer resources
 Innovations create pride and leads to discovery of intelligence- we start to develop interests and form groups and co-
operate accordingly- beginnings of society- gives rise to new feelings like conjugal and paternal love.
 Innovations and living together affords humans spare time and develops leisure which is the what leads to corruption of
our charcter.
 To while away our time luxury goods- beyond what is needed for survival and may make one slaves to one' habits
c. Cooperation to overcome scarcity- formation of settlements happens here- understand advantage of mutual cooperation and
excahnge
  As societies develop language came about (as per his treatise) which allowed recognition of pride and talents, shame and
envy. Injury was no longer just damage but an affront and led to revenge- but even here society is not lost- just b/w
savage and civilised society
 But can lead to pride, jealously, comparison, shame
□ This is what makes physical injury a mental affront and makes it a first sign of contempt and origins of revenge
 Invention of agriculture and metallurgy created pvt property and "set in the rot" and this lead to ideas of wealth,
slavery of poor
 In 16th C. French literature, someone slapping you was just a physical injury- like there is a poem of a knight raping a
women and this was not an indignation but simple violence.
 So shame and dignity and 'community morlaity' are mental and new ideas
 Accuses the rich of creating the law and bind the inequals as equals
 This is when we enter state of war w/ rich wnating to protect his riches
 Formation of civil socety is complete with the creation of pvt property, rules of govt-
 Says Hobbes' rule of law is a conspiracy against the poor to bind and subjugate them
□ Believes that this preserved political inequality
□ EX: bail in India
• All this happened when we left state of nature and this is all about hoarding of power, wealth etc
○ Also meant that we had no ideals greater tahn animal appetites
 To have sophisticated ideals like liberty, eqaulity, freedom etc we need civil society
 For this we NEED SOCIAL CONTRACT

SOCIAL CONTRACT:
• Laws could become extension of freedom- unlike Hobbes who think law replaces freedom- provided that those who make the law
are subjected to law as well.
• Freedom could be within the state - so all should becoem "sovereigns"
• So freedom afforded should eb more than what is available in state of anture for state to eb legitimate
• People should also be equal- sicne poor would have no resources and then be enslaved and right-less in front of the rich- so
eqaulity precondition for freedom.
• Equality requires fraternity- property prevents fraternity since creates rich and poor who would not interact with one another.
• This is what creates differences in the American and French constitutions
• General will is only possible when there is fraternity nor property- embodied by Sovereign and equal poeple
○ Day to day functioning of the govt/state is particular will of the people- conflict b/w genral will and particular will has
corrupted democracies and is a contemporary debate.
○ Also blames people for being passive and fail to hold the govt accountable
○ Rosseau sometimes is blames for totalitarianism where leaders claim to represent the general will of the people
○ Believes state is formed by fraud of social contract- Consti and State - people are vowed to authority but not due to mutual
consent.
○ Poeple are real sovereigns and their will cannot be delegated to the state permanently so the satte can be disposed at any
time
 This is why France allows anybody to mobilise the public to rewrite the constitution.
• Was agaisnt absolute abolition of pvt property since it would endanger individual freedoms and rights
○ Abolition would mean everyone becoming the slave of the state
○ So wanted a village economy system with small land holdings and which influenced Gandhi as well
Classical Social Contract Comparisons
Wednesday, 24 February 2021 1:01 pm

• WHY DO WE NEED THEM:

○ To justify the existence of a state- the entity that has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force and offers protection
to everyone who lives under it.
 Esp. answer those who are unsatisfied w/ the govt and did this by conceiving what human being would have
been like w/o a govt- ranging from selfish animals to simple savage man through reconstruction of state of
nature
○ 3 main thing s are discussed in these social contrcat theories:
i. Talk about pre-political condition or order
□ Connects w/ political order we established- so barbaric people necessitates a totalitarian govt as per
Hobbes, struggle w/ property- govt protects property as per Locke etc
↓
ii. Ideal political order- Talks about how political conditions and order started when people transitioned from state
of nature.
↓
iii. And the flawed/ real/ actual order we live in today and compares the ideal to today to understand what went
worng, how to correct it.

○ How to enforce certain political obligations? Can only do it through State

HOBBES: Humans always want felicity- we're always trying to fulfil our desires and these are unlimited and we need to
accumulate power for this and competition for power leads to state of war.
• We're all eqaul in our ability to kill and outcompete each other
• We need to kill b/c of scarcity- not just for the present but also for the future needs
• Equates law and morality and says no rules would mean no injustice-and no morality is present in the state of nature.
• Laws of Nature:
a. Keep the peace if possible if not use all of your Advanatges to win war
b. Stick to your promises- difference b/w individual and collective rationality
 Individual as in good for a perosn but collective menaing good for everyone but it is sort of like a prisoner's
dilemma
c. Give up you rights only if everyone else is doing it
○ Essentially wants order and for that we need to submit ourselves to the state.
LOCKE: Father of libertarianism
• Uses God to justify that no one can take another's life, nor rule- so no license
• Executive power of Law of Nature- the right to punish
• Essentially we need state to secure pvt property
• His state of nature starts w/ abundance but then leads to scarcity due to money and again leads to accumulation of
wealth and power and disputes
• So state is a neutral adjudicator
• Min govt made sense for him in his context of Magna Carta and powerful Parl post the War of Roses
ROSSEAU:
• Came during French revolution and saw the poverty that came from luxurious goods and royalty
• Humans have 2 innate attributes that led to civi soicety- free will and capacity to improve self.
○ And this innovation led to our downfall.
SOCIAL CONTRACT:
1. Voluntarism: Free consent of the people is the only reason for the state governing you
2. Tacit consent: by accepting the protection of the state, we have consented to following the state- but many people cannot
 really choose to move and not accept protection- no state of anture anywhere in the world today
3. Hypothetical consent: it is just a thought experiment and just a way for us to think about our current existence and realise
that we have consented all along.

ANARCHISM: believes that all human beings are innately cooperative and this is the social contract.
Universal political obligation
State has no obligation to protect you in Hobbes
Social Contract notes from Readings
Thursday, 4 March 2021 9:15 pm

HOBBES: "The life of man solitary, poore[sic], nasty, brutish and short"
• 2 keys to understand human nature:
a. Self-knowledge
b. General principles of physics applied on humans: material conception of needing to undersatnd the human body to
understand what we are composed of.
 Based on Galileo's theory of conservation of motion (object stays in motion till acted u by something else) to human
beings- that we stay in motion, our desires simialrly stay in motion till something else intervenes
 Background for justifying why humans always seek "felicity" - continual success and have unlimited desires and this
leads to war
FELICITY, WAR AND NEED FOR STATE
○ Our fear of death will propel us to make state
○ Defines power: " present means to obtain some future apparent Good"
○ Power is what ensures felicity and we can seek through friends, resources etc and thereofre people will continually wnat
more resources since humans have no end to satisfaction, preparing not only for the present but alos anticipating that other
will also wnat these things so one must accumulate, before other do
○ This leads to competition
○ Equality for Hobbes transforms this competition to a state of war w/ everyone having the eqaul ability to harm and take
away from each other, w/ the weakest using the power of association to take down others. "From this equality of ability,
ariseth eqaulity of hope in the attaining of out Ends."
○ Added to this is the necessary assumption of scarcity meaning each is bound to attack another to get the same End.
○ Even those who have nothing are pre-emptively attacked as they are seen as one likely to attack and take Ends of others.
○ People also fight for future poer through establishing reputation of strength and the strong still need to look out for those
that might want to take them down and usurp an even greater reputation
○ So war happens due to need for gain, for safety and for reputation b/c everyone wants ends, ends are scare, everyone has
the equal ability to get those ends so competition will lead to war.
SCEPTIC OR REALIST:
○ Can be argued that humans as intrinsically cruel and greedy is an over-exaggeration
○ Hobbes says that this is not the point- humans don't want to cause harm to others, they are compelled to by fear of others
attacking and invading
 Here war becomes a manifestation of 'self-defence'
 Isn't this rhetoric often used today to as well to rouse the majority- that Hindus are under threat, or that Indians are
'stealing' American jobs when the facts may present a situation not so close to the fear imagined- so person who
controls and uses this fear is really the most powerful
○ Humans being greedy Hobbes does not deny since -self-desire is something he sees as intrinsic
STATE OF MAN IN STATE OF NATURE:
○ Hobbes justification for why everyone is susceptible to fear is to imply the readiness to commit war, not a constant state of
war- justifies this in the way that even w/ a state we lock our doors, keep a lookout- but don't we do this b/c that is what
w are taught from the beginning in society- take the example of Shani Shignapur in Maharashtra where the beleif the God
Shani was overlooking the town, no one has doors or windows and the village has reported 0 theft- perhaps changing now
b/c villagers are suddenly feeling wary of the 'fear being spread' everyday.
○ Hobbes does not beleive in people in state of nature having morlaity- says no conception of right or wrong.
 Argues that all ahve "right to liberty" including to do anything necessary for self-preservation and that this is "right of
nature".
○ 19 Laws of Nature:
i. every man ought to strive for peace and whne it cannot be we can use all the advantages of war
ii. Each person should give up their right to all things, as long as everyone else does
iii. Should be content w/ liberty agianst others as he would allow others to have against him
 Basically do not to other what you wouldn't do to yourself (play on the Bible's rule)
 They embody collective rationality- that each bets the best when everyone acts the same way- essentially "prisoner's
dilemmas" where every individual has an incentive to choose the individual rational choice over the collective but f all
do it everyone is worse off.
 While these laws would lead to a peaceful world, everyone has too much of an incentive and fear that other would not
follow this law and anyone who sticks to it anyone simply makes themselves more vulnerable. So to some extent it is a
moral law but not in the notion of condemnation attached to moral law today.
□ Can be compared to the nuclear agreemnt today- w/ everyone hoping for collective rationality to win over.
□ But if everyone is so incentivised to be uncooperative what makes the weakest work together to take down a
stronger person in the state of nature? Will equality really be possible then as an assumption?
 Expressed as a fundamental proposition of economic theory as the tragedy of the commons- where fear of others
exploiting the resource leading to everyone exploiting it.
 The answer to this is AN ABSOLUTE SOVERIGN who punishes all who breaks the law of Nature and thereby ensures its
continuity- we have to give up our liberty and license for this purpose however, since individua rationality is now
something punishable.
 Modern Social Contract: Rawls
Monday, 1 March 2021 11:03 am

• In 1970s- Normative Political Philosophy tradition

• Tried to fill the gaps in the classical theories
• Makes justice the objective of political order- like Plato and equated it w/ fairness
• Amartya Sen's 'Idea of Justice', being his student critiques Rawl's work- created the basic idea of a
welfare state
SOCIAL CONTRACT:
• He imagines an 'original position' where the reps of people chose principles of justice which will govern
social order- not individuals (unlike Hobbes) and draws on Rosseau and Locke
• These reps represent ever person in political association which is composed of free and equal persons
• The character of these people is esp unlike Hobbesian state of nature
○ Rawls assumes societies composed of free and equal persons w/ political and personal liberty and
opportunities, respected cooperative arrangements which supported less advantaged members of
society
○ Also assumes a soceity which has a fair system of cooperation- unlike Rosseau where the
compassion is not strong enough to bind people, just enough to keep people from harming each
other.
○ Assumes system of relationship based on basic structure which we enter only by birth and exit
only by death.
 And this forms the base of the political structure
• Features of those who enter social contract
• Expands on the conception of reason to public reaosn- this differs from the classics
• Have features but 2 moral power- capacity for a sense of justice (revived Plato w/ this) and for
conception of common good to some degree necessary to be fully cooperating members of society.
• Do we have this capacities, should we, is it of the necessary extent, and can we really ever treat each
other as equal through cooperation based on these capacities- these are imp questions here.
• It is a retrospective justification of the state.
• Justice is the capacity to understand, apply and act from the public conception of justice.
○ Accused and victim need to both be satisfied w/ the justice- there is no "my justice: Adversarial
system had ruined the idea of public justice.
○ Fair terms of cooperation
○ Expresses willingness to act in terms and condition for others for it to be publicly endorsed
• Also capacity to know what is valuable in human life.
○ Life dignity, learning etc
○ These define not only our goal that define a good life as individuals but also our relation to the
associations and community and those who share a similar conception of a 'good life'. It defines
the nature of our connect to the world.
○ Through this attachment to the world we can understand what we value in human life.
 ○ This again helps define what is needed for public good.
• VEIL OF IGNORANCE
○ Reps of the past are not real human beings but ideals w/ capacity of justice, doing public good
etc.
○ These rep do not know who they represent- all they know is that they represent people who
have these capacities of justice etc but not what charcteristics they have exactly like caste, sex,
disability, religion etc
 This ignorance of social identities leads to ruling out of discrimination.
 Imp since Hobbes and Locke shorn the individual from these identities in their conceptions
of state of nature and social contract
 Rawlsian individuals have social characters but the political arrangement creates a veil of
ignorance which behind which reps stand to blind them of these charcteristics. That's why
the reps are surrogates for the people and the ones who enter into social contract.
□ The Rawlsian individual has a past and a future, unlike Rosseau and interacts w/
things in the present. Recognizes diversity of people's talents and interests - similar to
Rosseau's conception of ability to innovate
○ Imagine there is a room w/ 10 people who all have to create a social contract. They are
unaware of each other's social identities to avoid discrimination and allow fairness. But these
contracts will fail.
• Justice as fairness:
○ Illustration of political conception of justice
a. Each person has an equal access to a fully adequate scheme of basic liberties.- Equal basic liberty
principle
b. Social and economic inequalities should satisfy 2 conditions.
i. Equality of opportunity- if there is a seat, anybody w/ the qualifications should be given the
equal opportunity to get the seat
ii. If inequalities exist, they can only exist if these inequalities work to the max benefit of the
weakest sections of society- principle of difference.
 EX: Negative example- the setting up of nuclear plants in rural areas hurts the families of
poor farmers and benefits the already rich dependent on electricity in the city.

• Difference b/w classical justice

• Ultimate goal of social contract theroy is to show that social, moral, legal rules can be rationally
justified.
• Rawls not placed in ideal society of Locke nor hypothetical contracts of Hobbes or Rosseau- Rawls
combines these two.
• Says rational agreement justifies the social contract-appealed to our power of reason rather than a
conception of consent.
• Connects theory of justice w/ theroy of rationality.
○ Essentailly people enter into political society b/c they have rationally accepted not b/c of fear or
anything else.
1. Hypothetical individual (I) w/ deliberative capacity, justice, good, at Time 1 (T1)
 2. The actual individual (I*) who knows all his social characters and is biased at T2
3. The actual individuals should be sharing the ideas of our surrogates, our hypothetical model from
T1.
4. Between T1 and T2 there are certain modalities (M) and reasoning ( R) and help mediate b/w
the model and real individual.
○ EX: We respect our constitution today b/c the constitution makers (models) share our conception
of good and therefore we respect the constitution. Conversely, if the actual person does not agree
w/ this conceptions of good of the models then the constitution is neither respected nor
accepted.
○ I In T1=M and this
○ If these reasons are not shared the social contract so created by the ideals can be rejected by the
actual individuals.
○ Actual individuals have to track their own reasons in the ideal individuals' model reasons.
 The ideal surrogates also tried to track the modalities of future actuals in creating the social
contract
 EX: Constitution assembly debate on Art 22 and preventive detention.
○ Kant disagreed and said that consent was needed at all.
○ Rawls doesn't advocate for consent as such but the legitimate justification offered to current
orders.
○ Hobbes argues for fear as consent for state
○ Locke says state needed for punishment
○ Rosseau says that instaed of binding unequals as equals the general will of all needs to be
promoted through equal participation
○ Rawls says that people arrived at certain social contracts b/c they have fundamental principles
that they shared w/ ideals who provided justifications for these principles.

TUTORIAL AND READING NOTES-Mar 3:

• For classical theory they need to justify state
• But for Rawls it was for the creation of just state- like a thought experiment to decide how a
principle of justice would be created. So the people in the OG position are just hypotheticals of a
'referee' who would distribute everything needed to the world/people of a state.
• HYPOTHETICAL CONTRACT:
○ Original positions: Bunch of people behind a veil of ignorance of their status, or their
psychological state of either being smart, funny etc and this leads to impartiality since if they
favoured any one group they may inadvertently be affecting their own groups w/o knowing of
it- so will try to be as equal and unbiased. Also have no conception of common good so no idea
of what is the "most imp" vale or charcter of life.
 But in such a state of characterlessness they may not even have any motive to choose
liberty principle. Therefore, their motive to act is "thin theory of good"- things that
everyone wants regardless of other things-'"primary goods"- liberty, wealth, opportunity,
social bases of self-respect, income
 Agents are rational and want more primary goods (very economic assumption)- all will
 choose outcome of goods which is most efficient, not envious but mutually disinterested in
other's outcomes
○ Can use Habermas communication theory to show how this agreement comes about
○ Veil people know nothing of the society for which they are deciding- no idea of economic,
cultural, political, or the generation they belong to in this scoiety. The things they do know
however:
 Real people in soceity have a sense of justice and conception of common good
 Society operates in Hume's " circumstances of justice"- based on the applicability of justice
in cases of extreme scarcity (impossible to follow rationally) and abundance (no need for
dispute so justice is a must)- society for Rawls is then in b/w a state of scarcity and
abundance.
• PRINCIPLES:
1. Liberty principles:
 "Every individual in a just society has an equal right to a fully adequate scheme of equal
basic liberties consistent with a similar scheme for everyone. "
 Wants an extensive system of basic liberties to each compatible w/ a similar system of
liberty of all.
 Basic liberty meaning- civil liberities, no slavery, voting, freedom of conscious, etc (not like
Hobbes or Locke),
 Most extensive- since everyone wants more primary goods
 Lexical priority of liberty over socio-economic benefits- meaning if everyone has some basic
certain level of economic well-being, liberty should not be sacrificed for economic progress.
○ In case of social and economic inequalities are to be arranged such that they are:
2. Difference principle:
 "Social and economic inequalities must satisfy two conditions. First, such inequalities must
be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of
opportunity"
□ Distribution of wealth should be equal, unless the inequality benefits the marginalized.
□ Rawls considers the critics of pure egalitarianism that it squanders talent through this
principle
□ So if some poeple working harder due to greater rewards benefits the whole soceity as
a whole, then such inequalities can be permitted.
 Why difference principle- Maximin and the alternatives:
 Numerous possible " rational choice theory" to choose from like:
□ Max of avg value: on avg everyone is doing better- avg utilitarianism
□ Maximin- maximize the minimum- make the worst also as good as possible- which is
the difference principle
□ Maximax- make the best position the best- plutocracy
□ EX: Consider that the choice is for a games to be played on a daily basis. There is
cycling- which gives you 10 points of happiness every time. The alternative is
badminton which gives you 30 points. But every 10 racquets is broken which would
give you -100 points. So if this done day in and day out, if you choose badmintons
 everyday, your average would be 17 (-100(1/10) + 30(9/10)). While this is much
higher than 10, it hides that fact you usually end up getting 30 or -100 which is far
worse.
□ Maximax is the chance that every 1/100 persons gets to go horse-riding which gives
you 100 points, but the alternative is playing with marbles which you would mostly
avoid and thereby get nothing.
3. Fair Opportunity Principle:
 "second, they must be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society."
 So why maximin:
1) Constraints: physical constraints of resources, logical constraints (everyone cannot be
richer), publicity- no hidden facts behind the veil, final- no changes
2) Maximising the avg value is not great b/c the worst opportunity is always worse and
the contract is final so we cannot change it even if we need up w/ the worst in post
the veil- would affect you and your descendants.
3) Constrained maximisation cannot be used here since no context of what adequate min
would be. Finally to make sure everyone is able to meet their needs those needs
themselves will be set as the min- maximin
○ Why accept Rawls?
 The people behind the veil "represent" us not just as we are but the morlas and ideals we
come to accept.
□ But adds the conditions that everyone must be agreeable in OC position for contract
to work and that it must be achievable given that some conditions are only ideal.
4. Critics:
 Primary goods are not valuable across all socities- already assumes a largely individualistic
and capitalist society- like money is of no use in a communal society
 Everyone should be able to use their talents- Rawls argues that all talents are arbitrary
even learned ones since the environment has allowed persons to acquire such skills.
□ That's why any use of natural talents should be for the benfit of the weakest as per
the DP- so natural talents also become a common good.
 The people are blank states but they are still pre-disposed to justice- the reason is well
explained or satisfactory
 Largely risk averse collectively- not always true and not soemthing everyone behind the veil
may agree on either.
○ NOZICK:
 More resources as per DP may allow some more liberty as be seen w/ rich in real life.
Conversely, liberty menas that we cannot control how resources like property are controlled
or limits set. So 1st the principles are contradictory.
 Patterned theory of justice- Nozick claims that any pattern will break down if people have
liberty
□ The pattern can be disrupted by people's voluntary choices- the basketball game
pattern
□ And to make it back to the original pattern, the state would have to interfere w/ pvt
 property and interfere in liberty
 Rawls says that liberty doesn't mean complete lack of interference like Locke. WE can have
non-invasive redistributive schemes like tax
□ And even today wealth is distributed today through tax, welfare etc- but Nozick calls
tax "forced labour" where one works partially for the state
□ But Rawls recognizes that welfare allows more liberty to people you are marginalized.
 Also even if considered "slavery" rather than have an outright utilitarian, pure
market system where overtime a clear depressed class emerges who can be
considered "slaves", isn't it more equal if rather than one class bearing the
burden, the "slavery" is divided between them?
 The people who make the social contract are our surrogates and share our values partially
but things change- from the Stanford website
 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 from the website
 Equality
Wednesday, 3 March 2021 12:44 pm

• POLITICAL CONTEXT: MAR 2 and 3 lectures!!!

