Key concepts-and-theories-class-12th-ncert

POLITICAL SCIENCE

KEY CONCEPTS AND THEORIES

Textbook for Class XII

Download From: http://iasexamportal.com

POLITICAL SCIENCEKEY CONCEPTS AND THEORIES

AUTHOR

V.R. MEHTA

EDITOR

NALINI PANT

Textbook for Class XII


CONTENTS

Unit I : Key Concepts: Indian and Western Perspectives 1

1. Law 32. Liberty 93. Equality 194. Justice 235. Human Rights 306. Dharma 36

Unit II : State and the Citizen 41

7. Rights and Duties : Meaning and Relationship 438. The Changing Nature of State Activity 52

Unit III : Comparative Politics 57

9. Approaches to the Study of Comparative Politics : 59Traditional and Modern

10. Political Socialisation, Political Participation and 65Political Development

11. Modes of Representation 74

Unit IV : Major Political Theories 79

12. Liberalism 8113. Socialism 8714. Marxism 9215. Fascism 10016. Gandhism 10617. Humanism 113

GLOSSARY 117


UNIT I

KEY CONCEPTS

INDIAN AND WESTERN PERSPECTIVES


3

Law

CHAPTER 1

WHAT IS LAW ?

THE term law has differentconnotations. There is natural law,

moral law, law of supply and demandand law of the state. It may mean rulestelling us what we ought to do (morallaw). It may also imply that there arecertain regularities in nature or society.The first is a normative view and thesecond positivistic view. The normativeview tends to argue that laws embodyfundamental truth about processes ofnature, while the positivists argue thatlaws are rules of conduct in a definedcommunity. They are a system of legalconditions to regulate human conductin society. To Austin it was a commandof a sovereign to all others in societyhaving for its sanction the force of thephysical power of the state. Hollanddeclared: “A law is a general rule ofexternal action enforced by a sovereignpolitical authority”. According to thisview law is a relationship between asuperior and inferiors who are in acondition of habitual obedience.

Making a distinction between themoral and the state law, some theoristsmaintain that the existence of law is

dependent on its moral validity; whileothers hold that the validity of law ispurely a technical question. It can onlybe decided in terms of legal criteriaavailable at a particular time. A ‘Law’ isa law, right or wrong, if it has receivedthe approval of the decision-makingbody of the state. However, wheneverthere is a conflict between enacted lawand the moral order, such enactmentlacks legitimacy in the eyes of thepeople. Barker emphasised the sameidea when he said that every law musthave ‘validity’ as well as value; ‘validity’refers to the formal character of law and‘value’ to the moral sense of thecommunity. If a legal judgement is inaccordance with the law, it has to beaccepted. However, acceptance of ajudgement rests on the community’ssense of right and justice. In short, alaw has to be seen in totality in whichboth legal and moral aspects merge witheach other.

Another aspect of the debate is therelation between coercion andobligation in a legal system. Positivistsmaintain that citizens are obliged toobey law. Those who disobey a law areliable to be punished by the coercive


4 POLITICAL SCIENCE : KEY CONCEPTS AND THEORIES

power of the state. Whatever be thenature of law, the important thing is theauthority of the state behind it. Citizensdo not have any choice. Such coercivequality is less noticeable in certainareas of law, as for example inInternational Law. But positivistsregard coerciveness as the essence ofthe obligatory nature of law. This viewis contested on three grounds :

(i) Not all laws impose obligation.Many laws confer enjoyment ofpowers or rights. Such laws arethe best example where nocoercion is implied.

(ii) The existence of obligation underlaw depends on its being morallyvalid. Rousseau maintained thatour obligation to obey a particularlaw can be moral only when weare impelled to obey a system oflaw out of a sense of duty,perhaps by promptings of ourmoral consciousness without anycompulsion from external power.Force reduces human beings toabject slavery. Therefore, it cannotbe a legitimate basis of law. Mightcan never be the basis of right.Rousseau emphatically declaredthat to yield to force may be anact of prudence. In this case,therefore, legal obligationbecomes derivative of politicalobligation which, in turn,depends on the general beliefabout the legitimacy of authority.

(iii) Law also has to be viewed as a partof the institutional system insociety. Courts do not deliverjudgements in isolation. Besides

judiciary, there are otherorganised social institutions aslegislature, executive and politicalparties. The entire legal system isdependent on them and cannotfunction in isolation from politics,society and economy. It is in thissense that legal order is related tothe protection of rights andsecuring social justice to all. Theseare the grounds for imposition oflegal obligations and not only theresults of those obligations. Ourobligation to obey law largelydepends upon the ends which itfulfils, and the feeling of identitywhich is generated in the mindsof citizens by upholding a systemof justice, fairness and right.