• 2 types of organizing principles
• Liberty for libertarianism based political orders
• Equality is basis of socialism
• But existing systems neither respects equality nor liberty
• EQUALITY:
○ Imp since French Revolution for body-politiques
○ Most controversial of social ideas we have
○ Asserted as a moral right against discrimination usually
○ Equality of what and among whom
○ What is the value of equality in the theroy of justice?
○ Stanford on equality
○ Scholars debate whether there can be any concrete agreed-upon definition of equality
 This is casued by its abstractness not by its vacuity.
○ Moral significance of eqaulity is expressed as Basic equality
 Basic equality meaning equality of dignity
 Rawls mentions this as one of his principles
 There are no grounds that do not allow us not to discriminate and differentiate people along- therefore equality
cannot act as a hard and fast rule
 Equality jurisprudence: is trying to define equality for better dealing w/ justice- but cannot make it a hard and
fast rigid rule.
 Usually cannot explain what makes equality important
 MORAL REASONS:
□ Options of equality will make for more turbulent soceity
□ Aristotle said that unequals can never be friends and that is why we need equality for stability and fraternity
 Art 38 of the Consti holds this ideal - that equality guides all of our institutions, elimination of economic
inequalities and inequalities of status
○ FORMS:
 Numerical equality: proposes to treat everyone the same way irrespective of their need
 Moral equality: every life counts and counts equally independent of his or her achievements (liberalism strongly
believes this, at least in theory)
□ Achievement as a measure of equality is more close to today's world. It requires that that all must have the
same starting point for this to be the basis if equality.
□ Ideally an equitable society will give less to more and more to less.
 Proportional equality: proposes that everyone is treated according to what they need and where they begin.
□ This is equity and generally seen in law
□ Accelerated rate of returns: the more you go up, the more quickly you are likely to make more money and
more power etc- so people w/ stable jobs have more opportunity for making more money
 Basic equality:
 Formal equality:
□ Formal: 'treat likes alike'- it is a fiction since in the reality people are usually unequal- but under the norm of
equality under the law, sometimes unequals are grouped together not effectively allowing unlikes to be treated
unlike
 Like should be treated alike precedes equal protection of law and this gives protection in as on as it
exists basis.
□ Equality before law focuses on Emphasize primacy of freedom of individual not to be in conformity of the
 group, individual worth, autonomy of individual
 Right to freedom to be unique- but this freedom creates great inequalities.
 This is based on Enlightenment idea of equality before law
 This has only challenged traditional inequalities but not modern inequalities
◊ It individualized him and overcome traditional inequalities but not modern inequalities.
 But some are still suffering under both traditional and modern inequalities-
 Equality of rights honours inequality of outcomes produced by freedom
 But to make everyone actually equal in terms of outcome, conditions of living an dopportunities of some
have to be curtailed.
◊ Marxism did not address this problem or not have solution to this
◊ Francois Noel Babeuf - argued for abolition of pvt property
 Society should be made in such a way to overcome the desire to gain more power, more
knowledge and wealth.
◊ Some argue that even basic freedoms will create inequalities and hence they must be curtailed
□ How would difference principle actually function to allow equality
□ Economic inequality in the short run will result in inequality of conditions under which the majority will be
underprivileged
□ Dworkin invokes that conditions of justice are necessary to have equality- says it is the ethical way to achieve
equality- not economic or political equality.
 Equal basic resources for all in addition to basic liberties- liberties are needed to expand
 In such a case, no one should benefit from talent or luck but only choice of profession and hard work.
◊ EX: Gives example of Sweden where there is no incentive to acquire wealth and this produces
ethical individuals since everyone is given this basic bundle.
◊ Freedom is necessary to achieve
◊ Amartya Sen expands this to equality of capabilities since resources are cultural and inheritable in
nature. State should make a list of human capabilities which needs to be fulfilled.
◊ Feminists go even further and says equality cannot be defined whne the inequality of power is so
entrenched
◊ Complex equality- beyond sameness of conditions- individuals should be able to face each other b/c
all have real chances of achieving real dignity in one way or another.

○ Sources of equality:
 Religious texts: Christianity proposes that God creates every one as equal but men and women, priest and rest are
all different. American Consti also based on this principle.
□ Enlightenment changed and rejected the idea that status society of religion which determines one's worth
and destiny- only recognized persons w/ natural rights- only equality beofre law though not of outcomes
□ This is b/c instead of religion, state was now the arbitrator
□ That's why the only equality we see today is equality before law and equal opportunity
□ They justified equality as the ability to think rationally but also recognized that not everyone had an equal
ability to think- so slavery was justified in this way
□ Substantive provision of equality only entered the constitution through the 14th Amendment in 1863- but
this was dead letter till the mid- 20th C.- calling them equal but diff and rationalizing segregation.
 More interested in formal rather than substantive equality- formal meaning only in word w/ no
substantive action.
 Whether affirmative action has actually uplifted underprivileged communities- not just for some
individuals but for the groups as a whole- usually privileged use the lack of success to justify the removal
of these schemes.

• 2 broad ideas:
 ○ Whatever inequalities of society exist should not be permanent
○ Social policy ought to do what it can to promote opportunities for mobility and success.
 To take advantage of this, I must be above a certain threshold of want to access it (like cannot expect a hungry
student w/ access to best free edu to make full use of it)
○ Basic equality is the epitome of equality.
i. Equality of worth- each individual Is of equal moral worth
ii. Equality of authority- no one is under the natural authority of anyone else.
○ A political theory which

EQUALITY READING NOTES MAIMON SCHWARZSCHILD - CONNECT W/ CONSTITUTIONALISM AND CONTACTS:

• Poeple can be treated equally in a wide variety of ways depending on the context and condition- equal beofre law, equal respect,
equal opportunity, equal in class etc
• Absolute eqaulity: same for everyone
• Proportional equality: equality as deserved according to some criteria (if work, then may be meritocratic, if need will result in
equity)
• EQUALITY AND OPPORTUNITY
• Equal opportunity = eqaul opportunity to become unequal in terms of possession on the basis of ability and other capabilities
• Conversely, equal possession = unequal rights or liberties to do things to limit people
• Individual equality= community inequality as all within community will not be homogenously equal
• HISTORY:
• Stoicism beleived in eqaulity of all based on common humanity- theological "children of God " arguement
• Aristotle and others though advocated for proportional equality
○ Said that once people expect equality, its lack can cause great turbulence
○ Unequals can never be friends- so less social solidarity- connects to why equality and fraternity go together.
• Judaism and Christianity recognised eqaulity as all worshipped the same God but with many conditions
• Enlightenment brought the first modern, secular equality ideal
○ Granted individuality and severed ties of birth that "destined" a persons' rights and opportunities- so equality meant to
pursue happiness in one's own way, guaranteed by some inalienable and equal natural right all acquire at birth.
○ Economic freedom allows one to be different and not bend to conformity
○ This is not the same as equality of outcome- since would impose one type of happiness on all and lead to unhappiness
○ Private property was often included as a natural right since gave opportunity to pursue goals and promoted prosperity
• Legal equality comes closest to treating likes alike and unlikes apart based on some reasonableness- this is however imperfect
as there is always going to be some amount of over-or under inclusiveness in practice.
○ Mostly it ensures civic equality among race (caste in India at least formally), hereditary status, gender, and sexuality
(not fully in India- still cannot get married if you aren't hetero (-_-)
○ Although US courts have never had to ensure min economic welfare (socio-economic equality), DPSP force courts to
acknowledge it in India- also "socialist"
• RADICAL PROBLEM W/ CIVIC EQUALITY:
○ Allows great inequality of condition to come about which worsens- like with the stock market and min wage today...
○ Equality of opportunity means that both the rich and poor should be able to have equal dignity and access but inequality
of resources clearly tilts opportunity and dignity to favour rich
 Ex: begging is now illegal for everyone- not going to affect the rish at all but impact on poor will be grave.
○ Liberty will cut into some amount of equality is the primary thinking- like Nozick since resources will have to
redistributed, people will have to do somethings they do not like.
○ Influenced by Marxism which the author claims is centred around equality- "from each according to his ability, to each
according to his need:- the latter being the organising principle of communism. Although Marx himself is said to have
considered equality to be a political value associated w/ the bourgeoise
○ Can't we have an equality of liberty? All liberty w/ equality being second as in the case of capitalistic equality of
opportunity only allows civic eqaulity on paper. While one section may have absolute liberty, the others are condemned
to be equals w/o means to the same liberty. Equality of outcomes on the other hand disregards any choice and forces all
 to a lower standard of equal living than they are capable of and imposes conformity inconsistent w/ modern
consciousness of individuality. An equality of liberty would mean not maximum liberty but as much liberty that allows
all to equally share the burden of lack of choice.
 EX: a tax rate on the rich initially would certainly curb his liberty on what he can do with his resources but it
should be equal to the lack of choice a educationally backward worker is afforded by his accident of birth and
talents. The tax so collected than equals sufficent welfare to equal to the fruits collected by the rich/talented from
his accident of birth and talents- essentially an equality in the duty to bear un-liberty. The greater economic
resources provided to such a worker would enable him to have greater liberty and socio-economic equality thereof.
Liberty and equality here would be in equilibrium- neither cutting into one another in the same person
• Can mention Rawls and liberty and equality here
• DWORKIN:
○ Based on ethical idea that all must ahve eqaul ability to meet challenges of life which menas equality of resources and to
determine this equality we need freedom of dicussion about it- so liberty for equality type model.
○ Goes further than Rawls and doesn't allow even inequality for benefit of less fortunate- should only be allowed once all
have some basic min (sort of ambiguous?) and then only if other are willing to pay such extra resources to the one w/
talents can a person earn more- not based on luck or talents but "hard work and occupation"- again how? How can
you stop luck? How can you make sure someone isn't "exploiting their talent?"- menas for it to function like a
redistributive tax that will compensate one's excess of talent in one field with another dearth, but not for one's "choice ".
He wants for this to happen w/o state interference.
 How do we distinguish handicap from luck from choice for somethings?
 Equality of resources may force conformity and sameness- (idk..feel like humanity has a tendency to create and be
different as well..seems like an oversimplification)
 Equality of resources- no incentive to craete (is only the only thing that drives people?)
 Freedom is only a means in Dworkin's scheme- therefore freedom can eb used to advocate against equality and
"fight the pattern" as Nozick would say.
• NUSSABUAM AND SEN: Egalitarianism of capabilities:
○ Sen is more abstarct while Nussbaum gives 10 central capabilities
○ People cannot just be given welfare b/c not everyone values or needs the same set of things- should have capability to
choose
 But is this really different from eqaulity of welfare if the capabilities are redistributed like goods
 Too intrusive- claims would be counter-productive to "prosperity"- top down apprach much?
 Also question ability to reaosn in all such capabilities- based on Keats and beauty
 Would lead to victimisation of political identities which each group claiming they are in need for more resources-
again ignores the individual.
OTHER CRITIQUES:
• Post modernists, CRT and Feminist scholars all advocate that the lanaguge of rights and lanaguge itself is so antithetical to
equality that it is almost impossible for equality to really exist
• Only way we can try is by listening to these stories and abandoning a "false neutral" esp in law. Empower the oppressed.

MICHEAL WALTZER: Spheres of Justice:

• "complex equality" in different spheres- an alternative to equality of resources and allows to separate one sphere from
another like econ class.
• Equality here is preventing some from dominating all of life and others being subjugated
• So equality opportunity for dignity across spheres - essential items are in a sphere for itself that everyone gets but otherwise
inequality is okay in this schema- money cannot buy certain things like political power (not sure how this will be checked w/o
interfering)
• In justice the status of one person in one sphere need not spill over into other spheres.
• Dignity here unlike other modern therefore equality of respect is severed from eocnomic standing and more simialr to
Enlightenment conception of equality
EQUALITY AS A VALUE:
• 2 common conception w/ equality: that equality of opportunity should allow mobility - based on main Enlightenment idea of
no hereditary statuses or privileges.
• Equality alos menas some safety net of mins- "should not starve"- who ensures this is a question debated across political
ideologies
• Author feels radical egalitarianism is self-defeating b/c extreme equality erases differences or ability to craete them and in
the process erases the modern individual who has individual liberty and from who equality arises.
 Mill's Liberty
MILL's LIBERTY PRINCIPLE: The only purpose for which Watch The Trap
power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a
Friday, 5 March 2021 11:59 am civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to
others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a
sufficient warrant

• Rawls speaks about equality of basic liberties

• How to distinguish similar concepts:
• Liberty is a condition that arises from free people lviing together in society- it is a social
condition- cannot happen in isolation- this is why liberty is a political construct and allows
enjoying of freedoms like property, free speech etc
○ Associated w/ the privileged usually since It is the freedom to do something- you have the
resources and inner confidence to do this
• Freedom is different: Victor Frankheil defies it as an inner psychological condition "Man's Search
for Meaning"
○ You are in a condition not conducive for meaningful life so you seek fear "from" soemthing-
like from depression, fear, oppression
• Civil liberties v. Civil rights
• Civil Liberties: Basics freedom to do soemthing like Art 19 of Indian Consti
• Civil rights: Basic rights to be free from discrimination based on a whole range of characteristics.
○ Attack on civil liberties is an attack on civil rights as well. Here we 'fight for civil rights'
• Basic concern is threat to liberty from political and social dictatorship
○ Based on idea that democracy itself will not do enough to protect the minority from
majoritarian rule
• Context:
○ Father was James Mill- EIC employee and so was his son- wore 3 volumes of Indian History
 Actually thought arts were useless and forced his son to only study Greek, maths,
physics etc
 But by 20, John learned that he was emotionally stunted since he had no learned the
arts and other related studies and was depressed and detached himself from his
father's values and ethics
○ Utilitarian
○ Like Rosseau, he had a lover ad influenced him a lot and influenced him to wrote about
suffragette rights
○ Known as pragmatic liberalist- he wnated rights to be both individual and collective and
not restricted to the rich and elite
○ Mid 17th C.
 Meant many Parl form already, male voting rights were present
 He still wrote about liberty since people only suspect nature of state and not society
○ Says political dictatorships draw their strength from social dictatorships in the form of
culture, traditions and customs etc
 Since customs discipline our values and thoughts and begins in the family itself
 We get "received wisdom " from society but this is self interest of dominant classes and
these are disseminated so all conform to the norms and expectations sof the dominant
class
 So he claims that social dictatorships are also dangerous to individual autonomy.
 Says we should have absolute freedom of thought and expression and sentiment
□ Also to join w/ others as long as you do not harm others or coerce them to join
you
 Liberty to pursue our tastes and pursuits and live exactly the way we see fit as long as
this does not harm others.
 He introduced the Harm Principle:
□ Limitation of action is the harm caused to others, not even oneself
  Must regulate "other-regarding actions"- where a third party is affected by
my actions- nut impossible to ever find a purely "self-regarding act"
 Harm here is beyonf annoyance, offensiveness- means "damage to interests"
 Not enough that one persons' interest in not the sufficent condition must be
beyond this.
□ So society through state can only interfere when a individual causes harms to
others and otherwise must have absolute freedom of expression and thought
□ Says preventing this absolute freedom would harm society- why? B/c Human
mind is falliable and we do not know if our opinions are logical, exceptional, true
or false but we will only know its validity once we express them and test it in the
"public cauldron of opposing idea". Only then can valuable ideas be discovered
 So expression of false ideas are also equally imp to test its value
 So unpopularity of an idea should not be supressed only b/c of that reason
 If prevent it society will suffer from lack of innovation and expression
 Intolerance to all but orthodox ideas prevents new ways of life
□ So cannot bring in conformity in the name of tradition. And he believes lack of
eccentricity is the biggest challenge to society
 And lack of dicussion or understanding of even true ideas would lead to
them becoming dogmas
 Problem w/ dogma is that they do not motivate people for action or
change
 Need to differentiate our certainty of a view and the view actually being
certain- usefulness of opinions is in itself an opinion so discussion must
before we refuse to allow discussion on one topic
 Alos assumes that everyone has the same capacity, ability to voice thoughts
□ Quite contradictory to Rousseau's position that human endeavour in starts and
sciences has only corrupted the human simplicity and soul
 So Mill assumes that knowledge will lead to happiness- not always true-
nuclear weapons, capitalism etc

 But agrees that freedom of action must be limited compared to freedom of thought-
so freedom to imagine can be an adventure
 b/c action more capable of hurting others than thoughts.
 Non-conformist may innovate and help the traditional as well
□ Tradition represent habit formation which is also useful
□ Judging and approving other's lifestyles will allow us to judge them
○ But today should we tolerate, be indifferent, judge, approve, reject other's lifestyles:
 Zizek agrees that we should be indifferent
 Nietzsche says we should have will not to judge others:
1) About the world we should always say no,
2) rarely say yes and
3) mostly be indifferent
○ State can only persuade people to give up 'bad habits' but cannot coerce it
 For lying, he proposes utilitarianism - he improvises it and beliefs that all innovation
will lead to happiness.
 What about banning of an opinion that may increase happiness of others? Should we
ban it?
 Positive liberty is what poor and marginalised need for liberty to express themselves
 Negative liberty is simply saying that there is a lack of restraints- like telling a poor
person to educate themselves since 'nothing is stopping them'
• Mill however feels that only mature countries could handle this liberty and not "immature" ones like
India
• Not applicable to those w/o "maturity if their faculties" like children and barbarians"- quite
 literally infantilising people - so Victorian
• He actually fought for EIC to remain in control of India in 1857 instead of the Crown
• Colonies are the 'infants and children' to whom these liberties cannot be given while European
coloniser are 'adults'.
• So "harm" for Mill does not include thoughts- ideas can only be harmless.
• Anarchism- Absolutism continuum
• Absolute freedom for individual and no state vs absolute dictatorship
• Utilitarians are also absolutists since whatever is good for majority can be imposed on the rest
• Even US had affirmative action- reconciliation of equality and liberty
• b/c we need social control over those who are causing harm to others.
• Doesn't really address formal relations in politics and law
○ Western ideas have constructed an idea of a formal individual and formal government

Recognition of something like a positive liberty (Isiah Berlin )would perhaps make equality more
compatible w/ liberty- the mainstream idea of liberty today is more libertarian. Welfare liberalism
actually acknowledge positive liberty which is why Us and India have affirmative action policies
EX: the example of UBI could help both of this- thing based subsidies whihc try to allow positive
liberty may be paternalistic but a UBI allows capability without removing choice of use.
Tutorial: Liberty, Equality and Fraternity
Wednesday, 10 March 2021 1:16 pm

MILL'S LIBERTY:
• Basis for liberalism today- also democratic representation
• You can curb another's freedom only is their actions are harming someone else
○ Context of backlash against the constraining Church
○ Beleives that all of us are rational human being sin pursuit of the truth
• But this would only apply to members of the civilised society and children- that's why he opposed liberty to the colonised.
• Hated the idea of censorship- free discussion needed for truth of life to come about
○ False ideas may end up being true even if people are certain they are not true- imp to challenge dogmas
• Rosseau doesn't approve of this- since knowledge had corrupted us- but Mill feels that we'll never know if it useful at all.
• Says most knowledge is partly- true and partly false
• What is harm?
○ Harm is damaging one's interests- like economic, bodily interests- but not interests that change w/ the whims of society
○ Some harm however is necessary- free competition principle from economics, like a competitive exams
• How much free speech is too much:
○ Fake news
○ Very easy to share info and take action
○ There is no moderator of information
• Also are people really rational or are we susceptible to manipulation, rhetoric and are we erratic.

EQUALITY: Comes in many degrees

• Based on idea that inequality is unjust
• Everyone is exactly the same- is the extreme form
• Equality didn't just start w/ Enlightenment- even the religions prescribe different types of equality
• Equality before the law: implies equal natural rights at birth- art 14- reasomable classification + rational nexus b/w objective
and result of policy
○ Also are likes treated alike?
○ Traditionally menas preserving right to property
○ So everyone also has the liberty to create inequality through equality of economic opportunity.

• Critiques of formal equality:

○ Eqaul protection doesn't not prevent inequalities
○ Equal rights cannot be exercised equally by people in greatly unequal positions.

IDEAS OF EQAULITY:
1. Rawls: equality of welfare concept
2. Dworkin: equality of resources- and these are provided to meet the equal challenges of life- and any of resources people
generate should only be from their hard work- not their talent or existing resources
a. So freedom is to allow choice and these are no compensated
b. Redistributive tax to put everyone back into equal position
○ But where does handicap start and choice end
○ Also little incentive to create wealth
○ Also leads to conformity- how much liberty could there be
3. Equality of capabilities: Sen and Nussbaum- everyone should have capability to exercise their freedom
○ Difficult to actually measure and implement
○ Identity politics make become central since everyone is compensated based on identity.
4. Sphere is Justice: Walzer
 ○ Complex equality: everyone is given equal dignity based on their achievements in any sphere- equality of status w/o
conformity.
○ Does this really achieve anything, can we prove it
5. Equality today:
○ No permanent and hereditary hierarchy
○ And opportunity for social mobility
○ Social security
○ Equality of respect- very mild- nothing else needs to happen
○ Doesn't answer any of our radical critiques.
Ambedkar
Monday, 8 March 2021 11:06 am

• Nature of Liberalism in the West- he believes the crisis of Europe is the belief in elective democracy rather than in social
and substantive democracy
• So the fiction of individual sovereign and one person, one value has originated from the idea of "freedom of contract"
from Contract law theory
• This ignores initial social and economically inequalities- so the legal individual is reduced to a colourless person- like those
behind Veil of ignorance in Rawls- and this fictitious indivdual is carried forward in formal democracy
• But these actual inequalities obstruct the person from participating in substantial democracy.
• So all the rights are given to this formal individual and these are legal and regulative fictions
• So Ambedkar argues that the West ignores these social and cultural distinctions and that hereditary sovereign has no
disappeared in democracy
○ Western liberalism has constructed a society of persons w/ minimum shared values that constitute the moral order
as per classical social contracts.
○ And on the basis of these shared values, thy come together to rule themsleves, ignoring other social and cultural
hierarchies- seen in Rawls and Locke
○ Whereas the actual representative democracy is only of the people not 'by them' and has ignored the social and
cultural and economic hereditary power- this has resulted in fascism in the west
• The separation of powers in the govt to prevent abuse of power by the state but in reality there is a collusion of political
powers and no one competes for power anymore- the idea that power attracts power- no counter-balancing
• So Ambedkar agrees that there is no longer Hindu or individual society- just a society of castes- w/ no shared values-
caste Hindus come together but not on the basis of democratic values.
○ So caste system prevents people from having shared values and common interests as per Ambedkar
○ Even among the depressed classes he believes that besides the repression that binds them together, there is nothing
to bind them together
○ So no particular caste can claim a majority in maintaining and protecting the interests of others in India.
○ So there is no political community as per the liberal construct of liberal individuals w/ shared values coming together
to from associations that rule themselves.
○ And the power to form opinions is disempowered from having his own opinion.
○ So the graded scale of soceity rendered collective social revolt against equality impossible
 Graded as in upward in terms of respect and downwards in terms of contempt
• The popular discourse in India stops at the level of understanding the caste
○ So his real concern was democracy which is undermined by caste legitimized and institutionalized violence. Called it
a "unfreedom"
○ Eric Fromm showed in 1970 how Nazis were victims of his own violence and this was already propounded by
Ambedkar in terms of caste w/ every o=individual being in a state of involuntary solitude
○ So discrimination is in a way soft coercive and violent power
○ There is an unspoken civil war in India where violence is a slow poison.
○ Caste is an exemplary and singular form of violence
○ He claims that all political revolutions were preceded by social and religious revolution- last and only exception was
Buddhism and hence he believes only state can bring this change in Idnai since our civil soicety cannot transform
from within
 So the state as a structure would be able to neutralize the effect of hierarchy and bottle up prejudices and
nullify injustices
□ Soske (Italian scholar)- says Ambedkar was naïve and did not anticipate the dominant caste taking over
this string state apparatus.
 • His understanding of rights:
○ Says they are governed by legal regimes and these are regulative fictions based on freedom of contract principles and
this assumes equality of capacity- but the dignity and freedom of individual needs to be protected by the state for
this purpose.
○ One faction is represented by another and there is no such self-governance
○ Individual and minority rights needed to be protected
○ His scheme of proportional representation:
 Says absolute majority not essential feature- this may lead to abuse of power- says relative majority is enough
 Maddison principle was rejected
 Believes minorities and disadvantaged should be given more weightage- inversely proportional to their
conditions.
□ Like separate electorate, independent positions in the satte machinery will prevent majority dictatorship
□ So he wants to create a system which will allow competitiveness- but does not answer why caste Hindus
would agree to this.
• Had doubts about legal formalities ability to protect these principles- rules encourage their breaking rather
○ Political principles should be grounded in social reality
○ So agrees w/ Locke that State can only protect existing privileges and rights- so it will protect freedom of only some
people.
• So what is the alternative to law since it is already grounded in socio-religious mores
○ Ambedkar wanted a new socio-religious community to create new consciousness and new order
○ So he went beyond Mill in reconstructing social equality-
○ Anna Arrand- says Constitution is the last treasure of revolutionaries and it is the same whne we discuss Ambedkar.
• So posed a challenge to Western liberalism being adopted in India
• Ambedkar opposed the hero worship of himself and Gandhi

READING: The Other Prince

• Ambedkar was concerned with relation w. The constitutional form and social strcuture
• How to keep popular rule from becoming majoritarian rule and ensure space for the minority
○ Wanted protection of minority communities for capability to exercise individual consti rights
○ Democratic self-governance
○ Equitable administartion of law
• To ensure democracy w/ multi-dimensional and intersectional inequality we devised separate electorates, reservation and
non-territorial electorates
• Dr. Ambedkar recognised the imp of social and economic equality and civic religions are preconditions for a healthy,
collaborative democracy
• Soske argues that Ambedkar went through 3 phases in his understanding of tackling the empowerment of the Dalit
community and addressing liberal democracy in the Indian context, both formally through the constitution and
substantially through the social structures.
• PHASE1: Securing Independence for the Dalits in Independent India- 1919 Southborough Committee
○ Emphasized "government by the poeple" - meaning that everyone should have the opportunity to participate and
truly be "self-governed" not just by the majority
○ He argued that Dalits could fight their multi-dimensional oppression only if they were active political participants-
paternalistic tendencies of UC would not allow this since it denied the right to political thought and org for Dalits
○ Western political theory assumes that majority of electoral system was a political majority of ideas but in Idnia
Ambedkar realised that it would be majority along communal, religious lines- territoriality thereofre menat
subjugation of oppressed in such territories by majority.
○ Radical argument that those who were more oppressed had a greater right to be represented and given a voice.
○ He recommended reservation and separte electorates at this juncture of his life
• Constitutional liberalism:
 ○ Legal thinking was primarily utilitarian and positivist at this time - natural rights as an idea was not convincing-
Dewey understood them as metaphorical for political thinking than tangible claims
○ Though rights he described a regulatory fictive products of legal regimes, Ambedkar was non-conformist in this
regard- believed that democratic legal system attained legitimacy through promotion of indivudal human capacities
and therefore necessitated a principle of respect for personal dignity before law.
○ He believed India needed a reconfiguration- a general programme of social reform driven by the emancipation of the
disempowered minority. Simailr to Rawls soceity of persons w/ min shared values
○ Here the Dalits were separated from the caste Hindus and unified under the umbrella of oppression.
○ He thereofre envisioned a social structure which would nullify and bottle up the prejudices of the Caste Hindus and
overturn their oppressing ideas
○ The biggest struggles of an elected governemnt are usurpation of power by elected reps and oppression of minority
by united majority. In the US Madison tried to check the "paper barriers" of FRS to people by pitting the govt
institutions against each other in a system of checks and balances and encouraging competition among political
factions of the people
○ Ambedkar wanted to goa step further than just a civic mechanism capable of overturning a politically repugnant
majority approved act. He wanted to a create a govt structure which was counter-majoritarian- a concept of
"shared sovereignity" b/w the Dalits and Caste Hindus- that envisioned separate electorates, compensation for soical
disenfranchisement, independent and stable representations. Yet Ambedkar could not formulate an exact structure
nor answer why creation of sphere for Dalits in the constitution could not just be swept aside by the Hindu majority
later.
○ In a 1945 speech he reasoned that Hindus were not a political majority and that their interests were better served
through relative majority than absolute majority. He sought to engineer conditions for political cooperation and
competition within the consti itself
○ But still did'nt answer why caste Hindus would subject themselves to such a system
○ That's why his strategy involved pressurising the Hindu groups through the British colonisers- while the Hindus may
resign to the afct they could still not be coerced to accpet or adhere it faithfully.

• PHASE 2: Social and political, not after

○ "History bears out the proposition that political revolutions have always been proceeded by social and religious
revolutions"
○ He reocgnised thta poltical freedoms alone could not do much for the extremely dependent and deprived Dalit
community While he advocated for upliftment within the community he also beleieved that only an outside force
could really achieve it. : through a state that empowered minorities and eliminated socio-eocnomic and thereby
political disabilities
 Strange considering Gramsci and Althusser who beleieved that state apparatus would be grounded in the social
values of the majority itself- there was n real "outside" in a society- probably a realisation that came later?
○ Here he understood the drawbacks of various European democractic ideas- that rights, democracy, contis would
protect minorities- instaed argued that democracy was rtaher an expression of social order where everyone is
committed to equality and there is social mobility and no rigid hierarchies.
○ Did not beleive consti alone would achieve anything after Black oppression in the US, third Reich and Jews etc
○ While liberalism at this time was seeing a steep decline (WWII), Ambedkar held on to those ideals esp representative
govt and that emerging countries like India should "fight to preserve the historical project of constitutionalism and
democracy"
○ He recognised failure to acknowledge and work towrads social equality was the biggest drawback of Western idelas
and legal discourse- was only "formal"
○ He reocgnised social hegemony and how internalised oppression worked to keep the Dalits downtrodden, this would
violate the liberal principles
○ Political oligarchy controlled capital through mantles like "freedom to contract" and believing the falsehood of
bargaining parity ignoring eocnomic inequality between parties.
  This was an idea employed by thinkers like Henry Maine to emphasise the transition of Europe from a status
centred to an individual society
 It was alos largely pro-business and represented values of Laissez Fair policy
 Said formal democracy no use if there is no social democracy
○ Again he aimed to reform rather than reject liberalism by allowing central planning and state ownership to some
degree
 So the form of economy was again a precondition and instrument of consti law.
○ But as Dalit rep failed to be procured, Ambedkar realised he needed clout in the INC to have some role in making
the Consti- his presence allowed reservation but not the full conception of shared soveriegnity
○ He thereofre tried to at least secure Dalit rights under the consti framework
○ He reocgnised the imp of a social democractic consti to secure fundamental liberties and prevnt elite from
consolidating power.
• PHASE 3: Disillusionment and civility
○ After law min stint, acquired a very low opinion of law's ability to bring meaningful change
○ Advocating for Buddhism, he amplified his belief for the need of shared social values for substantive democracy.
○ His Buddhism was no longer hierarchal or theological but an instrument for instilling a shared value system and
shape individual disposition to rituals- the lack of this he beleives was the reason for Europe's failure
Gandhism
Tuesday, 9 March 2021 9:09 am

• Hind Swaraj: Considered Indian Social Contract of Rosseau and written on a ship voyage after his 15 year stay in
South Africa
• Discussion b/w editor of a journal and a common reader- dialectical mode
○ Indian framework for goals of life
○ Rosseau and Hobbes, Locke made survival goal of life and protetcion is that of the state
• Called purosharthas (dharma, artha, kama, moksha) framework, 4 themes- THEORY OF CANONICAL AIMS OF LIFE:
○ All 4 to be achieved simultaneously
i. Nationalisation-
 Means religious pluralism and therefore also belongs to dharma - politics cannot be unethical
ii. Civilisation- this allows artha and kama through political economy, : civilisation is 'that mode of conduct which
points out to man the path of duty
iii. Satyagraha-it is secular politics and hence it allows ethics- dharma
iv. Swarajya- political, ethics, economic, aesthetic freedom- so interactive pursuit of all 4 aims
○ So wants balance b/w secular and spiritual
○ Was addressing concerns raised by many people- interlocutors- imp for context of politics in the book:
 Extremist Nationalist: Sarvarkar, Indian followers of Herbert Spencer, Dingrao- wanted use of violence
 Those who wanted to achieve freedom through Marxist methods: Veerartha Chtattopdhyay (Sarojini Naidu's
bro)
 Muslim separatist and nationalists
• Proposes Idea of Civic Nation- Prajya and in the Present contemporary times
○ Tries to answer question like who is Indian, who is Hind
○ He asks whether India is just a collection of tribes of castes- he partially agrees but says that India can become a
civic nation- (unlike Ambedkar)
 Political community whose basic unit is individual who is also bearer of FRs and he can also become a subject
capable of swaraj- capacity for self determination and self-development
 Says requires transformation of consciousness- we only had religious consciousness.
 Beleived there was deep tension among old and new consciousness among the people-
 Asked the question about existing religious consciousness- says it should be transformed if civic
transformation into a nation is to be achieved- otherwise there will be tension b/w old and new
consciousness.
 From closed concept of religion to pluralist concept of religion.
 So all religions are different forms of a single religion the essence of which is the concern for others. Similar
to the 3 classic contract theoretician's ideas - this is completely diff from west idea of self
 Self is all about sympathy and empathy and primary duty to take care of other's welfare (I can use this for
the project!)
□ This is misinterpreted as subjugation of lower classes for upper classes but Gandhi meant consensual
duty - whether we as individuals can live together and if we can how is answered here.
 And the closed religion is just a variant of this whose practices are based on misinterpretation of the main
religion.
□ There is religion in the singular and plural
 Singular- essence of religion- the movement of individual to all that is- to transcend
 Plural- historical religions- the actual religions- "subspecies" of singular religion and paths
converge to the same point of "truth"- all have equal validity and deserve equal respect. "Sarva
Dharma Samabhava"
  Civic nation + religion compatibility: says religious pluralism can yield to civic conscious in public sphere w/o
undermining pvt integrity of religion in search of truth and morals
□ He was completely against rituals
□ Only in collective, individual can survive
□ How to control a destructive of passion which is contrary to cooperative coexistence was the reason
religion was needed- democratic self has to be cultivated through practice
□ So ethics of religious pluralism can accomodate both religion and civic nation-
 Today we continue to still see it as an either or- religion as civics or a civic religion in the form of
nationalism
□ His quest for celibacy was this attempt to control himself- and other forms like greed, pride, etc
□ He wanted voluntary slowness, poverty and simplicity- SUSTAINABILITY!
 Called western civilisation "factory civilisation" - goes beyond Marxism to call industrial civilisation
mode of life not just production.
□ Machinery becomes autonomous of human beings and should improve life- but he realised the
destructive potential that is enslaving us and hence he was opposed to it.
 He just wants life affirming technology- what he means by his Talisman- Rawlsian sort of
 First Anti-Fordist- advocated against mass production and wanted production by the masses.

• His concept of India broadened the idea of Indian consciousness-

○ Shown in his definition of Indian in Hind Swaraj- sort of a pre-emptive response to Sarvarkar's "How is a Hindu "
and Hindutva.
○ Also responding to 2 nation theory and opposing it
• Gandhi was warning Indians of modernity- he thinks Indian civilisation was declining
○ It pursues bodily welfare at the expense of spiritual welfare is his prime disagreement w/ modernity- only kama
and artha no moksha and dharma anymore
○ West has invented psychology/psychiatry for the spiritual purpose- you are not in peace w/ yourself-to heal the
split b/w your body and mind-
 Descartes split the body from the mind in the 16C- "Dualism". And said that they do not need to go
together and that the body works like a machine separate from the soul but Gandhi disagreed
 He asks how and when did we make Nature into natural resource. Like how today all humans are human
resources- this happened due to technology and science.
 Gandhi tried to unite soul and body- philosophy and politics
○ By civilisation he means mode of life which points to path of duty- what is needed to live as any collective- unlike
Rosseau solitary savage.
○ Civilisation is a mode of life that pursues what is the object of life- Purosharthas- gives political menaing to it
○ Essentially he neither exalts western nor Indian civilisation currently
• He wanted to bring all civilisation under this Purosharthas framework.
○ So he wants to end ascetic tradition in India that prevented people from contributing to life and society.
 Indian philosophy for many centuries had overemphasised moksha
 At the same time the artha obsessed west needs moksha and philosophy
○ Claimed to be loyal to the British Constitution- since he believed that it treats everyone equally adn this idea
would be expanded to the British colonies as well and also the nature of citizens who were so self-disciplined aand
respectful of the law. And wnated India to learn civic nationalities in this manner
○ He wanted an "aesthetic facelift" for India- cleanliness, hygiene, new architecture, new art
○ He detaches these from the utilitarian approach of Bentham and Hobbes and tries to put it into the Puroshartha
Indian framework- the canonical aims of life.
○ So rejects instrumentalism to life - wnats to value the ends
○ His rationale for civilisation, nation etc is about the lviing together better.
 • Satyagraha:
○ Original idea of civil disobedience (CD) was described by Henry David Thoreau in 1848- he said the tax to fund
fugitive Slave law and the war should not be paid.
○ Gandhi transformed CD into Satyagraha it in 2 ways:
i. Morally: Truthfulness, celibacy (for taming your passions- not just about sex) , courage and detachment from
possessiveness
□ Wasn't actually against sexual pleasure as such but was all about self-discipline and control
ii. Brought ethics and politics together-after the Machiavellian split
iii. Makes nonviolence an inherent part of satyagraha: violence was to him was the externalisation of impatience
and desperation was its internalisation- that's why sex, which he believed came from desperation was
connected to violence.
○ Establishes Gandhi as a political philosopher- combines moral and political praxis- not just do good but do it
through the right menas- you cannot do good through evil means
• Humans are goal-setting, life-affirming, world- accepting, and goal pursuing
○ Coordinated pursuit of all 4 purosharthas is necessary for a well-lived life- menaing they should be balanced- like
cannot be rich through unethical means
• These should inform the lives of individuals, nations and civilisations
• Intro to 1997 and 2015 edition of Antonio Parel's Hind Swaraj

COMMENTS:
• Very Balanced- doesn't deny welath drive, doesn't deny sexual desire, doesn't deny greed- just wants it to be balanced
and everything in good time and good measure.
• Balance of ideologies also- brings contemporary and old together.

READING:
• Argues that Gandhi only seems antimodern b/c from the mainstream modern position, where we think our type of
modernity was an inevitability and the other idea of early modern times were "dissenters" that were overpowered by
our current views and hence not as valuable or consistent w/ our modern views. In fact Gandhi is radical.
• Bilgrami uses 17th Europe to help us understand this b/c Hind Swaraj deal w/ the metaphysical outlook that
prioritised science and its extended themes in the early modern period, when numerous other options and avenues wre
also rising. It looks at the impact of this outlook on political economy, culture, soceity and politics.
○ Tehreofre it wasn't science that Gandhi was criticising as such as the bend to life such outlooks craete in persons-
in a simialr way he criticised technology not for itself but for tis impacts in the hands of people- how it changed
their attitudes.
• Questions the connotation of nature, nature of humans, the nature of the relationship b/w humasn and anture and
b/w humans themselves
1. How and when did we transform the idea of world living into the concept of world to master and control- central to
Gandhi's thinking
i. How and when did Nature become Natural resource:
 Gandhi's nature influenced by Bhakti ideals of being infused w/ divinity and Atman available at all times to
be imbued by inhabitants should they perceive it through their devotion.
 Neoplatonism: the ides of "One" which is the unity of everything from which arises a Nous who has intellect
of only the one, giving rise to a soul who in turn gives rise to matter- essentially is pantheistic- beleives in
some form of sacredness imbued in everything
 Providentialism on the other hand beleives in a immanent God who though exists and having craeted
everything, is "disconnected from the actual, material world and has no influence on it.
 Newton's laws of Gravity changed this- rather than motion being a sacred, god-driven thing acting as an
inner dynamism of the object, it was now an inert force, brutishly that caused motion- so removed the
 scared nature of things and turned them mundane
 As a consequence nature was no longer revered and preserved and maintained in the name of a divine form
existing within it but mundane and usable for humans for "man's services"- this sort of thinking was exactly
what Gandhi and other thinkers like English Dissenters (protestants who wanted no state interference in
religion) were concerned of- this is what allowed religion to hold hands w/ capitalism and the use of nature
for man's benfit as going hand- in hand in Europe. Tagore thought like this as well.
 Marx also beleived in this-though had a more "Secular", abstarct notion of the human-nature connection
which was essential and sacred for existence beyond just "use: and abuse.
□ Secular version is nature having value property as having an enchantment
 This desacralisation was the combined impact/effort of those like to royal Society (science), latitudinarian
(religiously equivocal) Anglican, and those w/ commercial interests for whom the Reformation and revolution
were casuing adverse impacts- so the aim was a new stability
 The "safekeeping" of God away from the material world led to elitism of virtue through their hold over
knowledge- now only accessible to those learned and their prerogative- the Dissenters wanted the opposite
democratisation of polity- where God was everywhere so no one was at the mercy of the other for knowing
of the values and virtues and every community had the ability to determine them- Bhakti had simialr ideas
w/ "god being available to every humble person"
 This wasn't the same as "possessive individualism" that came about from the Protestant Reformation
□ They believed an elite w/ God in their hands channelled through their knowledge would soon led to
privatisation of the most basic necessities making law and medicine inaccessible to the non-elite. Polity
would then surround a monarch and his court.
□ As seen from the Glorious Revolution, soceity aligned itself w/ civility- of a ruler w/ law by his side to
govern a "brute" people- as a reflection of an providential and God over the material, brute world.
 Ideas of civility came defined inversely to the ideas of "cruelty"- the general population were cruel and the
only way civil soceity dealt w/ them was through cruelty, justified by their brutishness- this responsive
cruelty was not cruel in itself but akin to "self-defence" of ideas of civility.
□ Civility allowed the elite to section them selves off and hide the nature of thier own cruel actions
□ Civility aligned w/ ideas of constitutionalism and rights in the Enlightenment and those that did not
have this were again considered cruel- acted a justification for colonisation which Gandhi saw through
 This is why Gandhi had a studied "indifference" towards the ideas of rights, esp in the Consti of
India- he felt conditions for their need should be allowed to arise in India as all and that this was
a Westphalian outcome unsuited for India- one where mundane rule had to replace ideas of divine
rule.
ii. How and when did we transform the idea of human beings into citizens-questioning the idea of law
○ NATIONALISM, RIGHTS AND WESTPHALIANISM:
 Coincided w/ the time when Europe needed a new justification for the state besides divine rule
 b/c nationalism unites in the mundane, it requires the creation of a feeling for the nation as an entity (in
the way for immanent God perhaps?) and this feeling resides in "majoritarianism"- which is primarily
defined in its prejudice towards an internal minority seen as outsiders. This creates prejudice and
discrimination as the basis for a nation but without constraints could cause fractures within the majority
nation itself.
 This is also the origin of citizenship by making an "us" associated w/ the nation entity and a "them" who are
infiltrating the us by pervading through the nation
□ Therefore, evolves rights and freedom for all citizens- the formal mechanisms for the restricting ideas
of political secularity and multiculturalism. Westphalian ideal of a nation hence requires rights for
replication of this organising principle.
□ This is why Gandhi did not wnat India to reach the stage of a noninclusive nation that requires rights
as protective mechanisms at all. This is why he was most opposed to Hindutva and its founder Savarkar
 who aimed to create just such Westphalian entity out of India- Savarkar actually wasn't religious at all

iii. How and when did people become "populations"

iv. How and when did we transform the idea of knowledge to live by into concept of expertise to rule by- meaning
everything is specialized- calls it slavery to expertise- says we need to know enough to maintian independence.
• But doesn't want this comparison to 17rth C. Dissenters mean that it is a critique based on nostalgia or that such a
critique is wishful b/c this extractive capitalistic outlook is so comprehensive and defining of modern today- takes this
from psychology's "Frame problem".
i. Proposes that we live in 2 frames- one individual quotidian frame which is still enhanced in the world- perhaps
drawn from tradition or an earlier public/collective frame and the other the modern collective frame which
supports the capitalistic polices. This divison does not allow us to recognise their existence the in consistencies b/w
them or how to challenge it. Radical critique then focuses on allowing us to be conscious of these frames and align
them into one so such critique is possible. This makes social-democractic safety nets and "constraining"
mechanisms like anti-pollution measures, poverty allowances not the inevitable option to "alleviate" capitalsim but
provided a alternate critique grounded in the present of the individualistic frame- and this is radical.
ii. Capitalistic outlook is far from comprehensive- cites indignous populations, Bolivia where ideas of natural
sacredness (not secualr and religious) have been translated in to the langauge of rights to assert their views.
 EX: the Chipko Movement type thinking in India, Anti-oil protests in Ecuador
VIDEO LECTURE:
• Hind Swaraj was a Southern critique of western ideas
• Gandhi never found equality and liberty imp- he instead believed in Vaishnavism and other Indian traditions of
coexistence.
○ He pointed out that has soon as they were conceptualised, Liberty and equality were pitted against one another-
zero sum tension- exemplified by the Cold War!
 Why? Possession of land is liberty but results in inequality- Marx points this out
□ Liberty began to be attached to talent and incentivising it- connected to development of individualism-
to recognise someone as an individual w/ rights you reocgnised those talents and allowed to reap the
fruits of that talent.
 Bilgrami says it may be this way just b/c the way liberty and equality were defined or thought of.
• Unalienated life should be made central and liberty and equality should just be necessary conditions for it- Gandhi's
view
○ Bilgrami beleives that Gandhi's originality does not come from these sub questions but that these questions and
their related transformation is what led to the world being something to conquer and which resulted in alienation
○ Sources of alienation- increasing detachment in the way we've thought of nature, human beings, people and
knowledge and places the fault at the doorstep of Western modern science.
○ Science was evaluated from just an explantion of the world to an outlook of the world and this led to
detachment.
 Gandhi believed it was a superstition of natural sciences to believe that there was nothing in nature that
science could not study- this was perhaps why even secualr enchantment through value properties was
declared non-existent.
• WHAT WAS GANDHI'S ALTERNATIVE:
○ Had an idea of collective and cooperative living- and believed that a certain way of thinking would make this
seem irrational and that is found in the idea of the Tragedy of the Commons
 This theory believes that collective cultivating is irrational- if there is some common property that everyone
has to maintain w/ some cost (active or passive) and everyone pays it, everyone is better off. But we would
not know if evryone is paying. So rationally it would make immediate gains by not paying the cost rather
than me paying the cost anyway and not know if some long term benefit will even accrue. So makes no
sense to work collectively.
  And this rhetoric is mainstream today to promote privatisation and individualisation
○ Elinor Ostrom has disproved this theory- she insists that the theory wasn't even supposed to be used to promote
pvt. But to actually say that people should be punished/incentivised to pay and maintain these commons in some
way.
○ But Bilgrami believes that Gandhi doesn't think policing is appropriate either since it is a solution originating from
the same thinking as this theory- there could still be bribery and threats
 Alienation according to this thinking arises at the very moment we begin to question that someone else may
not pay.
 Gandhi did not rubbish the idea of liberty but instead he wanted liberty to be thought from a non-
individualistic view.
□ If we can see the world as having some value-property, something beyond the dry material of science,
then the world creates normative demands on us to maintain that enchantment- then we see the
world not for ourselves but for the world itself- then liberty would not just be about mu freedom but
about how my freedom engages and allows others freedoms- then liberty would not be at odds w/
equality.
• GANDHI ON CASTE:
○ It is hierarchal and reflective of heterogeneity- he kept making the distinction that heterogeneity should be
maintained while breaking down the heirarchy.
 Actually similar to Edmund Burke who beleieved colonial rule was destroying the systems of indigenous life
and leading to alienation.
 Bilgrami' s new idea of alienation isn't the same as conservative societies- here there was no alienation but
also no notions of liberty and equality.
Gandhi and Ambedkar
Sunday, 28 March 2021 10:52 pm