In this sense, a law has to combineboth what Dworkin has called“principle” and “policy”. While‘Principle’ is identical with rights,‘policy’ is identical with utility. Rightsare claims secured to individuals as amatter of principle and justice; policiesrefer to the collective good of thecommunity as a whole. The system oflaw should be such as would combineboth. It is in this sense that positivistview of law cannot be detached from themoral view.

The Marxian system has adistinctive view. It rejects the notionthat there is a universal system of law.Lenin once said, “Law is politics”. Inthe Communist countries, particularlythe erstwhile Soviet Union, law isdeclared as “class” law and“proletarian” law. The Soviet system,


5LAW

therefore, viewed law as an instrumentfor the realisation of class ideology.They also regarded International lawas an instrument to advance the goalsof the Soviet society.

In view of what has been said, it isdifficult to give an exact definition oflaw. However, a working definition couldbe: ‘A law is a set of generally acceptedrules and regulations governinginterrelationships in human societyseeking to create order and balanceddevelopment of all’.

SOURCES OF LAW

Where does law come from? Thesources of law can be varied. Theidealistic source of law is natural law.It is often referred to as expression of‘right reason’ of man. It is supposed toembody universal common agreementbased on human intelligence andunderstanding. In ancient India,Dharma was one such concept. It wasconcerned with goals of law. But veryfew agree about the content of eithernatural law or principles of Dharma.

The other sources of law areconstitutions, statutes, conventions,treaties, administrative rules andregulations. The orders of the executiveand decisions of the courts are also thesources of law.

Austin described law as acommand of the sovereign who receiveshabitual obedience from the peopleliving within his jurisdiction. For him,authority rather than right reason wasthe source of law.

TYPES OF LAW

There are two kinds of laws, viz. privateand public. A private law refers to thoserights, goods and services which wouldbe secured to the individual regardlessof the existence of the state. It includessuch things as family laws, propertylaws and laws of succession. In suchcases the role of the state is merely torecognise and enforce the relevant law.Public law, on the other hand, is relatedto the rights of the citizens and the state.

Some of the examples of the publiclaw are international law, municipallaw, constitutional law, administrativelaw, etc. International law is a set ofgenerally accepted rules andregulations controlling the conducts ofnations, international organisationsand individuals. It is different fromMunicipal law which deals with therelationship between the individualsand their organisations within a state.While each state has its own municipallaws, the international law is commonto all states and individuals. TheInternational Court of Justice ischarged with the responsibility ofadjudicating the controversies arisingunder International law.

Constitutional law is a set ofstandards, rules and practicescontrolling the functions and powers ofthe Government and its subsidiarymachineries. In our system, theSupreme Court of India is the highestcourt entrusted with the task ofadjudicating disputes arising out of theconstitutional law.



The private law, thus, refers to ‘civilsociety ’ while the public law refers tothe state. However, society has twokinds of law. A family cannot be isolatedfrom property and property is integrallyrelated to the system of taxation, tortsand contracts. It is for this reason thatsome people believe that there can beno differentiation between differenttypes of law.

Whatever the distinction betweenpublic and private law, the indisputablefact is that law is almost a universalhuman need. No society can existwithout a legal order. We needinstitutions and a framework of rulesand regulations to provide firmness toour mutual relations. Without law therewould be complete anarchy in society.That is why we regard Rule of Law asthe essence of civilised living. It providescertainty to our relationships. Itemphasises that laws ought to begeneral in character so that there is noarbitrariness in their exercise. It alsoemphasises complete equality beforelaw and equal conformity to law byofficials and individuals.

Let us emphasise, however, that alllaws are not conducive to human goodor protect our rights or help those whoare the least advantaged by the system.In fact, there are laws, which tend todestroy our freedom and humanity.Rowlatt Act of 1919 was one such law.It led to Jallianwala Bagh tragedy.

LAW AND MORALITY

The relationship between law andmorality is complex. As we have already

seen, issues about law are not as simpleas they appear. There is no agreementabout the nature of morality either. Weshall not go into what constitutesmorality. Here we shall only briefly statethe relationship between law andmorality

There are people who believe thatthere is no connection between law andmorality. Law is something definite andobjective and has nothing to do withmorality which is vague and subjective.According to them, law is not concernedwith values. ‘Good’ and ‘just’ are notits subject matter. It is concerned with‘what is’ and not with ‘what ought tobe’. It is argued that moral concepts areessentially contested and in case of adispute one is helpless. But in the caseof law there are courts to adjudicateand give a firm interpretation.

It is true that both the words do notmean the same thing. A thing may belegally right and morally wrong. Whenwe say that an action is legal all that ismeant is that it is in accordance withthe law of the day. When we say that aparticular action is moral, all that ismeant is that it is in accordance withaccepted norms of the society. Thisdistinction helps us to differentiate legaland moral aspects of law.