On Rights:
• Gandhi was massively opposed to separate electorates for it would Balkanise India but
perhaps in this very arguemnt was the possibility of a majoritarianism on the basis of
UC nationalism could emerge- something Gandhi was against
• Rights did not mkae sense to him in a unalienated socety but perhaps he
overestimated this Bhakti ideal in the context of the times- untouchability pervaded
India- this was alienation too which when translated into a nation should require
special rights.
Convergence:
In the late life realisation that formal equality and liberty would achieve nothing
unless there was a systemic shift- on inclusion and acceptance
This is akin to the radicalism of Gandhi that wnated a world w/o alienation and
community inclusiveness.
Nationalism
Friday, 12 March 2021 12:03 pm

• 150 years old concept- mid 19th C.- so not ancient at all- 1848
• Schizophrenic charcter- can have both positive and negative role
• Led to dismantling of classical colonialism and created today's modern world
• Its' political colour, pratice has been changing

ORIGIN AND CONTEXT:

• 1st traces of usage was 13th C. But it wasn't in the modern political sense
• Derives from nasie- from Latin and in the form of Nasio it meant a group of people united by birth- so it only meant a
breed of people- racially related
• French revolution made this a political term
○ During Storming of Bastille- they made an oath to the nation and the law here for the forst time- not just the King
○ Louis the 16th was beheaded by guillotine
○ 19th C. Witnessed numerous nationalist movements against the Austro Hungarian empires and the revolt against
multicultural empires
○ It was the educated middle calss that was most active in this- felt disenchanted by monarchy
○ Emergence of revolutioanary constitutionalism was parallel and consequent to this.
○ Material conditions which brought people together:
 General discontent- food shortage, economic depression, poor monarchic governance
○ In 1848- the Bonaparte was elected and in 3 years he consolidated power
• By mid 19th C. It was a political movement and doctrine
• So nationalism was the belief that nation central to political organisation for any society and not the king
○ Entire world can be divided into natural nations
○ Appropriate and only legitimate political unit (not God)
• Classical nationalism:
○ Borders of state had to brought to the same as boundaries of a the nation- this is what formed the nation-state-
Mill's idea. Anarchists disagree with this coming together.
○ Nationality and citizenship also clashed and overlapped here as well.
○ State could ahve also meant empire earlier and this is why state is qualified by "nation"
○ Highly diverse ideological phenomenon
○ Ramifications for nature of state, how war is fought
○ Has also been linked w/ contradictory ideologies of political systems like fascism
• Imp to compare it w/ old forms like realms, principalities and kingdoms
○ Loyalty to king was what was expected from subjects and was genrally coerced but loyalty to state comes from
voluntary patriotism.
○ There is no higher authority than the nation and people are citizens and no longer subjects
○ Napoleonic wars fuelled the feeling of nationalism in the areas Napoleon tried to conquer
○ Simon Bolivar in Latin America also led a the nationalist struggle agaisnt the Spanish Empire there- Grenada, Brazil,
Peru etc
○ Nationalism redraw the map of Europe and multicultural Empire of turkey, Spain, Russia collapsed and new nation-
states emerges
○ Italy was united in 1861 and acquired Rome in 1870
○ Germany was Prussian confederation of 39 confederates and then united under Bismarck
○ Mazzini's book was translated into Marathi by Sarvarkar and advocated for violence to free oneself from colonial rule.
• Common langauge, history and culture is a key component of classical nationalism
○ But patriotism is an imp component- menas love for one's fatherland.- it is the cement for nationalism which
provides affective basis for nationalism as an political organising principle
○ National consciousness is distinct from patriotism
○ Not all patriots are nationalists- patriots may love their country but not believe that nation is the perfect political
form.
○ Educated middle class did not dream for unity- rather it was the war-mongering working class army that brought
this about- so war mongering is a subtext for a nationalism
 Only ideology given by middle class- only the poorest and working class brought about the actual reality of
nationalism.
• What brought about nationalism
 ○ Symbolic patriotism- flags, national anthems, mass literacy (print capitalism), popular newspapers, national holidays
and festivals, etc
○ Equality of individuals was a part of this (Hobbes)
○ Conservative nationalism (1870s) tried to contain the working class into the old structures who were being influenced
by Marxism- this is what made nationalism lose its progressive liberal charcter.
 Nationalism brings two opposites together- while Europe was forming independent self- determined states, it
still enabled colonialism, it was rational and irrational, it was simultaneously progressive and conservative, left
wing and right wing, was associated w/ communism and liberals- only anarchists have not been found in
nationalism since they reject the state.
○ Used as a technique to soothe the discontent of the exploited workers
○ Today's nationalism resembles this conservative ideals- was chauvinistic, xenophobic and generated untrustworthiness
of other nations- began from the end of 19th beginning of 20th C.
 Part of ploy to capture the world market-led to WWs
 Treaty of Versailles was used to instigate people in Italy, Germany and Japan regarding their
○ Unification: the process by which separate political entities usually sharing cultural characteristic are integrated into a
single national state
○ Chauvinism: uncritical, unreasoned dedication to a cause based on its superiority
○ Xenophobia: pathological ethno-centricism, and hatred of outsiders
○ Imperialism: policy of extending boundaries of state beyond its boundaries typically to create an empire- it supported
militray expansions and acquistion drawing on racialist and nationalist doctrines- the reason why the boundaries of
Latin American countries are straight lines.
 Formal political domination
 Through conquest not consent
○ Neo- colonialism/imperialism- economic and ideological domination not political control- neo-liberalism is legal
imperialism.
 End of WWs saw completion of nation building process
 National self-determination- Woodrow Wilson at the end of WWI
 Peace treaties after WWI created more frustrated groups which was exploited by fascists
 Imperialism in addition to political control and econ domination also imported ideas of nationalism into their
colonies beginning w/ the Anglo-African War of 1919 and then in Asia.
○ Nation-State- A sovereign entity within which nationality and citizenship overlap
○ Forms: Liberal nationalism, religious nationalism (like in the middle east), cultural and ethnic nationalism, civic
nationalism,
 Cultural: regeneration of a nation and a distinctive civilization is focused on here- not about self- govt like
classical nationalism- appeal to the past.
□ EX: Vedic plastic surgery and aeroplanes!
 Classical: thought of itself as a natural community based on principle of self-determination
 Nationalism as a hatred of others to the love oneself is a false- nationalism itself Is a construct and invented
feeling.
• FORMATION OF NATION STATE:
○ Biology's influence: Biology tries to define what is normal and abnormal to the body.
 Earlier there was a God whose rep was the king and there was a centre
 But now we are all equal and there is no such centre, and like a body any part which is infected can be "cut off"
• BEDROCK OF NATIONALISM:
i. Nation:
 Nation is a group of people bound together by charcteristics like culture, religion, tradition, belief, language etc
bound in a territory
 Though language is an imp criteria for forming a nations, it cannot be the only criteria to divide nations
 Religion is also conceived as one possible criteria- Ireland- divided between the Republic of Ireland and the UK
based on religion inspite of speaking the same language, there are many Islamic nations in the middle east.
□ Diversity of religions and languages has not affected its strong nationalist ideas.
□ Catholic nationalism was not very imp in Brazil, Poland etc
 Ethnic or racial unity can be another basis- Nazi Germany- but usually more cultural than biologically framed,
□ Like Thanksgiving in the US, Bastille day in France,
□ And not all ethnic groups have a nations- Nagas, Tibetans, Kurds
 Having a common past is not an idea of nationalism either- US w/ all its immigrants cannot have the same
history at all
 No need for shared resources either- Latvia apparently formed w/ any such specific resources
  So nation is only psycho political entity and unity- no defining universal criteria for any nation
 Liberals subscribe to civic view of nation- emphasis on political allegiance as on cultural unity- nations are moral
entity which are endowed w/ equal rights to self- determination
 Conservatives subscribe to nation as an organic entity bound together by a common ethnic identity- a shared
history as a source of social cohesion and collective identity and see it as an imp social group
 Socialists- they think it is an artificial group of mankind- to disguise social injustice among nations and there is
no equality at all- so political movements should have an intl charcter not national- like a ploy to exploit the
working classes
□ Only after Prussian revolution, they started to think of think of a communist "nation"
□ MN Roy was India's 'internationalist", also Narendranath Chattopadhyay- Indian communists sided w/
Russia during WWII before UK sided w/ Russia.
□ Doris Lessing
 Anarchists- they believe that nation has tainted itself in associating w/ the state- they don't mind the nation
but the idea of a nation-state is a repressive and a design to support the rich and subjugate the weak
 Fascists they think it is an organical social whole- and that nation gives purpose and meaning to social life and
individual has no special place- and nations are pitted aginst one another to fight and some will lose
 Primordialism: Having a belief that nations are deep rooted and ancient and fashioned out of biology and
psychology
 Civic nationalism: form of nationalism which emphasizes political allegiance and equality among citizens
allowing- begins w/ liberalism
ii. Organic Community:
 The feeling of nationalism formed nation - not the other way around- this political psychology of oneness
created this nation- constructivist view
 Various types of political association one is associated w/ but higher priority is given to the nation since based on
a higher principle of a national community- not just ethnic, caste, class communities.
 Nationalist ideas operate through instinctual, primordial level- not rational arguments usually
 Industrial society craeted individuals w/ mobility and made more independent in the neoliberal globalized world.
So individuals are "bricks" and are brought together through the cement of nationalism in the modern world.
 Industrialization allowed emergence of nationalism but allowed return to pre-modern feudal loyalties
 Benedict Anderson's "Imagined communities"- Capitalism and mass communication enabled sentiment of
nation- "Print Capitalism".
□ Nation is imagined- an ideological constrict and not natural
□ Marxist- Hobsbawm "Bandits"- wrote that nations are an "invented tradition"- argue that racial and
historical continuity is a myth.
 Sovereignity: etymologically menat to kill- the idea of unrestricted power as unchallengeable authority or power.
□ But difficult in a democracy since every individual is supposed to be a soverign so how can we control the
power of each person
□ Usually however, sovereignity menas though that the nation has sovereignity as agisnt other nations or
counties- no one else can tell us how to conduct ourselves.
□ Rosseau's general will- the individual should act selflessly and their collective will beocme the general will
□ Constructive approach to nationalism- nationhood and statehood are closely linked here.
 If there is a political community w/ aspiration for self-determination this is the test of nationhood-
but had exceptions
 So the goal of nationalism is to establish a nation state- 2 ways to do this
◊ Unification of differnt parts of territories- like Germany and Italy- and Gain in 1990 in
Germany after the Berlin Wall fell
◊ Through achievement of political independence like India- but some nations have had this wvaer
like Poland which was once a nation, alter annexed and separated among other nation states,
then reunited and again split up in WWII and afterwards continued under a de facto Russian
rule till 1990 after the Solidarity movement of Lech Walesa
iii. Self-determination
 Based on cultural cohesion (can be exclusivist) and political cohesion (inclusivist)
 Cultural cohesion brings together nationality and citizenship adn legitimises self- govt and claims that
sovereignity resides in the people themselves.
 So nation state is considered natural and inevitable- not claimable by other political forms
 But nationalism is not always associated w/ a state- like Scottish and Welsh nationalism is within the nation
state of UK.
□ There was referendum for Scottish independence in 2105 but it actually failed- so didn't craete a nation
 for themselves.

iv. Culturalism:
 Classical nationalism based on individualism
 But other firms based on ethno-cultural identities and its regeneration, preservation adn strengthening- not
just political community but as a distinctive civilisation
 Political nationalism can be rational but cultural nationalism is more romantic and traditional ideas- base don
folklore and myth of history and it is more bottom-up rather than from the elites.
 But bottom up cultural nationalism is also based on cherry picking of traditions- like religious toleration was
intrinsic to India but this hasn't been as equally glorified lately.
 Usually considered anti-modern but can lead to modern ideals as well: So building a state using capitalism and
science and technology makes it modern but it also appeals to emotions, mythical past, traditions and this
makes it "conservative" as such. So modern in substance, anti-modern in form. Like India's current policy.
 Herder (1744-1803)- spoke about culturalism regeneration w/o a state.
□ Wagner- contributed to Germany unification- composed music based on Germanic folklore.
□ Volkgeist- spirit of the people- reflected through their culture, esp language- closely associated w/ cultural
nationalism
 So big difference b/w nation as a cultural vis-a-vis political unit
 Ethnicity had cultural and racial overtones- descendent so of ethnic groups consodered themselves born into the
culture and groups can only inter-mingle throguh inter-ethnic marriages-
 While political nationalism is open and accessible to all- culturalism talks in terms of inheriting traditions, racial
purity and makes multiculturalism very difficult and fuels xenophobia

Criteria Ethno-cultural nationalism Civic nationalism

Type of Nation Cultural nation- based on historical context and that Political nation - coming together in terms of civic
we've "evolved " into a nation involvement and social contract

Exclusive Inclusive

Rationality Appeals to particularism Appeals to universalism

Charcter Believes in uniqueness of their nations Beleives in equality of nations

Claims Claims that it is mystical and emotional Claims it is rational and principled

Appeals to nation spirit Appeals to national soveriegnity

Organic, closed- born into it and can at most marry Voluntary- can join and exit
into it

Based on descent Based on citizenship

Demands ethnic allegiance, and loyalty, not civic Demands civic loyalty based on social contract. Consti
and law

Appeals to cultural unity Appeals to cultural diversity

• But all of this exists along ideological continuums and hence tehre is a balance of both.
• Gandhian nationalism is civic nationalism and called it "praja" and transposes it into the Indian context- so only
foundations are from Indian Hindu context but based on civic nationalist ideals.
○ Modernity makes human instrumental and only appeals to our rationality- and that is why there is a resurgence of
ethno-cultural nationalism- as per sir.
• FACTORS WHICH PRODUCE IDEOLOGICAL SHAPELESSNESS Of Nationalism:
○ Emerged in diff historical contexts in each nation
○ Has been shaped by contrasting cultural in heritances
○ So used to advance wide variety of movements
○ Also reflects capacity to fuse w/ other political ideas- like anti-colonial, liberal, conservative and expansionist
nationalism
• After WWI-Europe lost 10% of its youth b/w the ages if 17-25- as a result these countries welcomed immigrants from
other countries w/ open hands- so multiculturalism grew due to capitalist need for cheap labour.
○ Germany opened up to immigrants in the past 10 years and that's why they are open to the Syrian and other
refugees and also to repent for their guilt of the Holocaust.
○ Also growing alienation in civic liberal sense makes ethno-cultural nationalism appealing in terms of identity and
security of the individual in a community.
○ FEATURES:
 i. Not an ideology
ii. Not just psychological
iii. Schizophrenic

Ethnic Nationalism
 J Khana in Keshavananda Bharthi:
Constitutionalism A Constitution, it needs to be emphasised, is not a document for fastidious dialectics
Wednesday, 17 March 2021 12:02 pm but the means of ordering the life of a people. It had (sic) its roots in the past, its
continuity is reflected in the present and it is intended for the unknown future.

• J Chandrachud advocates for constitutional morality from the current public morality conditioned by religion, caste, etc
(conservative) . But this is not the supreme morality in democracy
CONSTITUTIONALISM: pursued concrete political aims consistenting of limiting public power and developing spheres of autonomy
guaranteed by law.

• But not all constitutions are democratic- in fact they weren't converging for a long time.
○ Like how Britain's constitution is a series of pacts and agreements going back to the Magna Carta- called "Historically
Grounded Constitutions"
• Was balance of power, equality etc always part of constitutionalism? No
○ Constitutionalism as a set of idea grew during the formation of modern European state in the 16-17th C.- they felt a
need for written rules of politics
○ So Europeans believed that the powers to impose tax, call men to arms etc needed to be set down w/ limits and rules-
this was called "Constitutionalism of the origins (COO)"- essentially w/o equality principles (came only later during
French Rev)- the latter is called "Constitution of Revolution"
○ When pacts were formed, the ideals of equality, individual rights or sovereignty were not found in constitutionalism of
origins
○ COO was based on maintaining a balance of powers- equilibrium essentially- knights, aristocrats, king, judiciary, Parl
etc- it recognised thier responsibilities and freedoms- based on Civil equality as proposed by Machiavelli
 Civil equality was held among governing bodies or social groups and not individuals
 Civil equality assured each group fair and commensurate share of spaces- averted confrontation and instability to
mainatin the res publica (their common political existence)- led to development of "moderate govt" or firmitudo
 So constitutionalism was an instrument of social equilibrium at the time- like electoral laws (landed reserved),
land limits- to maintain co-existence
 Magna Carta developed dual character of constitution- principle of King and Parl- King's functionality limited by
the Parl.
○ In 16 C., judges were given the power to maintain customs and traditional laws against the subverting power of the
legislature. So customs had higher value than statutes and laws of parl.
 So Constitutionalism was about maintaining the status quo of power- no idea of equality before law as found
centrally today
○ In 17 C. People were not considered individuals or nations- they were regarded as cities, circles, orders and provinces
and these were represented by different kinds of magistrates. They had the power to fight against the King and the
Parl. So aristocrats upheld the constitutionalism through balance of power mechanisms aginst the coercive power of the
monarch.
 The purpose of the constitution was not to develop a democratic norm, representative of the will of the people, to
be applied by the polity but the exact opposite- here polity emerged out the constitution by creating a political
system by balance of power and polity agrees to the constitution for civil equality not for normative values to
guide them.
 Separation of Power- Montesquieu is viewed as checking of each other but the COO was actually maintenance of
power and maintaining equality among the forces to guard against the extreme version of equality where everyone
could come to power and 'shake the political order '. Blackstone alos wnated some rules to prevent the executive
and parliament colluding and becoming all powerful.
○ Sovereignity of King and Parl: meant assertion of tradition to protect the subjects
○ Both Montesquieu and Blackstone are against monarchical power as well as majority consensus- interested in
moderation and balance- against extreme equality
○ So democracy and constitutionalism were not known to each other at all
○ CONSTITUTION OF REVOLUTION: Till 18 C. Mixed constis were ideal for stable power but once individualism grew in
Europe, consti changed and brought about revolutions.
 CRITICISM: overreliance on general will, politicisation and law - constitutions served to limit some these in specific
spheres
  Hegelian thought especially saw ideals of revolution as being to strong- may casue instability of liberal soicety so
grounded through sovereignity- that's why consti closely related to ideas of nation
 Hobbes introduced this concept of independent, identity less individual- he beleieved pacts between existing inst-
like guilds, aristocrats ect was what was leading to destruction- that's why started w/ state of nature.
 There was also nascent mercantile capitalism and law of contract and temporarily they were allowed to express
their will and agency against one another- so 2 people brought together as equals by a commodity- this concept
has been expanded to the whole life of human beings. (for Ambedkar)
 Why did he come up w/ individualism? The mixed consti in the civil war rather than balancing each other out
were pulling the polity apart. So he thought a state of nature approach would help realise how we got where we
are. We are fully equally and we are fully surrendering our freedom equally to the sovereign to create a social
contract.
 He did this sicne it wasn't as much about the balances as it was about equally surrendering our rights to a ruler.
 Gave rise to the concept of natural rights an individual has by birth, as expounded by French Revolution- so law is
sovereign in the process and general will of the people is sovereign since general will creates the law.
 So capitalism and democracy and conceptually tied together since the capitalism economic system spawned the
very idea of individual and agency and soverign and combined will and law.
 Guarantee of rights should be given to the general abstract law
□ Hobbes thought will of people and soverign were the same thing- that is the king is created out of the will.
□ But Rosseau realised the distinction between the ruler and the ruled- so he proposes that the will of the
people is will of soverign- it delegated to the ruler momentarily- the people permanently have the will. So it
is only delegation of will not surrendering. People always have the power to review the power of the ruler-
like to create laws. So ruler cannot make fundamental laws that change this relationship.
□ So representative democracy undermines the will of the people- b/c they will always RE- present the will-
so not authentic ever. So Rosseau still allows the people to hold the ruler accountable and replace him. This is
why the Jacobin period was unstable since any "general will" strongly imposed through stable representation
may erode the "general will" in the process and lose their original sovereignty.
□ In the American Revolution we see the COO rise through Locke's contract- here the state acts a guarantor of
rights- of person and property. The state cannot take anything away w/o consent of persons and for this
requires laws. Locke also like Montesquieu proposed a check and balance and separation of powers system. In
such a system the govt can only be restored/reformed if it is dissolved through overweening powers that
threatens rights.

ETHICS, CONSTITUTIONALISM AND NATIONALISM- INDIAN PERSPECTIVE:

• Pol philosophers need to:
i. Analyse terms in our consti-democracy, republic, minority, and understand the full society they create
ii. Lack of critical interpretation of values
iii. Read w/ CA Debates to get full understadning of why such values were adopted, why not others? (art 12, federalism)
• NEED TO HAVE A CONSTI:
i. State only body w/ legitimacy over violence , force and coercion so easy to be misused.
ii. Democarcy would beocme autocratic and hence consti can protect them- initially democracy could be views as an
alternative to constitutionalism since the people and the state are one and the same
 Though ideally people have power, in relaity the majority has power and that's why people need to be "protected"
from the state- also b/c humans are falliable in genral- acts as a safe guard
iii. Contemporary concerns are exploited by political parties and ideologies to believe certain things and implement certain
policies that may be useful now but have detrimental impacts on future generations and hence constitution helps
protect future interests and prevent present political interests from hijacking policy.
iv. People behave like a mob in contemporary politics sometimes- so for the continuity and protection of the nation and
individuals consti is required
v. Essentially reserves certain subjects and place limitations on what areas are to be taken up by contemporary political
interests.
vi. Western arguments also tend to revolve around ideas to limit govt and protect people from the state. In India is also
about enabling traditionally disempowered people not in power and to establish common good an system of justice.
• In India, consti is more than rules of politics.
i. Historical moment in which Indian consti was made also makes our consti an expression of right to collective self-
 determination and freedom from colonialism.
ii. Consti making is a an act of "throwing away" a troublesome past of a country like caste, poverty, feudalism- prep of
India for a democratic future- so consti is a symbol of "breaking the shackles of traditional hierarchy" and creating a
new future for the civilisation and creating a nation for the people
• Indian consti framers were also conscious about the kind of future we wanted to have.
• Indian framers thought very differently from Western framers b/c our task was creating democracy not just liberalism.
• WHY CONSTI ASSEMBLY DEBATES:
○ Originalist fallacy: Imagining the original menaing of a text is sometimes difficult and undesirable due to fundamnetal
changes- like US Consti- more appropriate in India however as per Bhargava
 Usually committed by judges
○ The original menaing of certain legal and political practices may be lost and this is necessary to challenge to new
political practices that attempt to erase the erstwhile connotations
○ In India, the Consti was the first time a diverse people became par of a single book and reflected our desire to respect
our mutual rights and also combined their destinies to together as a common people.
○ Rajeev Bhargava exhorts that the western largely homogenous countries need to learn form our mind-boggling
diversity.
○ Since different groups came together w/ diff world views, extensive debate occured about various consti values and
abstracts sort of like Habermas's deliberative democracy
○ Consti law is integral to understand political inst.
○ We rejected moral politics and consensus w/ post-modernism- stopped trusting consti as an ethical document but
Barghava believes this needs to be renewed.
• NORMS OF INDIAN CONSTI:
○ What are their structures, what are the values chosen and rejected and why? And for this we need philosophical
arguemnts for this purpose. Theories of interpretation enable this by linking philosophy and jurisprudence
○ What was the vision of the consti, was the Spectre?
○ By the time Consti was written we weren't yet a people- how did these diverse groups come together and fix a
meaning to the Consti- what principles were followed in fixing it?
○ Does consti recognise all moral rights possessed by citizens? If not, whcih ones and why?
○ If the rights are recognised- who are they against- state, dominant groups, everyone? Must these rights be recognised
against anyone at all? And what are the consequences of this pitting?
 Pitting rights recognises the individual but forgets the community by dismantling social solidarities- Gandhism.
RIGHTS v. SOCIAL SOLIDARITY debate- people only come together only when their rights are threatened.
 We come together only during our vulnerabilities and not otherwise- like during a natural disaster.
 What is the imp attached to rights.
 Competitive politics, neoliberalism and individualism is standing against social solidarity
 Are our duties corresponding to our FRs? Are there tensions b/w them? Aren't they corresponding and
correlatives. Why are DPSP- collective rights unenforceable?
 Can liberty counter power in India?
 What is our overall character? Is it liberal or communal? Does it allow deliberative democracy?
○ What are the core values of the consti? Diff to say since each interest group will reformulate and appropriate the values
to recognise them. So someone needs to know what the core value is to mediate which one is the original form
 From the pov of a democratic, free individual, we just care the people in power create policies that enlarge these.
 Reading transformatively is imp to deal w/ present problems and context.
 5 competing visions in Constituent assembly-
□ Constitutent assembly was only elected through graduates and landed!
□ Nehru Social democracy: statist and elite- not sensitive enough for rural India and religious aspiration.
 Tech would bring modernity to India- solve ill health, illiteracy, poverty etc- no real inclusion of the
common man- only passive. Bureaucratisation.
□ Hindutva- strong state, non-modernist: No solution for lower castes and exclusivist- militarises the Indian
psyche and ignores moral core of Indian civilisation- tolerance and coexistence.
 They claim that the state only intervenes in Hinduism and no other religious matters
 But temples are regulated b/c they are also places of huge secular wealth- only priests from a small
community would get the benefit of this temple land.
◊ So by abolishing state control they are essentially being casteist
  Ideological dimension
□ Ambedkar liberal democracy: dismisses the village as superstitious and casteist
□ Gandhism- Quasi communitarian, non-modern: Gandhian vision was that the village had a deeper spiritual
level- simple, slow life close to nature- w/ fraternity
 Tension w/ Ambedkar- resolved through the Panchayat Raj of 73 and 74 amendment
 But not beyond the model...
□ Radical egalitarianism- KT Shah: abolition of pvt property, proposed nationalisation overall
 Sanjay Palshekhar: He points out that opposition b/w majority and Consti exists- Consti is pluralistic but
majoritarianism is unilateral.
□ Non interference is okay for people who have already ahve their freedoms- the elite- Part III of Consti
□ On the other hand minority groups who need positive state intervention disagree- Part Iv and hence FRs are
always in tension v. Part IV.
 Bikhu Parekh (prof @ SAOUS) described constitution as a statement of identity - it belongs to people not some
group of it.
□ Consti not just about a new nation state- also a new civilisation and this is an attempt to retain the positive
value of the past and go beyond creating a nation.
 Constituent Assembly was extremely conscious of the fact that the world was watching them-like peaceful
coexistence is an Indian ethos and the constitution should have enshrined this.
 Liberty, fraternity, equality. Justice, dignity is the vision of Indian consti- all had to stand together or fall apart.
And for this purpose it also needs to secular
○ 2 situations in which Bhargava beleives that Consti's discussion on ideals can act as an arbitrator:
i. Rights language when it has come to India has made it a community right from the western conception of
individual right- Rajeev Bhargava. Consti does not say when individual rights or community rights need to be
balanced-cases have tended to tip it towrads individuals
□ Other believe that Consti imposed a individual morality in a community minded society.
ii. Indian secularism has its own value strategy- to protect from superstitious values of religion
 Like in Sabrimala case equality tried to protect women from superstition- so Indian secularism has a principled
intervention not alike a US laissez faire secularism
□ India also has group adn individual religious rights subject to public morality / Consti morlaity/democratic
values.
□ Peace is conceived as a construct b/w groups not individuals, unlike Hobbes.
 Intervention may also be in support of religion, unlike Western experience.
• WHAT ARE INDIAN CONSTI ACHIEVEMENTS:
i. Universal adult franchise in one go- unlike in Western democracy
 Influence of equality- all individuals are abstractly equally and can come together as a nation (Hobbesian)
 Ulterior motive that by exclusion the poor, landless, a large part of the Hindu population would be left out
weakening the Hindu political bargaining power
 In nations, members are considered equals- would be strange if thereofre to have varying suffrage
 We as people collectively felt the humiliation of being deprived of self-rule during British rule and hence this was
necessary to lift our collective spirits and make a govt which was responsible to them-would then make us equal to
the "free races" of brits- simialr type of argument as thinkers liek Naoroji had w/ economic commentary...
 Greenfield- he argues that nation and democracy came together- India wanted to join the group of elite liberal
democracies
□ "nation" initailly menat an elite group w/ a common opinion but later on it was included everyone in the
nation- therefore nation signifies this very elevation of the common to the ruling, to from the "rabble to the
elite".
□ Democracy comes from nationalism- like a butterfly in a cocoon
□ Nation requires smooth, flexible interactions b/w citizens not barred by heirarchy, statuts, ranks, tradition
etc- implies great individualisation w/ each necessarily being equal to one another to allow this liberty in
communication- this will allow all the people to bind together as a nation. A Consti w/ equal rights will allow
this
 Tilak in 1890s wanted everyone to be able to participate in political matters, Motilal Nehru wanted right to vote
in the 1920s- India therefore has our own historical version of these ideas
□ Bharagava asserts that democracy came in the garb of nationalism in India
ii. Civil liberties and FRs
 Brit policies like Rowlatt act etc made us adopt this
 Exemplified by liberal idea of right aginst arbitrary detention
 Also in contrast to the patriarchal, casteist attitudes of our soceity that takes away such rights, FRS are imp
iii. Communitarian egalitarianism:-
 Visualised formal equality of communities- understands that all differences are not undesirable and the irreducible
differences must be protected in the name of community- allows markers of culture which define people in a
positive way
 Egalitarian communalism- overcome this where the majority community protects itself from the rest and survive
at the expense of other communities. Also called hierarchal communalism
 Individualist egalitarianism: removes the community barriers that bind people and can allow people to compete
between themselves- all individuals are equal- here difference arise due to choice
 Post war liberalism tends to glorify individualism over collectivism
 But, Indian consti could balance the individual and community rights- all communities are equal and all
individuals are equal- clashes b/w these two are adjudicated in court- community rights are allowed upto
maintenance of culture, the rest is individual
□ EX: Religious rights are both individual- freedom of religion and communitarian- to propagate your religion.
iv. Consti commitment to historical injustice done to downtrodden groups:
 Overcomes the formal equality of communitarian egalitarinism and brings in substantial equality
 Righting the wrong of thousands of years and making it a responsibility for everyone
 For St/Sc classes
 In the US affirmative action it came about only in teh 1960s as a statutory right- in India came about in 1950
as a consti right.
 Commitment to social justice and equality (as a moral force) - to liberalism
 Art 334 and 335-Recognises group disadvantages- strongest justification rather than non-discrimination or eqaul
opportunity principles.
v. Commitment to asymmetric federalism
 Asymmetrical federalism- each state is different in terms of size, culture, status,
 Schedule 1 and 2 where created from this purpose- to allow unequals to not have to compete w/ each other
 Art 371
 Allows differentiated citizenship
vi. PROCEDURAL SIGNIFICANCE: Constitutent assembly was elected by landed but acted as reps of everyone those who
could not vote and were not represented- so not just self- interest- also future oriented
 Also reflects spirit of compromise and accomodation: sir doesn't really agree though- Aditya Nigam says that some
have had to lose out more than others and this is unfair- not really a true Habermasian public deliberation.
 Also most imp questions were decided on the basis of consensus not just brute majority
○ COMMON CRITICISMS:
i. Unwieldy- based on idea that the document must really be in one compact piece- but really no Consti, even US is
not all in one text- includes case laws in common law countries, esp UK and other docus of consti statuts
(amendments)
□ Prof. Upendra Baxi claims that there are 2 types of consti- as a text and as a "authoritative interpretative
community"- so what consti says today is what SC says not what the actual text says
□ Prof Baxi also wnats it to extend beyond authoritative bodies to nonauthoritative communities' interpretation
of consti texts- like through social movements.
ii. Constitutent assembly was unrepresentative- no illiterate, uneducated, or tribal woman- but perhaps even
universal suffrage, discussion regional languages would not have changed much of content of Consti
iii. Consti is morally unstable- it represents an amalgamation of values that often common into conflict- federalism
and centralisation, civic security and freedoms, etc- cannot just give one supreme value as would not be
accommodative, flexible enough for all contingencies
□ As per the western liberal construction of most consti values- ther is always a trade-off and Bhargava argues
some value in compromise.
□ Here recognises the Indian conjunctive mode of thinking- not as values being mutually exclusive by
overlapping and coexisting at different levels and times. This idea of pluralism is deeply Indian - similar to
Gandhi's unalienated life
 iv. Alien document- principles taken from other countries and these were developed in their own cultural context
□ But western principles useful way to critique tradition problems
□ Thier integration into Indain scoiety has developed them into their own hybrid versions
 Langauge of rights on indivdual subsumed by community rights
○ LIMITATIONS:
i. Generalised national unity
ii. Gender justice glossed esp in pvt sphere and Minority representation not given enough imp
□ Sexual contract ignored and glossed over
□ By adopting Western conceptions, we have inadvertently adopted their exclusions for minorities, women etc
which has not been acknowledged.
iii. Restrictions on rights-
□ Socio-econ rights are only DPSP and unjusticiable- insufficiently attentive to rural areas
□ Bhargava also argues that these are imp for holistic and substantial equality and liberty
□ 3 reasons why not justiciable:
 Makes demands on scarce resources and leads to conflict- but conflict also occurs b/w civil/political
ideals so??
 Makes positive demands on state while civil rights only pose limitations- faulty since right to vote,
eqaulity, non-discrimination need positive expenditures, programmes by sttae for full use.
 Too expensive, can't afford- but just need basics- not state of the art education and healthcare
iv. Social justice w/ institutional commitment
□ Gopal Guru argues that not enough has been done to recognise dignity and equality among castes- we have
defined the place of untouchability without placing and controlling its source, allowing its perpetuation.
v. Rural India relegated
• CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES:
○ D we need a rereading or reform? Difficult to say. Bhargava recommends the following:
i. Open debate about conti changes
ii. Reform must be unanimous for legitimacy

• Kant's republican constitution:

○ 1st principle: Freedom to all- as long as doesn't cut into another's equal freedom (similar to the harm principle)
○ 2nd: Equality as in equal submission to the same law- sort of seems like a duty than a right? Law functions as a
guarantor of soveriegnity that no one other than those w/ the force of law can force anyone to do anything.
○ 3rd separation of powers for democracy
○ Wanted a non-universal vote so that equality would not lead to superiority of representatives and authoritarinism
Citizenship
Wednesday, 24 March 2021 12:02 pm

• Citizenship need not just be obeying the laws, voting, military service and paying tax
• Believed to be under threat today
• Micro concept:
• Macro concept: right to have rights
○ Embodied as consti recognised rights in India
○ EX: which is why Hitler removed citizenship for Jews, LGBTQ
• CITIZENSHIP HISTORY:
○ History of new way of thinking about relationship b/w individual and the state- from 20th C.- history of colonial and
post-colonial relation to the state in the case of India. It also between citizens.
○ How they should be defined, how they should not be etc
○ Relationship b/w social and political
○ About citizenship given by state and wrested from the state and citizenship in different theatrical phases.
○ Story of citizenship is about constitution of people and groups as political agents
○ Can be perceived in numerous ways of India-it can be abrogated, modifying, abridging, violating, etc
○ Can be enacted in a numerous places- courts, parl, Constitutent assembly, refugee camps. Etc
○ Equality is claimed on this basis and promises it and can also claim it on the basis of caste, religion or even right to
food, right to vote
 Unlike the civil rights movement or suffragette movements of the west for votes
○ Formed simultaneously w/ the idea of nation
○ We have one citizenship when we got independence- free from colonial rule and transformed from an imperial subject
to a liberated citizen of a soverign state.
3 DIMENSIONS OF CITIZENSHIP: Mutual but can be delineated as:
1. As a legal status:
2. As a bundle of rights and entitlements:
3. As a form of identity:
• All 3 dimensions are contested in India today.
• When govt announce or renounce policies of multiculturalism, deport immigrants or change syllabi, they govt is changing the
conception of citizenship
• Treaty of Westphalia- gave Muslims 3 options- be killed, emigrate or convert- after 700 years of multiculturalism in Europe
• Ambivalent and debated concept
• Tensions around citizenship are expressed as morally loaded binary- like citizenship is better than subjectitude.
○ Good v. Bad citizenship
 GOOD: normative preference for those w/ "civic virtue"-tax, soldier, contests elections
 BAD: no such virtues
○ Thin and thick citizenship:
 Thin: disengaged from politics
 Thick: active particpation in everything
□ More valuable than thin
○ Active and passive c'ship:
○ Top-down or bottom-up c'ship:
○ Universal and group differentiated c'ship
 Universal: based on formal equality
 Group: Inner Liner Permit in NE is applicable to only someone, Schedule 5 and 6 for STs for differentiated
citizenship- recognises disadvantages of certain classes
 How do you reconcile group and civil loyalty- this is where the nation comes intot he picture
 Asks if it is possible for individuals to ascribe to a ceratin group and be a citizen at the same time
 ○ C'ship through struggle v. C'ship as gift of state:
 1st is very ideological- only those who ahve fought for it an get i- insurgent c'ship fight w/ state to wrest you
right
• How can fight for collective well-being of society or only oursleves- are they mutually exclusive- if there is a conflict, which
one do we sacrifice
○ Collective forms of civic action are considered morally superior since expresses democracy
• Where do we perform c'ship? Some like Mill say local- can be local, state, national and even intl
○ Student fight agianst Vietnam war in the 1960s and 70s considering
○ Environmental activism is global c'ship
○ Neerja Gopal Nair India needs to evaluate the conditions for meaningful exercise of c'ship rights- it's not just about
general political will or voter turnout
 C'hip rights- Un has 67 rights
 PES condition considered when one asks for rights
 Developing a robust electoral democracy is an imp component but we have failed in a substantial democracy
beyond just procedural democracy of voting.
 Procedural democarcy concerned w/ efficacy and integrity of democractic process- rules making and upholding
for pol participation
 Substantive democracy- here citizens actually participate- ask if c'ship allows realisation of reasonably satisfactory
conditions for democracy
□ C'ship rights are then formal in nature
□ EX: the woman sarpanch is overpowered by the male mebers of the gram panchayat- procedural democracy
here trumps substantive democracy
• TH Marshall- famously distinguished b/w
○ Civil element (for indivudal freedom)
○ Political for political power
○ Social element whole range from eocnomic welafre to right to share social heritage, legal aid, healthcare, public edu
• Social v. Civil c'ship
○ Some states provide right to social c'ship w/ non-democratic framework- socialist countries like USSR, Cuba
○ Democracy does not necessarily craete conditions for effective use of c'ship- like neo-liberal socities- health care, free
edu
• Acquiring of c'ship
○ Numerous ways state provides it
○ C'ships claims are varied on content and plural and it can never be settled
○ How groups articulate negotiate c'ship is imp
• Aspects of c'ship, how do we define c'ship
• Thatcher also legitimised a political ness due to lack of welfarism
• Post 9/11 worlds has made very strong demands for c'ship- tried to define their nation identity and create national values
and sense of fraternity- about turn from previous century where they were self-satisfied w/ their citizenship
• "Life in Uk" had to be read and a test was to be taken which 60% of the native classes failed. Created 2 classes those who did
not need to knwo their country's history b/c they were born there and those who did (immigrants) b/c they were born
elsewhere
• Failure of multiculturalism and complicated by immigration and globalisation
• Citizen registry has been undertaken in many countries- craetes assumption of immigrants and terrorism and craetes ID
cards for citizens- UK brought one in 2006 and it as repealed
• Practices of c'ship bound up w/ legal c'ship
 Statizenship
Tuesday, 30 March 2021 9:03 am

• Citizenship based on overt determination and displacement- who is a citizen and who isn't
• Some ideas of citizenship are imp for some period and some die down- like just being born in India not enough
• There are different models and moulds of citizenships
CONTEXT:
• People think democracy is mainly determined by represenattion- but representation itself based on making and unmaking
of citizenship
○ This making can be made by State, political community etc
• But there were normative Greek, Roman models of citizenship
○ Based on equal participation, equality of citizenship (and to some extent beofre law) and citizens as rulers and equals
as rulers ( czn pre-exists state)- this creates political ass.
 Like city-state
 Here the political community has a spirit- spectral life- this was basis of national identity for long
○ Classical social contract took these ideas of equality- as equal city state members- further- and made them a political
community- POLITICAL BEFORE STATE (unlike today)
 Hobbes is also pre-state- people equally surrender to the ruler who is the sovereign- state only instrument to
implement a mandate of pol community
 Locke says even before contract, society was political
 State is only an instrument- political community remains intact throughout- state has no own agenda. Thereofre
nation determines what state will do
• Today what is under attack is this normative model of equal citizens in a political community giving a mandate to the state.
State now determines politics.
• Elections were only to expand existing citizenship when initially started in 16-17th C.
• Now boundaries of citizenship have aligned w/ boundary of nation-state
• Foucault shows that nation-state led to penetration of state and its power into every aspect of human life- pan-optican
incarceration, governmentality, etc
• Appadurai says not nation-state wnats statizens not citizens
○ Says begins with NRC- features:
 Anti-migrant, anti-Muslim violence, makes impossible demands to prove citizenship, allows Hindutva control of
all regions
 Based on idea of bureaucratic documentation- that is what defines a citizen today and is at hte heart of NRC-
○ Statizen- a person who is a citizen since he has a state given document saying so- so state is now determining who is
a citizen and who isn't- not the political community
○ Documentation existed before as well but it was in addition to political citizenship like family, land records, religion,
place of family- not exclusive like statizenship
○ Aadhar card has allowed this change in India- instrument of governmentality- midwife of state in India
 NRC is weaponisation of the logic behind Aadhar
 This isn't about nationalism but stateism
○ State and its powers have become primary source of value for a citizen
○ Extreme nationalism is a trojan horse of extreme statizen- everything now depends on their documented status
○ First victims are poor, marginalised and Muslims- since loyalties toed to scoial schemes
○ Earlier, the middle class was independent of satte- actually determined state before but now becoming statizens
○ Price of statizenship- expel, exterminated, excluded
○ Tectonic shift in the idea of political sovereignty- is it w/ citizens or state
○ It is absolute power of state to define existence and absolute, legal status of a person
• Earlier sacrality of state existed- could not criticise the king- similar today w/ the govt/head of state.
○ Loyal statizen will form the army to protect the state
• Shift from politics to legality to make citizens out of people
• Statizens are yes-men for the state- a resource
• State is eclipsing independence of the nation
○ Like what had happened in in USSR or China
○ Achieved through electoral democracy
○ State sustains itself by creating loyal statizens who are complacent and compliant- shift from national religion to satte
as religion- and determine and maintain sacrality of state- basically reversal of Rosseauvian general will.
○ State now determines nation rather than vice- versa.
• Means and ends have been monopolised by the state
• Statizens sacrifice their equality, independence, and participation in the process.
• That's why anarchists have always suspected the state
• ROLE OF MODERN TECH:
○ Appadurai has written a book showing that how state is now saying that technology cannot fail- like Aarogya Setu
○ Reflected glory of technology being used by state-like how racial science was used to justify racial state policy.
○ Science and state has always gone together- was psychiatry in the 19C.
○ Like use of DNA tests are just taken for granted- non-specialists really have no ability to understand it.
○ Narcoanalysis tests- were banned in Nazi time but was used till quite recently in India
Parliament : Vernon Hewitt & Shirin Rai
Thursday, 1 April 2021 10:13 am

BASICS:
• LS: 545 members, first past the post, universal adult franchise, 15% reservation for SC, 7.5 for ST
• RS: 250 members, proportional voting

• Parl is also debated about

in media, vibrantly (at
least mostly is)