However, it should be clear thatsometimes moral and legalconsiderations overlap. In fact, moralconsiderations have influenced themaking or enforcement of laws andconversely, morality itself has beenshaped by laws. Both of them interactwith each other. As we have seen, weare morally obliged to obey the laws of


7LAW

our country. But if laws lose moralaspect, they will not be effective. Thenotions of ‘value’ and ‘rightness’ in thelegal system are tied to its being moralin the eyes of the people.

There is another sense in whichmorality is relevant to law. Whenever alaw is not clear, the judges use theconcepts of natural law, equity andjustice to decide the issue. Again, thereare situations when law has topronounce judgement on moral issues.For instance, laws of marriage. In allcases law will have to decide in thecontext of the moral character of theparties involved. In deciding cases of libelor slander the courts take moralconsiderations into account. In fact allcourts insist on taking oath bywitnesses. It will be meaningless if moralobligation meant nothing. Questions ofgood faith and moral intent keep arisingfrom time to time.

Law is also used to protect andenforce morality. At least that is the viewthe ancient Indians took when theythought of law in the context of Dharma.Law cannot be viewed in isolation. It is apart of society and is interwoven into itsfabric. That is why law deals withmurder, theft, perjury, incest, cruelty toanimals. All these are prohibited by lawand are contrary to morality. What isconsidered as harmful dependsgenerally upon the common values of acommunity.

There are different views of morality.Many levels and stages of argumentcome into play. There are individualmoralities for which each individualtakes responsibility upon himself. There

are collective moralities also which stresson the social side of moral behaviour.These moralities are also known as publicmorality. Some laws may offend ourpersonal morality and we may have todecide on our own whether to obey suchlaws or to offer resistence. Similarly, somelaws may be incompatible with collectivemorality — morality of tribes. However,there is a general agreement that as faras possible, the state should not attemptto enforce personal morality. As far as thepublic morality is concerned, therelationship is complex. Sometimes lawembodies it. But at times we know that aparticular thing is against public moralityand therefore we would not like the stateto enforce it. Lying is against all moralprinciples but except in court on oath, itis not prohibited by law. It is not prudentto have laws which are difficult to enforceor which are not likely to be followed byothers at all. It is bad to pass laws whichdon’t have the support of the majority.Such a law will not only cause lot ofsuffering in the process of enforcementbut will also shake public faith in theeffectiveness of the legal system.

Sometimes law may be at variancewith collective morality. In such cases thequestion may arise whether we have amoral obligation to obey such a law.However, law is necessary not merely formaintenance of order but, at least in part,also for good life. It must be kept in mindthat law can and in some cases shouldenforce morality; it should do so withgreat care, otherwise morality becomesrigid and loses its dynamism. Moralitymust be dynamic. It must respond tochanges in society.



EXERCISES

1. What do you understand by the term ‘Law’?2. Distinguish between Moral Law and State Law.3. What is the meaning of Positivists’ view of the theory of law?4. What are the various sources of Law?5. Distinguish between private and public law.


9

Liberty

CHAPTER 2

WHAT IS LIBERTY?

THE concept of liberty is complexwith strong emotional connotations.

The term has acquired differentmeaning at different times. Still there isa common thread through all its usages.

The most important sense in whichliberty is used is when a rational personis able to exercise his choice withoutbeing subject to any external constraint.In this sense liberty is a necessarycondition for free and full developmentof our personality. Without it we cannotbe rational or act or achieve what seemsbest to us. To have liberty is to be ableto act according to one’s wishes, totranslate one’s dreams into reality andto actualise one’s potential. It is theessence of humanity; and providessubstance to the notion ofresponsibility. It is the ideal to whichall of us aspire.

A man is free if he is not prohibitedby others. Liberty may also meanfreedom to do something or enjoyingone’s powers. When we are able to dowhat we want to do, we are said to befree. It may mean immunity fromauthority’s exercise of arbitrary powers.It means freedom to act independently

without any fear of punishment. Thenthere is freedom under law. Citizenshave liberty insofar as what law permitsthem to do or not to do. There aremainly two senses in which the conceptis used: Negative and Positive.

NEGATIVE LIBERTY

The negative view implies that we needliberty to protect ourselves from undueinterference of the state. It implies anarea in which man can do what he likesto do without being obstructed byothers. There are some obstructions,which are natural. For instance, onecannot read because of blindness. Butthere are other areas where there is adeliberate attempt on the part of othersto interfere in the area in which onecould act. There is no agreement onhow wide the area could or should be.There is, however, an agreement thatthis area cannot be unlimited otherwisethere will be a social chaos. The area offree action must be limited by law butthere should be a certain minimumarea of personal freedom which on noaccount should be violated. Such wasthe view of Locke and Mill in Englandand Tocqueville in France. “The



fundamental sense of freedom”, says SirIsaiah Berlin, “is freedom from chains,from imprisonment, from enslavementby others. The rest is extension of thissense…….”