• The Council of Mins really

started as a cabinet but
expanded
• In 1935 we got a Govt of
India Act
• But real change was
happening on the streets
not Parl- but we still did
want to inherit the
Westminster system- like
1861-92
preferential voting
• Resulted in the almost
unquestioned adoption of
Westminster & FPTP w/o
opting for methods like
local self-govt,
proportional voting
through siingle
tranferable vote for Prez.
TRENDS:
 through siingle
tranferable vote for Prez.
TRENDS:
• More OBC representation
since 1990s, quotas for
women debate,
corruption addressed
through anti-defection

Also not for religious minorities bill, PCA,

• While representation has
improved, difficult to say
that thier populations
have actually benefitted
or improved
• Also incraesing intra-inst
competition- like w/ SC
and judiciary

FEATURES:
1. PM head of party w/
majority
2. Pres as nominal head and
PM advice binding
3. Speaker and Dep Speaker
as managers of quotidian
functions
4. Delimitation- paused
since 1976 for fam
planning
5. Bicameral- RS functions
6. COMMITTEES:
○ Very under-
researched and
under-stood
○ Weak structure
○ Coalition incraesed
imp since allowed
diff parties to
debate on issues in
smaller groups
○ Can be standing or
ad hoc as per issue
○ 3 types of standing
commitee: Financial
(Public a/cs,
estimates and Psu),
24 dept related to
deal w/ legislation,
other imp include
 24 dept related to
deal w/ legislation,
other imp include
for women, business
advisory, ethics,
privileges, on
assurances
(unanswered
questions)
○ Imp Ad hoc: enquiry
committees under
Commission of
Enquiry Act- can
call witnesses!
COMMITTEES: quite weak structure in India (compared to US Senate Comm)
• Standing committee: reviews legislation
• Privileges committee: works on MP privilege
• Assurances: follows up on question hour makes sure that the answers are given
• Estimates: on data
• Parl Comm of Enquiry: mandate to enquire on a certain issue: like Mandal Commission
ORDINACES:
• Allowed in GoI act 1935 and adopted as part of emergency measures
ZH Lari: I come to another feature of the Constitution, viz., the Ordinance. There was a time when we used to complain
that Ordinance was the rule and legislature was hardly consulted. I may here refer to the Father of the Nation who said:
"Under the British rule the Viceroy could issue Ordinance for making laws and executing them. There was a hue and cry
against the combination of legislative and executive functions. Nothing has happened to warrant a change in our opinion.
There should be no Ordinance rule. The Legislative Assemblies should be the only Law makers". It is said when the Assembly
is not meeting, an emergency arises, and an Ordinance has to be promulgated. But there is no significance of time and
space and you can get an Assembly within two days and it is not at all difficult. Even if a necessity existed, that has
disappeared; and moreover what is its effect? Because of the use of Ordinance-making powers the Assembly has become a
rubber-stamp. In our province I know there is hardly any legislation which is not preceded by an Ordinance and in a
Parliamentary Government where the Cabinet determines really the policy of the majority, once the Cabinet has framed an
Ordinance and it comes forward in the form of a legislation, it is impossible for the major party to go back and therefore it
is the Cabinet which determines the legislation. I would accordingly submit that there is really no necessity of a provision
requiring powers of issuing Ordinance.
REPRSENTATION:
• Ability to represent the diversity of the nation grants legitimacy to the Parl as seen in the UK example
1. SC/ST reservation was initially for 40 years, extended to 40 more years
○ Even among these groups, some are like sub-elite and only people from the same family keep acquiring positions
of power
○ NK Singh "Portrait of Power in India"
○ Schedule 11 areas SC/ST reserved constituencies which have significant SC/ST population - so means that they
need to not only represent SC/ST interests but have to represent the whole constituency interests which includes
elite interests.
2. Familial dynasties in India are helping undermine this
○ Only those able to spend 25-30 Cr on campaigning can run for elections
3. Muslims are 12% of population but make over 6% of total poor- hence still materially deprived and have been
demanding quotas for mobility
4. WOMEN: In 1976, Committee on Status of Women was established and a National Perspective Plan for women in
1988 suggested the 30% quota across all levels-
○ Now only 33% in local body elections
○ So women only really have access through their families to political power.
○ So it maintains and balances an imbalance of power
○ These caste and class divisions are preventing unity and implementation of women quota b/c fear is that only
elite women will come into power, few who are actual women movement leaders- mainly middle class
professionals

POLITICAL PARTY COMPOSITION- Influences efficacy of parl by balancing power and consolidating identity groups
• In the 1st election, INC chose only freedom fighters- allowed Nehru to dominate, but regional ambitions tried to check
this by sending their own leaders.
○ Nehru was at least forced to abdicate his defence post after the war- ironically pressured by his son-in-law and
journalist Feroze Gandhi.
• Parl was not able to control the executive b/c of one party majority
○ Sir says same exists w/ every ordinance
○ Comission of enquiry Act requires tabling of reports
 Rajiv Gandhi tried to amend this in light of Bofors- press was also being repressed by a bill.
 But the noisy opposition + press solidarity allowed the bill to be withdrawn.
○ All the commissions are supposed to table reports once every 6 months, but at most today once a year or a every
few years
• That why democracy in party makes or breaks rep and democarcy in Parl esp w/ strong majoirty
○ Lack of democracy within parties may be b/c of dynasticism, ideology etc
 Also appearance as a "strong " decisive leader
 Society is also made undemocratic through freebies
 A culture of loyalty w/o critique- conformity is being enforced
• Ironically, Modi and Jaitley became acclaimed for opposing the emergency in the streets
 ○ Sir believes that history has shown "all rebels are future dictators"
○ Corporatisation of media has led to oppression of free media

OPPOSITION:
• Formal opposition has always been a part but effectiveness questionable- recently have called out privelege breaches
○ The INC era created very poor checks in Parl since rules formed during majoirty era
• Coalition governments made the role of Speakers very imp- but this politicised the office
○ Favoured party member bills compared to pvt members
○ EX: Speaker did not allow a no-confidence motion during 2002 Guj riots- only at the end did he agree.
○ 115 times ordinances dismissing state govt have been passed on the recommendation of the executive, w/o Parl
involvement
 Regional parties, SR Bommai case have helped reduce this
 SR Bommai made prez rule judicially reviewable so discouraged illegitimate prez rule.
• TACTICS:
○ Extra-Parl protests- like in the case of the farm bills in RS, also the Delhi Bill- usually coincide w/ some other
mass protests- very Gandhian tactic- mainly b/c affects efficiency of parl which is a bad thing- of course more
useful w/ weaker majoirty since strong majority will vote it in anyway
 EX: Ayodhya and BJP,
 But should be responsible since can spark non-violent protest if used w/o control
 Alternatively when a small minority walks out- the bill gets passed w/ no opposition at all- like famr laws
undermining reps
○ Legalism: saying that the bill is not legally in the right form, understandable, coherent etc- like Privy purse
amendment was opposed since it was labelled a money bill- said should be Consti amend bill
○ Simialrly w/ Aadhaar was money bill- also opposed on privacy grounds
• The procedure of Parl is increasing in time
○ Many see this is as fall in quality, efficency but really at least it allows better dicussion
○ It may be a meritocratic critique as well since more poeple in Parl today are semi-literates, and not
"intellectuals"
• In 2002 election Commission ruled that parties need to disclose criminal background of candidates
○ But Vajpai govt tried to restrict this based on Prez order
○ The irony here is the SC, an unelected body, supported another unelected body for the support of democracy but
the elected body said no to their judgement.
• The misuse of quotas
○ They make the person fulfilling the quota a sock puppet controlled by the same dominant groups
○ 'Panchayat" type system
• Ordinances- when not ratified, retrospectively removes all the effects of the bill.
• Fast passage of bills b/c of super majority
• Bi-partisan acts have always been to protect the parties- like the Vedanta scandal of 2014

SPEAKERS AND COALITIONS:

• Essentially mediated b/w oppo and govt since as is the deciding authority for options, types of bills, priveleges,
questions to min speaking time etc so needs to be nonpartisan as possible and accountable
• Even more imp in coalition sicne the speaker needs to ensure balance among govt parties- EX: Chandra Shekhar
actually allowed JDS to face no confidence by siding w/ an opposition in disqualifying members.
• Even brokers deals b/w oppos and govt, reduces need to walkout, protests and allows revisions of bills etc- ex: censure
motion through such negotiations from Guj riots 2002

FUTURE OF PARL:
 • Coalitions have lead to delays and use of ordinances to bypass other stronger opposition- worst in Emergency of course
○ EX: Mandal Commission implemented- and discussed in Indra Sawhney
○ Alos more pvt mem bills, need for bill committees to analyse
• Representation- primarily OBCs and Women are the big question
• Prez and SC are trying to stifle this w/ former reclaiming power to refuse esp- like delaying tactics- pocket veto
• SC judging ordinances and Prez Rule esp- cannot be simply political or w/o procedure- also have exteended right to
judicial review
○ Social activism on its part is both applauded and scary since unrep, unelected and largely male and UC, and
richish
 Alos highlights gaps between Parl rep and actual policy outcomes and- politics of recogniiton eclipsing
politics of redistribution function of Parl- makes parl seem illegitimate
○ Ex: RTI- SC said they'd pass it if govt didn't!
 Vishakha guidelines- only after the SC judgement parl
 Continuing mandamus: TN Godavarman-right to oversee timber felling
• But if parl is being irresponsible w/ its power- SC should ahve right to check and (berate)
• Is able to innovate, be more rep (state parties and OBC since 1990s), more structured since cabinet limits, reduced
role of councils is seen in BJP rule- mainly INC relic like Planning Commission
○ Still close to most people but far from ideal.

REPRESENTATION: 17th LS:

• Women : 14% highest yet
• Religion-wise, 90.4% members are Hindus and 5.2% are Muslims, with the rest, nearly 4%, being Sikhs, Christians and
other minorities
○ 2011 Census: Hinduism (79.8%), Islam (14.2%), Christianity (2.3%), Sikhism (1.72%)
• 73% from national parties
• Majority are between 41 to 70 years of age
• 67% voter turnout
 Caste and Politics: Surinder Jodhkar
Tuesday, 6 April 2021 9:22 am

• Flawed middle class understanding of caste made it something to abolish and get rid of as soon as possible once affirmative action
was put in place and gotten some results-therefore to this view the incraesing presence of caste in politics is a failure of the
democractic system- but it actually isn't.
○ Nehru and others beleived that modernity meant giving up caste but that clearly was simplified
• Has caste secularised itself- become more modern from a traditional Hindu identity?
○ For Brits Village, religion, language and caste was the referent for the Indian
 They craeted caste consciousness through enumerations and made it a single important organising principle of Indian
society
 India also became the land of "Hinduism" though numerous other religions had been established year for centuries,
inclduing Islam and Christianity
○ Today anthropologists believe that what Brits did was impose a "book view of caste" rather than "field view"
 Book view: "Indological", used as source of info about Indain society and largely Brahminical
 Field view: was census work but still undertaken from a book voew- like viewing the village as an entry point into the
Indian reality or caste as areligious and core social feature.
○ Caste as an institution:
 Characterises structure of social stratification
 Provides framework to organise social groups in terms of status and rank in socio-economic society
○ Caste as an ideology:
 System of values and ideas which legitimise and legitimised and reinforce existing structure of inequality
 Provides a world view around which a typical Hindu organises his life- like looking for relationships within the same caste.
 Ideology of hierarchy as per Louis Dumont based on ideas of purity and impurity and signifying the superiority of former
over the latter. Also unlike west where status and power flowed together, in caste, status was superior to power- so a
poor brahmin would still have more clout than a wealthy vaishya merchant.
○ While caste was a closed system that reinforced heirarchy- Ghurye's 6 features (hierarchy, restrictions of soical intercourse, civil
& religious disabilities, privileges of different sections, lack of restricted choice of occupation and marriage) the western system
w/ mobility and choice of occupation was open- class socities.
 Also made caste a unitary and single system, ignoring varna and jati differences
○ Sanskritization: MN Srinivas: adopting and changing of customs, rituals, ideologies, ways of life to resemble those of the "twice
born" to claim a better position in the hierarchy.
○ But such characterisation of caste has been criticised for its lack of empirical support and largely following the orientalist ideas
of Indian soicety which make western models seem like the solution.
○ Caste was tehreofre seen as traditional and expected to disappear w/ independence, modernity and reform - so its persistence
upsets many intellectuals- thus it is rarely described as a oppressive while talking about inequality- caste was a world apart
from class being social and religious while the latter is economic, secular and modern
CASTE DEVELOPMENTS/PHASES:
• Far from disappearing democratic colonial and post-colonial reforms like representation and modern tech have helped consolidate
caste and create new strength in caste structures- ideology of the traditional caste system had faded however.
• Ghurye called this caste solidarity
• CONSOLIDATION OF CASTES:
i. Horizontal: MN Srinivas - 1950s said tech like travel, communication, modern education and political values of liberty and
equality enabled people belonging to one caste from multiple areas to meet and share and discuss their political aspirations -
created caste hospitals, cafes, hostels, local rep introduced by Brits + concessions for backward groups fostered alliances between
groups to craete a bigger group- bargaining power
 Syas it happens b/c of technology sicne can group more people from the same caste group using technology across villages,
cities, states and craete a caste association for the purpose of politics
□ EX: Barber caste groups are extremely diffused- only one or two families in every village but now they are able to
consolidate themselves
  Seen in the 1930s Tn Self-Respect Movements
ii. Vertical: weakened since no longer as dependent on people from different castes within your own area- political rep created
competition b/w different caste groups
• Louis Dumont: said logic altered of caste during this period from structure to substance
○ From interdependent groups to independent ones where each caste group is self-sufficent, competitive as a collective individual
or substance. A universe of impenetrable blocks, self-sufficient, essential, and identical and in competition in one another.”
Dumont calls this the ‘substantialization of castes’
• By 1960s, langauge of caste in academia changed from one about corruption of politics to the study of the relation b/ caste and
politics
○ While old modes of power remained they had to increasingly compete w/ inst of democarcy- like caste elders v. Elected
panchayat- power shifts were seen here
○ This also increased imp of consolidating power across vertical and horizontal planes- and hence redefining caste politics from its
narrow understanding to beyond a single caste group.
CASTE ASSOCIATIONS:
○ Many believe that modern caste politics had weakened traditional conception of caste and this has deepened democracy.
○ Caste associations have been seen as being instrumental in bringing democratic practices.
 Essentially a mobilisation of caste to give votes to a party- modern function of caste- allows bargaining w/ political
system
 In politics every caste is a minority so they need to consolidate their position to be a sizeable bloc- so even if traditionally
some sub-caste groups are heirarchal they had to come together to get political clout- democratisation of caste-
Panchayat raj fostered this as well sicne UC village elders needed support of other groups to maintain their power
□ This is why elite casstes felt theatned since universal adult franchise meant that their small number would now be a
disadvantage.
 Modern caste systems and caste associations were propagated by Brahmin groups initially who were uprooted from their
villages, and feeling alienated set up caste related bodies like Brahmin lodges, coffee houses etc
○ Lloyd and Susanne Rudolph first to study this:
 Just b/c you are born in a caste, one is not by default a group of a caste association- it is a separate political act to do
this.
○ Richard Hardgrave, MN Srinivas foudn that they functional as pressure grps acting for the social mobility of their castes
○ Rajni Kothari, through behavioural sociology said that caste of controlling India and that "castelessness" of that time was really
just being used by UC leaders.
 Rather than the traditional idea that politics was reviving caste whcih would have menat break down of our modern,
democratic structure, caste is getting politicised
 Caste gets politicised in India, politics does not get caste-ridden
 Caste federations have acquired non-caste functions- actually wnat solidarity w/ other communities- they thereofre
transform into political parties and interest groups
○ Ghanshyam Shah: argues caste promoted parochialisation along w/ democracy
○ But actually caste federations helped bring democractic values to traditional institutions- acts like a bridge to transform social
identity into source of political power
○ Leaders of these associations rarely came from traditional caste authorities but professionals and other "misfits" like lawyers,
businessmen etc who hoped that their community would support them
○ EFEFCT OF POLICY ON CASTE:
 Land reforms:
□ Weakened hold of powerful non-cultivating groups like Rajputs in Rajasthan
 Ulterior motive to land reforms: to take away land from non-cultivating castes like princely castes
 9 Schedule was created mainly b/c the judicial system was quite Brahminical and hence were agianst land
reforms
 But Panchayat raj, green revolution mainly benefitted already rich and powerful caste groups to consolidate their place in
regional politics
 In the 1950s, 60 there was a "dominant caste" the cultivating castes like Jats, Reddys who by controlling land controlled
"lower communities" like Dalits- these was the marked rise of the middle castes
 □ But late due to migration to cities or abroad, they sold their land to lower caste groups and this allowed some
amount of mobility
□ But nowadays corporatisation of politics is creating obstacles for caste politics by allowing dominant castes to control
the resources and "buy votes" to class is actually being more regressive than democratised caste.
• THIRD MOMENT OF CASTE:
○ 1960s was largely about the middle caste groups gaining power and resources- sometimes these were accomodated into the
INC but when they couldn't regional parties resulted as seen in 1967 election which was pivotal.
○ But satrting 1980s,90s the Obcs and Dalits staretd to assert themselevs politically as well:
 Vp Singh, Mandal Commission creating the OBC category for reservations
 The consolidation among middle groups due to favourable numbers and access to land resources and power craeted a new
over-bearing elite over the Dalits and OBCs as landowners and employers
 Was also the start of a shift from politics of ideology (where common people say that caste was not imp, that it should be
forgotten to be modern) to a politics of representation (where eahc caste wants rep, w/ each being proud of their
histories)
 Began to question rhetoric of developemnt from Nehruvian polcies
 Global solidarity and support key to success- how Narmada dam could gain global support who would refuse to fund it,
women's rights and human rights groups using similar strategies to gain support for their causes.
 Started to use lanaguge of equality and democractic representation to stake thier claims- langauge of identity politics
○ DALITS:
 Got some recognition, access as "depressed classes" also reservation in Consti
 But until 1980, were largely part of development agenda- nothing sepaarte except in few patches like Maha, K'taka, AP-
largely from urbanised section, having had access to govt jobs for some mobility and being able to express the
discrimination they have suffered.
□ Connection w/ state policy chapter since liberalisation meant loss of govt jobs and reservations Dalit classes
 Ambedkar was rediscovered as a Dalit symbol here
 Changes in the village: upper segments started to look to the city for mobility, downtrodden questioned thier
subordination-self worth discovered through electoral politics
 Loosening of traditional structures seen like Oliver Mendelson in Rajasthan, Karnath in K'taka and Jodhkar in Punjab-
caste and occupation no longer as tied together
□ Many Dalits in Punjab refusing to work for Jat landowners, prefer lower paying urban jobs
 Assertion of Dalit rights also incraesed caste violence while traditional untouchability itself is disappearing
 SC development as new political block- like BSP, Mayawati, Kanshi Ram
○ Does not mean that Dalit and OBC groups have been able to participate on eqaul footing w/ other groups- their identity and
lack of resources still function as a disadvanatge

• Future of caste:
○ The flat-evolutionist modernist conception that democarcy and progress will erase old social relations to craete new civil
relations has slowly eroded and a more nuanced, subaltern understadning has taken over
○ Caste and politics have had different relations in diff parts of India
○ Sudipta Kaviraj: Says that castes ahve surprisingly adapted to parliamentary politics to craete a democarcy of castes froma
traditional heirarchy of castes
 The competitive caste politics has allowed an equality of caste identities or groups rather than individuals
○ Imp to remember that no one group ever votes exactly the same as individuals- though caste may seem to play an important
role in defining politics, in the long run, the distinguishing of sub-caste craetion and breaking of alliances- fluidity- will lead to
weakening of caste identity politics according to Jodhkar
○ But Surindra Jodhkar believes that power of caste politics is declining and class politics (marxist) will take over
 Education, mobilisation will remove caste from politics
 Federalism
B/c Congress was so overwhelming the majority for the
first twenty years of Indian independence, most of the
Wednesday, 7 April 2021 12:03 pm democratic structures of INC allowed the Consti structures
to remain democratic as well- like federlaism,
Subrata Mitr & Malte pehl parliamentarianism etc- that's why the transition has
been messy and the structures themselves have been
discovered to be weak.

• 2 contradictory functions of Fed:

1. Autonomous state units whihc have the right to self rule- honours this
2. Several autonomous units come together as a nation to be united in their strength
• Contradictory functions are not a weakness- actually allow internal and external strength
○ Allows survival inside and out by creating breathing spaces for cultural and regional and other rights and at the same
time allowing military unity
○ This type of federalism is based on the idea that states and centre have bargaining power- this is classic American
federalism
○ In OZ and Switzerland the federalism is designed as a method of decentralisation in a homogenous country. More
administrative.
○ In India our federalism is neither- b/c states don't have equal bargaining power neither are they only administartive-
there is too much heterogeneity and this leads in diversity in the form of states- not uniform
 States never fought for their independence or agreed to be brought under one centre- centre divided us
 Now central control is more imminent, SR Bommai case, Sarkaria commission etc
i. And prevents states from becoming too independent and breaking away- like is US
• Reconciles freedom and strength- the former demands plurality and the latter demands unity
• Dual prupose:
a. Method of promoting self-rule as a nation as also shared rule to reocgnise plurality in the society.
b. Limits possibility of dictatorship through state checks
• FEDERALISM:
1. Two govt- independent spheres of governance, it is a democractic and political process
2. Avoids concentration of power
3. Need independent tax basis- so state need not depend on the centre- GST threatened this also
○ No longer can set sales tax, petrol taxes etc.
4. Also written consti which prescribes this division of power
5. This divison is to be guaranteed by independent judiciary
• Ensemble and interaction of policies

INDIA
• Phases:
1. Upto 1967: Nehru used to write to state gov/CMs to honour aspirations of state and get state opinions of policies. INC
accepted lingusitic states in 1920 itself, and system of observing fed structures across states.
○ 1956 acceptance of linguistic states
○ Called 'Congress System'
○ Nehruvian Central Planning
2. post 1967, INC lost power, state became more autonomous but Indira Gandhi stifled this.
○ Emergency we became an effective unitary state
3. 1980s-90s Began w/ assertion of regional parties, DMK, Janata Dal- allowed coalition govt at the centre, big parties like
BJP /INC also had to recognise these aprties accomodate in policies like 2 lang formula
• Reasons why fed maintained in India
 ○ India is actaully a constitutionally unitary state w/ federal features
○ Institutional arrangements- consti
○ Public opinion
○ Political practice
• Features of Indian Fed: Typically considered to be unitary w/ fed features- Wheare
1. Centre and state created at the same time in Consti
○ Not like Swiss or US where states came togetehr to give up some power and form a union for secuirty in numbers- so
to some extent states more admin functional than symbolic
○ Craeted first in 1956 after agitation for ethnolinguistic states- first w/ AP and Madras
2. Formally clear cut, and consti guaranteed divison of power- Schedule 7 and lists
○ States not subordinate to centre under the consti- consti makes them equal in most cases unless there is some conflict,
only then centre overrides,
○ Vertical power sharing through lists Centre had defense, foreign affairs and other nat. imp stuff, State has, police, agro,
public health- more about divison-residuary(since Consti could't foresee thing like OTTS, digi comm etc) and overriding
powers of Centre
 Also expanded through local slef-govt: 73 and 74th Amendment acts- Panchayati raj-source of democratisation
and decentralisation of power in India .
 Uniformity= central usually
 But art 249 if RS allows can also legislate on state subject if in national interest- what happened w/ Covid and
public health
○ Horizontal across the various organs- executive + legislature very merged in India and mirrored in Parl and state levels-
like need to be member of one house to be PM.
 Also includes across states like inter-state tribunals since setlles disputes over resources among states w/o invoking
SC.
○ Transversal: non-heirarchal multi-level power sharing- called "political interlocking" or ""cooperative federalism" le-
more about fusion of powers
 Can be b/w centre and all states
 Or centre and each state- like prez rule
 EX: Finance commission: shares taxes among states and centre- art 280, every 5 years, quasi binding so imp
□ inter-state council: formed in 1990 under art 163 to facilitate informal discussion of sttae issues w/ centre),
□ interstate water tribunals ,
□ concurrent list like family laws, education
□ IAS, IPS
3. This divison is to be guaranteed by independent judiciary.
○ But now after J&K. Who knows?
○ But federalism is part of basic strcuture of consti
4. Separate and direct elections to State and Central legislatures monitored by an independent EIC.
○ Proposal for simultaneous elections are also a threat to this- may still work if independent EICs can be maintained.
○ But once one party in centre no way to hold accountable through state elections- will need to stregthen other control
mechanisms
5. Weaker position of RS:
○ Is supposed to represent state interest but in a joint session will always be overpowered by LS
○ Also not liek a normal federation since states given seats as per Population with some min of one seat, so not equal so
small states do not have much security- unlike US where senate all states have equal rep- but there also problem is that
large states w/ min population control the senate which is extremely powerful
• Structural asymmetry, unequal state powers, mass illiteracy and poverty- why does fed not disintegrate India?
○ Poverty, illiteracy pertinent here since people need to know when their state autonomy and defend it- understand the
sophisticated centre-state power sharing
○ Allowed ethno-cultural units- could accomodate regional aspirations
 ○ Reason why UP has had the most PMs
• CONTENTIONS:
○ Prez Rule: extreme power to Gov who is just a ceremonial head, serves during pleasure of Prez ( centre aka), and
unaccountable to state legislature or parl- "long arm" of centre, sometimes politically motivated to declare it under art
356, Guv report recommendation is what triggers Prez rule, this has power to dissolve a democratically elected state
assembly
 Like Kerala's 1st elected party was communist and dismissed through the Vimochana Samaram and there is a
conspiracy that INC was part of this.
 Most prominent during Indira Gandhi's period
 Rti has found imposition 115 times till 2016
 Factly has found that Punjab has virtually been under Prez tule for 10 years since independence.
○ Emergency provisions:
 Art 353 allow Union to direct any state to follow some directions and allows parl to make laws on any subject,
even state list
 44th amendment and SR Bommai ahve tried to curtail these powers - emergency must be on council's advise
○ Territorial integrity: can change borders of states whenever using simple majority under art 2 and 3. J &K, Jharkhand,
Uttaranchal, Telangana basically. Met w/ protets while also liberating a new ethno-lingusitic group

FISCAL FEDERALISM:
• Division of economic, tax powers- duties, income tax, take foreign loans all w/ centre
• State is mainly agro tax (some have abolished it), excise on intoxicants, GST proportion, 40% of state's budgets come from
taxes and rest from central share of taxes.
• This is unfair given that centre gets all non-agro income tax, corporate taxes, plus access to foreign loans and grants' and can
ask RBI to incraese money supply. Centre also appoints both fin and Planning commission (NITI) who control distribution to
states
• Liberalisation has allowed greater freedom- like k'taka has done really well but Central Indian states-so inequality has
increased
• In 2020, due to Covid and other factors, the guaranteed GST revenue when it was first implemented in 2016 was not met-
GST though state min are part of the council further makes it a traversal power sharing arrangement rather than within
state domain alone.
○ So to meet the fin needs, Centre is lending to state through a special borrowing window.- so states again dependent on
the centre to make it through the pandemic
○ Comapred to US wehre each state is having a different policy and can do it as they see fit- but problem is no
uniformity- like Texas still said no masks when NY state mandated it. Texas is allowing all to get vaccinated at once
while Massachusetts is doing it in phases

REGIONAL BLOCS AND FED:

• Regional parties- people see both levls as imp
• Like good in TN, but some states have both a regional and strong central party and the regional one doesn't do as well.
• Regional parties have started to use their clout to get more favour at the Centre- they make or break coalitions at the
centre- currently they make or break coalitions at the state level where national parties need their support to stake claim
• But this is limited to a few states like TN, Maharashtra, etc, not J&K, NE states where there is less clout available

RECENT THREATS:
• DELHI:
○ The new bill really reduces federalism in Delhi makes it a pawn of the Central govt immediately
○ Overrules 2018 Sc judegemnt on Lt Gen and CM division of power- merges state and govt into one
• CBI was created for centre to takeover law and order which is a state matter
○ Assam govt said the CBI law is actually unconsti, appear in Sc is still being delayed
 ○ NIA amendment is threatening this
• Reconciling local and national aspirations is very difficult.
○ Political ploy- mainly b/c mostly reserved in
 Secularism: Neera Chandhoke
Wednesday, 7 April 2021 1:31 pm

• 2 broad understandings-separation of church and state, or equality of religions, a mutually contradictory 3rd is minority
religious empowerment
• American/liberal version: separation of Church and state
○ No interference
○ No association of a religion w/ state
○ Freedom of conscience
○ Non-discrimination b/w religions
• ndian practice
○ Indian secularism is a positive duty on the state to treat all faiths equally.
○ Treating all religions equally
○ Not secularised either
○ We've tokenised minority rights and made it minority appeasement
• In 1920s- politicisation of religious identities- Khilafat movement across borders- secularism would allow all to come together
• Gandhi saw it as Sarva Dharma Sambhava- equality of religions and Nehru's Dharma Nirpekshata- separation from religion.
CLASS:
• Ashis Nandy (Anti-Secular manifesto) and TM Madan- says secualrism has not stopped fundamentalism so it doesn't work.
Neera Chandhoke responds to them- says that there is a link b/w secualrism and equality and state has a formal equal
attitude towarsd all groups which might not be enough for minorities- she wants substantive equality
○ The fault line of the right is supporting formal equality and this is called secualrism in India and so we cannot fault the
concept of secularism due to this faulty understanding.
• Is secularism about formal equality of treatment among religions and validating all identities or is it about building minority
rights.
○ If minority rights are imp- does this not contravene both the indifference of state to religion or the formal equality
among them?
○ Has secularism as practiced in India proved to be capable of warding of communalism?

• AMERICAN SECULARISM:
○ Devalues religion and gives more value to the state
○ Wall of separation- by Thomas Jefferson, based on 1st Amendment- prohibits a national religion from being recognised:
i. State not concerned w/ religious belief, inst. and practices
ii. State shall not be associated w/ any religion
iii. State shall permit freedom of conscience for all
iv. State shall not discriminate on the basis of religion
 In the US freedom of religion comes under freedom of expression and speech , but in India it is its own FR udner art
25 for individuals and 26 for communities
□ So there is no explicit freedom of religion in the US
□ Also congress cannot prohibit free exercise of religion- but no positive duty on the state to protect religions.
□ But this connection b/w speech and religion is imp since this is what most fundamentalists argue against.

• SECULARISM V. SECULARISATION:
○ Kamal Ataturk made Turkey secular but in a very religious society and this is possible
○ SECULARISM: State practices relating to religion, SECULARISATION: the societal attitude that religion isn't the most imp
○ Secularisation has 2 effects on the state- no need to associate w/ any inst or religion + no need to seek its approval for
legitimacy
 State can only interfere when there is a conflict b/w freedoms and religious sentiments- a secular state will protect
 secular public space over a pvt religious sphere.
 Secular state in secularised soceity can thereofre make the most concrete wall b/w state and relgion, public and pvt
○ Religion is relegated to the pvt sphere in secularism after 16th C- made rationality central to public life
○ Secularisation reduces the control of religion even in pvt life- rationality gives meaning to life, not religious edicts.
○ Descartes started w/ positivism: " I think, therefore I am'- conversely what we cnanot undersatnd does not exist,
including God- this is converse to the earlier understanding that what cannot be understood must be approached humbly.
Beginning of anthropocentricism. Newton exiled God w/ Gravity, Hobbes as well. Anglican Church removed the popular
Christian belief on soul in nature.
 So religion became an illusion and superstition in modern times b/c of lack of proof
 Akheel Bilgrami's argument.
 250 years of struggle of rationality aginst religion b/c of mass education, spread of ideas- so there is actual
secularisation in the west but not in India
 But Nandy and Madan disagree- said religion did not disappear in the West- just pushed from centre to periphery
of explaining life. Therefore now there is conflict of religion and secular life in India
 But Madan in India says that religion and secularism co-exist- like ISRO scientists praying for a launch, puja for
technology.
○ In India religion is not an ideology, but a living practice. But in the west modernity and secularism is an ideology.
 Capitalism needed to banish God to exploit Brit- Royal Society allowed this
○ RECENT ANTI-Secular state threats
 Impunity of police in communalism
 Operation Bluestar
 Babri Masjid- SC actually upheld dismissal of 4 BJP govt for complicity- makes the Ayodhya judgement even more
strange- Sc made secualrism part of Basic structure
 Godhra riots
○ The appropriateness and understanding of secualrism is divided among scholars ranging from "only hope" to patch up a
religiously divided society to being useless in preventing communalism and allowing the same.
○ ANTI-SECULARIST MANIFESTO: Nandy says that there is no dialogue b/w religion nor religion and secularism - reason-
no equal status among them.
 Says India's coexistence of religions tell us that faiths have a limit of explaining life- one religion can expalin life for
one but maybe not for another- that's why Gandhi said Sarva Dharma Sambhava
 And this needs tolerance and this has happened in India for over 2000 years
 Nandy argues that such dialogue would have allowed religion and secualrism to share positive notes- tolerance to
secualrism and rationality to religion.
 Extreme secularism has given rise to fundamentalism and now there is a rise of fundamental views.
 Was a Gandhian- don't reduce religion to superstition and propose secualrism behind the mask of communalism
 He argues that in India where relgion is an important component of one's identity it is inevitable that it would also
appear in the polity, but it would be treated in a way making it subordinate to political pursuits- this leaves behind
only the bitter communal notes of religion and no spce for the beliefs in religion that can control corruption,
impunity
 CRITICISM: Chandhoke says that Nandy though accepting that India has its own type of secualrism is criticising the
Western "English" version of separation, so no real critique of why Indian secualrism is failing today
○ Madan claims secularism has not been successful in India- state has been complicit in communalism.
 Says secualrism does not have much of a hope in South Asia- at least not on its own:
i. Indian religions do not have a secualr/sacred inner tradition like in the Reformation of Christianity- beg to differ-
there are some Hindu doctrines which are quite irreligious (atvika)- also deep ties between culture and religion in
India unlike west- they just haven't ever been aligned w/ liberalism like in the West
ii. Religion in India is still overarching- giving meaning to life and hence secularisation cannot be imposed as an
ideology
iii. Denial of religion gives rise to fundamentalism- lack of respect mainly
 iv. Gandhian understanding of religious tolerance and harmony - secualrism and religiosity must be equal and on par-
will prevent former from being cast aside as superstitious and former as mask for being immoral and communal.
 Says that religion is the way of life in India, and not secularism- there is a clear religious majority in India and
secularism cannot last.
 He thinks that rights of minorities are too precious to be left w/ the state.
 CRITCISMS:
□ Vanaik: Says that they are taking the traditional idea of embedded self rather than the modern, liberal
individual, claims those against secualrism legitimise the politicisation of religious identities- claims that religion
has blocked the path to rationalisation, democratisation and secularisation of society, says religion itself leads to
communalism, secualrism thereofre should mean: (1) freeodm of worship, (2) state non-affiliation, (3) primacy
of citizenship (honey, nationalism is the new religion -_-)
□ Bilgrami: argues that religious communities should ahve had a role in defining secualrism since then they would
be invested to support it-Nehruvian secualrism placed it over religion and did not allow this dialogue- so it
simmered underneath in a sense- why BJP still got elected after Babri masjid. We first need to know about
each other to understand and tolerate, not just impose secularism first

○ Both Madan and Nandy have grappled w/ the idea of how religious identities have survived for a long time and to
question if secularism can actually stop communalism. So their main point is that tolerence is too precious to leave w/ the
state. It is up to the people. State is too cold for this purpose.
 They have argued that forcing secularisation on a religious society is just leading to fundamentalism and
politicisation of religion for the wrong reasons.

 Today we are forced to have an opinion about our neighbours there is no laissez faire approach to lifestyles anymore.
This has affected tolerence.
 But Slavoj Zizek argues that tolerence is an ugly word since it basically means that you don't like someone but you
will live with them. He recommends that we have democratic indifference towards each other.
 There is asymmetry in knowledge- like how British by creating Indian histories tried to understand us but we had
no access to how English people were so we could not tolerate or judge them.

○ Politicisation of religion in India began in 1920 after the Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha was formed.
 Around the time Gandhi also entered the political space
 Sarva Dharma Sambhava is based on the idea that all religions are equal since they give purpose to life and no one
religion can satisfy and explain life to everyone. Basis for equal treatment of religions
□ Tolstoy had said that people had been able to live together not b/c of a good ruler but b/c they all conduct
themselves in a way to express the doctrine of "love thy neighbour".
 This division of India on the basis of religion may have actually stemmed from James Mills division of Indian history
into Hindu, Muslim and british periods
 Nehru says that religious prejudice was the cause of partition not religious sentiments
 Nehru believed secular state meant:
1) Freedom of religion or irreligion to all
2) State has to honour this freedom
3) State will not be attached to any religion
 Also means that minority religious freedom is protected and allowed to thrive- moves one step from equal
recognition to equal treatment- from passive tolerance to active support for all.
 Babri Masjid judegment reaffirmed secularism's place in the basic structure and dismissed the BJP govt that had
sparked the mosque demolition.
• WHAT DOES EQUAL TREATMENT MEAN:
○ Chandhoke argues that in India secualrism is not passive tolerance or equi-distance like in the US
 Sc in 50s also said that Indian state does not associate w/ any religious, it is not religious or irreligious, it allows
 freedom of religion and religion has nothing to do in matters of socio-economic matters.
 So dangles between equal respect of all religions and equal distance from all religions
 This debate is imp due to communalism and violation of art 25, 26
○ Needs to be read w/ equality and it different forms- substantial v. formal
○ MINORITY RIGHTS:
 As a means to prevent thier assimilation into the majoirty if no support is given by the state
 INC adopted this particularly to avoid separate electorate demand and recognise he intl trend of allowing minorities
to miantain their own cultures and religions
 Partition shook this project, but consti provisions proved India's commitment to secularism added in preamble only
in 1976 since assumed to be intrinsic
 Also allowed rights to religion, separte from expression:
□ Art 25 adds a limit and promotes social reform- like subject to health, public policy
 25(2) This is b/c our current social structure is undemocratic and this needs to be reformed
 EX: Sabarimala
□ It is both an individual right and group right through art 29, 30
 Alos allowed to reatin personal laws- although have DPSP for UCC under art 44
□ However this has led to conflicts regarding gender and caste reformation- so the govt have largely targetted
Hindu laws- esp after independence- like temple entry, inheritance, divorce etc
□ This has antagonised Hindu groups who taking the Western non-intervention stance consider this to be
"pseudo-secualrism"- mian charge against INC by BJP- called selective- but politically speaking if they started
to reform minority religions first immediately after independence, then they would have probably been called
anti-minority? So are we better off?
□ Hindu right is comfortable w/ formal equality as proposed by Gandhi but not substantial equality- do not
consider vulnerability of minorities- also very capitalistic actually speaking- liek a market for religion-whoever
has the strongest religious groups, most conversions, most births etc would be the "strongest"
 SHAH BANO: SC here ruled thta Muslim husabnd had to pay maintenance for the life or until marriage of the ex-
wife u/s 125 of CrPC, since it was a secular provison and overrode Muslim persoanl law which allowed only
payment of Mahr and maintenance upto iddat. Also wanted UCC
□ The Muslim community understood this as a threat to their rights, esp since Shariat law is Divine and hence no
court could interpret it.
□ Rajiv Gandhi govt consequently brought the Muslim Women (Protection of rights on Divorce) act 1986 which
obligated the husband to only do as required under Shariat law. If the women needed to be maintained then
her relatives who would inherit from her were required to or else waqf boards were given the duty.
□ Liberals and feminists opposed the act- ironically so did the religious right- saying they wnated a UCC- but
clearly different motives the former for gender equality and the latter to subordiante minority rights
□ So supporters of Indian secularism had to now justify the need to protetc often gender oppressive religious laws
and selective state intervention
• RECENT UNDERSTANDINGS:
○ Partha Chatterjee: Whether secualrism is adequate to counter Hindu majoritarianism is answered here? Secularism that
prescribes to no intervention would in minority rights to be violated and a rule of intervention would violate the former
wall. Proposes a norm of toleration such that groups are internally held liable w/ reaosns - but this requires that group
members are empowered enough to question adn hold accountable-difficult to imagine considering, gender, caste, class
issues.
○ Rajeev Bhargava: proposes 3 types of secualrism-
i. hyper substantive: separation which results to promote autonomy, development and reaosn.
ii. Ultra procedural: impersonal, value free rational
iii. Contextual: where depending on the situation there is a non-sectarian basis for intervention- and breaking the
wall- sometimes excluding religion (like in case of business, electorates etc), sometimes including (personal laws),
here heterogeneity is allowed until it is overbearing and violative of some basic dignity guaranteed to citizens using
 minimal control mechanisms- allows differentiated citizenship rights + contextual intervention ranging from none to
all to equidistance
○ Amartya Sen: secularism imp for our plurality essentially- so symmetric treatment of different religions is usually
understood to be secualrism- but rather a balanced approach which ahs near same results through disparate ways may
be better
○ Chandhoke: Questions the political ideal basis for secularism that rests on equality and freedom- equality itself is so
differently understood- need to take egalitarian understanding that equal treatment for unequal groups reproduces
inequalities- so different treatment needed in different cases. This menas a secularism that enables redistribution and
recognition. Also individual's basic system is largely influenced by religion and group rights are needed for this, apart from
indi rights of freedom, equality etc- so need to be on par.
○ Indi v. Grp rights still major debate space in secularism since protetcion of minority rights may amke oppressed
vulnerable
 Supporting minority rights is supporting democracy since allows freedom, liberty, equality and justice- this is how
substantive equality can be brought as intrinsic to secualrism in Indian and the rights' formal equality based
secualrism can be fought for the majoritarianism it really is.
○ IMP, SECUALRISM IS CONTETXUAL- HISTROICALLY, CULTURALLY-Indain secualrism is valid and should not be
measured by western scales for legitimacy- but doesn't mean that it doesn't subscribe to the basic understanding of
freedom of conscience and propagation and non-discrimination as given in our Consti also
○ Communalisation of society -> communalisation of politics -> communalisation of state
State- Partha Chatterjee
Have this conceptual scaffolding
Are the organised rural peasnat political soicety the one being
Friday, 16 April 2021 12:02 pm divided by schemes or is that the marginalised no capital section?

INTRO:
• Foremost political theoretician in India
• Writes amazingly about modernity
• Many theoreticians have tried to analyze the nature of Indain state, esp after independence
• For this we need to understand:
1. The pre-colonial structure which still remains
2. The classes- capitalist, traditionally (religious/caste), neo-rich class (after commercial agriculture like Punjab and AP), bureaucracy,
middle class
3. The public and private sector
4. Electoral periphery- masses
• These factors influence the nature of the state, whose political structure is set out in the Consti
• Each of these factors has had a different influence at diff point of time
• Normative civil society and democratic soicety
• Post-independent state
i. 1960-1967
ii. 1967-90
iii. Post 1990

1. The pre-colonial structure which still remains:

• Imp since the structural configurations occurred at this point- like partition, assimilation of princely states- this created a new state
• But we held on to a Consti, sovereign legislature elected through universal franchise, no separate electorates but reservation, Parl
form of govt, indirect Prez elections. Became a federation. SC w/ judicial review powers, and federal structure oriented towards
unitary framework, army under control of elected reps- no joint command like in Pakistan (reason for dictatorship) criminal justice
system Civil services continued as IAS.
○ ICS just got a developmental function as IAS
○ Joint command only recently introduced
2. 1947-67: "Congress System"
• Centre and state control by INC
• The leaders had political stature having participated in the freedom struggle so they would not simply bow to the centre.
• Mixed plan economy model
• Public services- transport, communication, healthcare, education all taken care of by state
• State was really involved
• 2nd 5 yr plan- industrialization to remove poverty and allow develop.
• But severe food shortage, foreign exchange crisis after Sino, Pak wars
• India had to devalue the rupee to import wheat from the US- increased price of food grains in India
• Central planning did not look favourable
• INC weakened and came back to the center + 9 non INC state govt.- created crisis of federal structures in 1967
• Federal strcuture finally had to function outside of INC
• ANALYSIS:
○ Foreign academics state that state was on a modernizing path w/ democratic decision making at levels, rational admin
structure, modern citizenship- largely accounted Brit plus Consti refors to this
○ Religions, caste, race, ethnic identity structures were considered a thing of the pas which would disappear
○ This notion changed first w/ Rudolph and Rudolph(R&R) and Kothari who showed the capacity of such traditional strcutures to
adapt and fit into modern systems- like Caste.
○ Kothari said that religious, caste and ethnic identity would not disappear but transform and become democratic and continue
in modern forms and become entrenched in the system.
 b/c modernity does not occur in a vacuum.
 Based on structural-functional
 Said existence of dynamic core- at center level w/ modernist and consensual elite at top and political periphery, parallel
 to the actual govt structure
 Electoral periphery/masses creates pressure on the elite and creates a tension w/ the vision of elite- this would propel
India into the future and lead to gradual modernity
 Core and periphery analysis:
1) Core of the core:
2) Periphery to the core:
3) Periphery to the periphery: dissident periphery
4) And core of the periphery:
 But this theory of Kothari was disproved in the 70s- Indira came w/o consensus, there was growth of regional voices and
progressiveness of Nehru became socialism of Indira.
○ Marxist analysis called this a collusion of interests- only having hierarchies at different territorial levels cannot just make India a
capitalist bureaucracy- debates about the class charcter of state
○ There is sharing of power between the elite capitalists at the center and the powerful agricultural classes (like Janata Dal's
corporate v. rich farmers led by Charan Lal)
○ No single class in India is hegemonic- we do not have a capitalists class supported by the middle class petit bourgeois- this b/c
they are not independent if the state- both completely dependent on the state- the capitalist class ahs no social power in India
 Colonialism helped destroy independent capitalists class and destroyed agro. So no leading class to capture state- they had
to share power w/ state.
 This is unlike in the West
3. Indira Gandhi's Congress:
○ Split in 1969 w/ resounding victory under populist Garibi Hatao campaign
○ State was made into the only actor whcih better the people's condition and the performance of local and other levels was
based on how much they got done of this agenda for their constituencies
 "saviour of masses", only one who could save people In the time of adversity
○ Public sector was created by state, so was Green revolution- so state was supporting rich farmers and corporates.
 Agro subsidies and support by the state also gave it much importance.
○ The urban middle classes became esp dependent on govt jobs as PSUs boomed
○ State made extremely centralised analogous to Indira becoming the core of Congress
 Local officials, judiciary etc were written off as corrupt and conservative and hinderance to development
○ Socialism replaced Nehruvian development strategy
○ New welfare schemes to target esp vulnerable groups came out- like SC/ST, women etc
 No longer abstarct like build industry, promote GDP- made it seem like gifts of the central leadership
○ Despite of this, there was an emergence of neo-rich in rural areas
○ Lots of repression through state and police and finally led to emergency- MISA, prez rule, use of central security forces and
defeat in 1974-75
○ ANALYSIS
 So state has managed to remain autonomous from both the classes- the classes could not dictate terms to other classes.
No one to sell the dream like in the US
4. ANALYSIS of the 1980s
○ Pranab Bardan: State w/ consti strcuture is very autonomous
 Identified capitalist, bureaucracy and rich farmers who were competing and colluding to control this state
 The growth in highly irrigated areas like TN, AP, Punjab was able to mobilise the masses, but capitalist though powerful
could not.
 Achin Vaniak and R&R also agreed about agararian bourgeoisie
○ To connect electoral polity w/ insti R&R also came up w/ 'demand polity' and 'command polity' theory "modernity of tradition
and tradition of modernity"
 Demand polity= societal demands expressed as electoral pressure
□ Demand polity comes from periphery and electoral polity- people only vote for you if you meet their demands- this
again pressures the state
 Command polity= state hegemony
□ The core think that there is elite, in bureaucracy, run the soicety, and teach people to be progressive- has nothing to
do w/ elections- they have tried to modernise Indian society
□ Today's electoral bonds essentially say that any govt in the state has to toe the line of corporate policy
 ○ Frankel & rao: distinguished public inst like bureaucracy and organised industry from political ones like aprties and legislature
 Indian political history was the rise of the low, oppressed, poor groups rising up in the pol inst and the upper and middle
classes trying to protetc their privilege from this rise.
 Atul Khil: said that state inst were lead to decay by succumbing to electoral pressures- seems a little elitist..
○ Sudipta Kaviraj:
 Was trying to apply Gramsci' Passive Revolution to this state in India
□ Passive rev: rupture in existing relations and its restoration- no violent change but gradual liek through education,
media, manipulation etc- so negotiation b/w feudal and capitalists- unlike in Russia, or
 So b/w rapture and restoration of this threatened relations
 PASSIVE REVOLUTION: Technique of statecraft which an emergent bourgeoisies class may deploy by drawing
subalterns in such a way that maintains their hegemonic power and position
 When the tension actually bursts like through a revolt- active revolution
 Dominant class will rupture existing relations and deploy new relations
□ EX: in village many are forced to work not for money but due to a feudal relations. But today in the capitalist
system he need not render his services for free- he can freely sell his services everywhere- monetizes all soical
relations
 Says, power in India had to be shared b/w dominant class b/c no one class has the ability to use hegemony on its own
(central to idea of hegemony itself ). This craetes a push and pull of power and superiority- outlines these changes for
industrialists, agriculturalists and bureaucracy.
 The hegemonic class will intro a certain nature of social relationships- having a moral and political sway over others-
social capital
□ Economic hegemony usually menas cultural, moral, political hegemony
 Says capitalists and rich agro has no hegemonic capacity b/c they are dependent on the state
□ This did not occur till 1990
□ FEATURES OF INDIA"S PASSIVE REVOLUTION:
 Mediated by State- elected leadership, permanent bureaucracy, independent judiciary,
◊ State would step in to protetc the electoral polity interests to prevent pauperization and loss to such an
extent that revolution may result on account of lost classes having nothing more to lose.
 Negotiating class interests through multiparty system
 Preventing foreign cpaital, import substitution, hevay industry control
 Industrialists having more control on centre and agriculturalists more on state govts
 EX: 1000 head load vegetable vendors are threatened when a capitalists sets up a supermarket which leads to the vendors
being unemployed
□ Whether there is a dialogue and if revolution or rupture predominated is mediated by these.
 This was a transitional system from colonial to something else
5. Post 1990s
○ Beginning of econ capitalists class
○ This has transformed the state from the previous phase- no longer as autonomous
○ Dismantling of license regime, foreign capital and goods, pvtising, pvt capital
○ Free market economic started here "State has no business to be in business- Modi"
○ Mkt is the leader today, no longer religion like in the 19th C and political leaders in the 20 C.
○ New capitalists class in India- no longer traditional business class protected by license raj
 Much more confidence to engage in globalisation
 No longer about goods and services but exporting to finance capital
□ Like Tata dominating agro in Africa and Sri Lanka
□ Mittal controls a lot of France Steel
○ Rise if IT also helped this- changed from the previous "Hindu Growth rate" of 3-4 % to 8-9%
○ IMAPCTS:
i. Political changes: landed elite is losing- famer's agitation is the best example of this corp v. Farmer\
□ Jenkins described economic reforms as achieved by stealth- like how capitalists became hegemonic through other
means and not electoral politics.
ii. State also now comepting to woo capitalists so the landed elite control is waning
 iii. State as mediating party becmae less autonomus- the bureaucratic managerial class once the core of developmental
activities has slowly come under the sway of corporate cpaital- seen in the way the middle class nowadays generally sees
state control as inefficient, corrupt, populist and prefers professionalism, growth and efficiency
□ State now became facilitator of economy, not provider- play 2dn fiddle to capitalists- "ease of doing business"
□ Now middle class under cultural moral sway of bourgeoisie- capital class- that's why low attitude for govt jobs, wish
to go abroad,
□ MIDDLE CLASS: The urban middle class whcih was dependent on the state govt jibs have now become detached
from it- state is no longer leading dev activities, mkt is doing this now
○ PARTHA CHATTERJEE:
 Argues that we are still under Passive revolution and still we are not a classic western capitalist democracy
 Capitalist logic of primitive accumulation
 Force the primary producers to sell it at a loss, and use your bargaining power to sell it at a profit- that's why there
is no profit w/o the loss of primary producers who are rendered to unprotected labour that the large capitalists can
"absorb" into their factories at- Marxist understanding
◊ EX: Weaving industry!!!
◊ EX: the setting up of Hyderabad airport- took 20 villages, 15K acres, in which airport is only in 500 acres adn
the rest is for economic zone,
◊ The villagers were employed in the airport itself- became housekeeping and workers- this is the hegemony
of capital.
◊ This is a Marxist principle- that the more profit is cultivated the more the pauperization of original producers.
◊ No longer in bartering system - but in investment, unless the capitalist gains more then he invests he will not
take up the risk- so the farmers and other political soceity members are rendered losers.
 The capitalists however define this is the "hard working" building up their cpaital through out performing and
competition
 But now there is a new logic: state encouraging creating new jobs in the civil society through "reinvesting"- like what
happened w/ the Hyderabad airport to absorb labour- but this is largely illusory
 Social sector expenditure- these are welfare schemes to manage the political condition of the pauperized.
 The Indian soceity can be divided into hegemonic civil society and democratic political soceity
□ Civil society: urban middle- upper middle educated, propertied class which is trying to be in consonance w/
bourgeoisie of the West- it is normative- talk about the rules of the game and the rule of law, we go to court to
resolve our disputes and we want a rule of law to be imposed on everyone- very formalist, will have "proper
citizens" will enforce their rights. Normative lifestyles of equal citizens
 Their citizenship is fixed, stable, enforceable in courts
 They will insist on regulation, rule of law and wnats to impose it at all times- they'll look at political society
with disdain- they consider protests, rallies etc just as nuisances and w/ intolerance- like Saheen Bagh and
traffic case.
 They beleive that all growth will solve poverty - Trickledown -_-
◊ Fundamentally means that primary producers like farmers, weavers will lose out and will not have
capacity to determine market price- the share market and organised finance will settle this.
◊ EX: Like NLUs set up mainly to deal w/ corporate disputes
 Use media, bureaucratic managerial class, professionals for this exercising of this hegemony
 All political parties have the aim for rapid economic growth- so economy is outside the political policy- its a
given/permanent agenda.
◊ This is b/c the aspirational middle class holds this dear to them, even if it does nothing for the masses.
 Ex: the court ruling to evacuate tribals based on the 2011 act was taken up by civil society environmentalists
 PIL is a new way to enforce this rule of law since political society matters are suo moto taken up by courts to
impose rule of law.
 Capitalists create their own gated communities and these areas are least controlled by the state or its norms.
And this is how it protects its interests. Simialrly w/ SEZ- prevents least interaction with state esp local level
which is largely under political soceity.

 Political society: rural illiterate, urban poor , they are not normative, participate in elections as citizens negotiate /
political leader, the govt, to protect their rights and non-corporate capital, not the courts.
 □ EX: incudes slums, small street vendors, traders etc- so have a political-economic function
□ No formal banking, or industry like in civil society- need to from associations even to access these inst like chit funds,
credit societies
 Here there is an association to protetc interest as group and ensure that all are allowed to survive togtehr- like
limiting vendors in areas, marking territory
 They tend to flout rules and licenses as only menas of being able to stay profitable- but if they are profitable
they do not expand but invite new players- therefore no accumulation of capital logic
□ Their citizenship is unstable and temporary- b/c the have to constantly negotiating, contextual- usually law treats
them as exceptions due to this
 Based on unity in numbers mainly
□ HOW THE ORGANISE: Using electoral politics- unlike civil society which can draw from global capitalists practices
 Here it's a choice between socialist, capitalist, communitarian politics- like as per unions,
 Here they use their non-corporate capital to negotiate w/ the state to protetc their economic interests and its
continuous- there is no permanent protection, the state will only give them temporary solutions
 So survival of non-corporate capital depends on its political functions- so attached to small scale businesses and
industries - usually leaders of such groups becoem political players so their economic function is a political
function.
◊ Marked by protectiveness of small scale capital enough for livlihood + willingness to cooperate to fight for
that right
 State and organised political society
◊ Claim rights and welfare as a manner of right from the state through use of appropriate pressure and
bargaining
◊ State responds usually by breaking up the homogenous grp into small groups- this divides the political
opposition to a scheme as well
◊ Also pits different groups of welfare seekers against one another- the claim then transform from one of
exploitation by the state to discrimination which was never there before- this also prevnts consolidation
and collaboration for greater bargaining power-
◊ Instead of revolts and insurgencies against the defines enemy landlords, govt benefits are sought to
ameliorate their condition- but governmentality of response does not mean it is not equally violent or
political- see farmers protests or
◊ Claim something not as a matter of the rule gone wrong but as an exception- granting of such exception is
then state recognition of some feature which is more political than administartive in logic
□ Here democracy is an ideology as well due to lack of equality preventing the same moral understanding of it.
□ They are not under the sway of the middle classes or capitalists. - this is why we are still passive revolution
□ Two types: w and w/o non-corporate capital:
□ The ones w/o even non-corporate capital are unorganised vast masses-they cannot use the logic of electoral
democracy to help them bargain w/ the state.
 That's why non-corporate capital is more successful in urban areas than poor peasnat grps- why farmer's
suicides are rising since now directly dependent on GoI and cannot fight industrial use of agro land- but more
on fringe then mariginalised
 They are now directly dependent on state and hence have no organising bargaining power
 Tribals and peasants are unable to organise themselves so they aren't part of political society- cannot make a
difference electorally yet- including farmers
 So this is the most marginalised
□ EX: Constructing a wall to hide the slums in Ahmedabad when trump came -_-.
○ STATE:
 State tries to navigate and mediate between these two levels
□ But there is general decline in terms of accountability and autonomy of the state due to increased pressures
□ Civil soicety under corporate capital but not so stark that state sector dominated by lower caste, poor and pvt
corporate sector by elite, Uc, rich
□ But state itself still has imp function of reverse accumulation, mediation and deciding redistribution to keep a balance
and the middle classes are still involved in this
□ Therefore state today still represents the political soceity- like the state's defended Sc/St to read down the judicial
order that allowed bail in atrocity cases.
 They have to keep preventing this largest dependent classes from gaining consciousness and becoming
dangerous- for this reason they keep asking the corporate sector to provide CSR, employment etc-
 So the differences b/w left and right parties is just a small difference in terms of how mcuh to spend, on which
group etc- no one questions the logic of capital accumulation
 That's why the state's main goal today is still to distribute resources- but this has also growing been outsourced
to NGOs- including in Covid esp.

Capitalists
- corporate capital

Sizeable urban middle class- foundation

for capitalist hegemony

Urban poor ( politically organised and have

non-corporate capital)
(SHG, food grains ect- and these schemes divide them on the basis
of their identity)

Unorganised rural poor, tribals and peasants (largest masses w/o capital)-
completely dependent on the state and so this is the biggest struggle of any state.
Outside political society
 • Basically a summary of our course!
Intellectual History
Monday, 26 April 2021 9:06 am

• Very historically contextual so diff dev in diff countries, including India

○ Authors believe thta unlike physics, PS can be country/place sepcific though still have a universal common thread
to make it one discipline
• Colonial rule + nationalism greatest influences have affected the way every subject was taught in India.
○ State always has control on what can and cannot be taught, in what way
• EDUCATION SYSTEM:
○ EIC trained writers and clerks in subjects like pol econ - 1809
○ Macaulay's Minute helped impose Western politics in India through English, rather than Orientalist led by William
Jones, indignous knowledge (based on Germanic writing, from 1772 to 1830)
 Orientalism wanted to learn and appropriate rather than teach their methods
 Post 1830s, Brit started to claim racial superiority to legitimise their rule
 Bentinck formed a committee for this purpose composing of Anglicists and orientalists
 So purpose of English edu in India was to create a new class which was Brit in their taste, ideals, morals and
intellect.
○ Set up numerous colleges- Presidency, and others in other presidencies by 1857 to regulate western style
collegiate system in India during 19th C.
○ University of Calcutta: PG courses started in 1904 (Education Act), but no PS, only pol econ - only separated as
own course in 1948 after WWII, UG course in PS started in 1960- before then had to have Econ UG to take PS
PG.
○ University of Bombay: got school of Socio, civics and Politics after WWI, Patrick Geddes was head, followed by his
student GS Ghurye who later taught MN Srinivas (sanskritization)
 This was mainly b/c PS requires students to be critical of the govt and a colonial govt would not allow this.
 In fact even the attempt to create an LSE in India resulted only in Delhi School of Economics, w/o a PS
branch in free India.
 By 1960s, American behaviouralism came to PS- like by Rajni Kothari, but the Indian history infleunce on
PS only came in 1990s- did 't even teach Partition- only Consti taught to teach how to run this country
□ Therefore by 1980s all Indian PS discourse was a derivation of the West- just a mimicry.
□ Subaltern studies helped since it taught about the Indian masses- about the peasants, soldiers, revolted,
the Indian woman poets and writers who fought against conventions- this is a bottom up approach.
• Post independence, colonial mindsets had discouraged professionalism and specialisation in the American style for
general admin- few pol associations came up but not for regulating the research of PS
○ Best research and intellectuals went into IAS, not as scientists and further worsened w/ planning Commission
since didn't need scholars like PS students who had no economic insight, or policy analysis functions- not until 2
nd plan
○ Competition w/ stalwarts like Nehru and other freedom fighters who were inherently political thinkers made it
difficult to stand out and apart.
○ Public admin had little passion to innovate and adopt research.
○ Econ however had much use and demand- Delhi School of Econ along LSE lines abandoned PS-but most econ
thinkers ended up joining intl universities or bodies. Sociology had some dev in the Inst of Economic Growth. Only
in 1979s PS was invited here
• INST ANALYSIS:
○ Insti approach largely conditioned by Consti and understanding its origins and dynamic functioning
○ Coupland and Arthur Keith- legislative empowerment of colonial India largely focussed
○ Nehru- through Glimpses of World History, Autobiography and Discovery of India shaped much PS thought- only
 much later Gandhi's writings gained political significance
○ Morris Jones- English writer unlike other who appreciated the Indianised Parl forms, did not measure it against
Brit standard
○ Hardgrave wrote about the limits of Indian inst, R&R alos added through their demand/command polity analysis
○ Jurists and legal writers analysed Consti law through Sc and court practices- Granville Austin, Benegal Rau,
Rajeev Dhavan, Baxi, Marc Galanter- basic structure was more politicla theory than lawyer's brief
○ PIL further created a narrative of an authoritative state .

• BEHAVIOURALISM, KOTHARI and Centre for Study of Dev Societies (CSDS):

○ Was an American school rising in the 50s and 60s but peaking there in the US
 In the US it was criticised for hiding conservative ideology in empiricism- it was method /.o substance
○ Helped India shed its colonial legacy of institutionalism and incorporated Nehru's belief in the superiority of
Science to dispel tradition and superstition.
 Besides allowing PS students to get into the field and away from context less classics and institutional
formalism that colonial education had brought it also allowed political concepts to be tested in the "real"
India
 This helped liberate PS from its elite Brahminical control to allow greater perspectives from other sections to
be incorporated.
 Formed Indian Council for Social Science Research to help guide but by 1980s, the quality of and funding
reduced.
○ Kothari- not first behaviouralist PS in India but extreemky influential- set up CSDS froma grant which is still an
imp research centre in India
 Brought Parsons and Gabriel almonds' modernisation and structural functional thinking to India- was pat of
comparative political centre in Stanford- their project set up a standard for universal comparison f politicla
systems but it set up West modernity as end goal and outlined a path for third world to follow to reach
there.
 Cold war politics changed this US-American relationship-CIA was found to be funding research in India-
Indira refused to change from a non-alignment position to support US in Vietnam- w/ Nixon shifting in US
strategy to support Pak over India- consequently behaviouralism fell out of favour
 Emergency finally shattered the mystique of modernity which Nehru and the American hegemonic ideal
propogated. State was no longer seen as the driver of positive transformation-self help, voluntray NGO
associations took this place instead. Kothari and CSDS accordingly took up a new approach
• POST 1990s:
○ More Indian, based on identity politics, civil soicety and local govt
○ CASTE: Namoodripad called caste the vanguage for class- like the Iravas formed fro themselves through caste
associations, Dalit politics became big in 1990
○ Langauge: was big in pre-independence dialogues- lingusitic state concerns
○ Religion: Paul Brass wrote about how political leader use a pool of cultural symbolic metaphors, and narratives
which then arrange as per the required startegy- they do not simply trasnfer the communal interests of their
identities- implying that communal tensions can be orchestrated or at the very least are unintended consequences
of strategies not inherent to identity politics just as is.
Not much research into partition until recently on micro level of Hindu-Muslim riots: Ashutosh Varshney
says that interethnic communication and not inter-ethnic in civil soicety is preventing a channel for peaceful
mediation of tensions, Brass says that there is an institutionalised riot system which can be called upon as
needed for electoral politics- from analysis of Aligarh, Wilkinson says that govt action is instrumental in
communal riots.
• SUBALTERN AND POST COLONIAL STUDIES:
○ Partha Chatterjee and Ranajit Guha are imp PS in the Subaltern Studies Collective
○ Early Partha Chatterjee, Ranajit Guha, Ashis Nany and Homi Bhaba critiqued colonial and post-colonial state
through the idea of derivative discourse (Chatterjee), 'intimate enemy (Nandy), Bhaba 'mimcry'
○ The sentiment is encapsulated in gandhi's remark that Indian nationalists wanted English rule in India w/o the
English
○ One such idea shared by Guha and Chatterjee is the craetion of the Indian state by the colonial through creation
of history and historiographies. The nationalists thereafter wnated to mimic colonial modernity creating a
"derivative disocurse" of the colonial as a linear narrative of progress culminating in the nation state of India
○ Guha's "Dominance w/o Hegemony"
 Based on Gramsci's idea of hegemony
 Hegemony menas rule of dominance w/o coercion and rather on persuasion
 Guha asserted that the colonial and post colonial states could not gain this persuasive authority and hernce
were forced to resort to coercion for control and cominance- this is b/c the lacked the active consent of the
civil society- Brits competed w/ nationalists to speak for the Indian masses, but failed to speak for the
subaltern classes like the peasnats
 Even after independence there was a failure to create an "alternative hegemony" by the bourgeoise which is
why Maoist and communist rebellions had to be "beaten back' by the govt through coercive tactics- Indira's
emergency also showed the authoritarianism of the state
○ w/ fading of Marxist thought in the 1980s, Chatterjee's perception changed- as subaltern groups have staretd to
use electoral processes to exert pressure on the state- this was not forseen by the 1970s subslatern schoalrs and
only clearly visible by the 1990s
○ Thereofre there is now a paradigm shift in the understadning of the colonial by the subaltern due to this change-
colonial state no longer just a black and white "monster" of colonial modernity.
 Reflects postmodern understadning of hybridity even in colonial spaces- developed by Bhaba- where there is
interaction and new craetion in the interstices of the colonial and the colonised
 This is seen in the Indian adoption of parliament, cricket, English, and even political science itself
 Post 1990s scholars like Ashis Nandy, Partha Chatterjee, Neera Chandoke etc- we are now able
to form our own scholarship and compete- though only in English

 PS is NOT ABOUT JUST STUDYING POWER- this is a top-down approach which dismisses the village and
the local for the elite
 We do not recognise justice b/c of Consti but consti only recognises justice due to our demands
 Our own problems were not theorised or talked about due to dearth of scholarship and lack of standards
○ DISTINCTIVE INDIAN INFLUENCES: Colonial rule, Gandhi, nationalism, Nehru's modernism, sub-altern
movements, cultural pluralism, casteism, partition.