Mill and others believed that unlesssuch an area is guaranteed toindividuals, civilisation cannotadvance. We shall never know the truth.There will be no scope for originality orgenuine moral courage. Mill arguedthat society will be crushed by theweight of collective mediocrity.

But this view of negative libertysuffers from following grave drawbacks:(i) Mill’s argument that without

liberty truth will not come out isnot empirically correct. Historyshows that love for truth growseven in communities where thereis strict discipline.

(ii) Liberty in this sense is concernedwith area of control and not withits source. It is not necessary tohave democracy to enjoy thisliberty. An autocrat may leave hissubjects with a wide variety ofliberty and yet be unjust orencourage inequalities. Thequestion ‘who governs?’ is asimportant as the question ‘How fardoes government interfere withme?’

(iii) The job of the state is reduced tothe minimum. The state is anecessary evil.

Herbert Spencer summed-up thenegative view where he said “The stateexists because crime exists in society,otherwise there would be no need of a

state.” This is inconsistent with the viewof the state as a welfare institutiontrying to create condition in whicheveryone will be able to realise his orher potential. The negative view doesnot adequately take into account thefact that poverty or lack of land, capitaland political power are all graveobstacles to realisation of our powers.It does not see that these obstacles arean inevitable part of socio-economicsystem, and have to be removed by lawfor attaining the common good.

POSITIVE LIBERTY

The positive view of liberty implies twothings:

(i) It implies the right to participatein sovereign authority. It isinvolved in answer to the question‘Who is the source of control orinterference?’. It accepts theindividual self-direction as final.It means ability to live accordingto one’s own conscious purposes,to act and decide oneself ratherthan be acted upon and decidedby others.

(ii) It implies freedom of ‘rational self’.Rousseau and other idealistsbelieved that man is rational andit is this which distinguisheshuman beings from othercreatures. They called this ‘realself’ inasmuch as it identifiesourselves with the social whole ofwhich we are a part. Man can becontrolled for the fulfilment of hisreal self. Rousseau gave us theconcept of ‘General Will’ which was


11LIBERTY

an organisation and synthesis of‘goodwill’ of all of us. Rousseauthought that the General Willcould force us into obedience,because liberty was nothing butcoercion by individual’s own ‘realself’.

This view rightly recognises thattrue development of man consists in thedevelopment of his powers as an integralpart of a society. His ideas, aims andaspirations are social products, andthey, in turn, exercise their influenceupon the development of society. lt isargued that whenever man finds hissocial existence frustrating, he has aright to expect that the state wouldcome to his rescue. There must beinterference of the state to protect oneagainst the interference by otherindividuals.

This view brings into bold relief thatthe negative view of liberty did notsufficiently appreciate the value ofman’s capacity for ‘rationalunderstanding, for moral judgementand action, and for aesthetic creationand contemplation’. The positive viewis identical to Indian notion of Swarajwhich literally means complete masteryover oneself and demands that all formsof domination should be ended.

But this does not follow that everystate interference is designed to increaseliberty. The state power has often beenabused in the past to serve the interestof one individual or class or caste.

Indeed the danger with this view isthat any attack on freedom can bejustified in the name of real freedom.

The state, general will, a class or anation become super agencies. Theycome to be identified as real selves; andattack on freedom can then bemanipulated. The more we exalt thestate or the more we exalt those whospeak in the name of the state, the moreare the chances of these agents abusingtheir powers in their private interest. Itis because of lack of realisation of thisthat the doctrine has in the past beenperverted to deny the very freedom forhuman self-development.

Marxist thought rejects bothnegative and positive views; accordinglythere can be no freedom in a capitalistsystem. Workers collectively are forcedto sell their labour. Capitalism leads todomination of workers by capitalists.In order to be free, Marxists maintain,there must be a rational control ofproductive forces in society by the state.Marxism rightly highlights that animpoverished or propertyless labourercannot be free. He has absolutely nobargaining power. But the danger isthat there is a tendency in such asociety to be tyrannised by its owninstitution. Bureaucracies and theparty become extremely powerful andtend to disregard general interest.

Everyone agrees that freedom isvaluable and necessary but there is noagreed concept of freedom. Ourdiscussion however, suggests that thefollowing conditions must be fulfilledbefore we can be called free:

(i) Freedom must be enjoyed by all.Freedom may, however, require asystem of planning, regulation



and control. John Rawls arguesthat everyone should enjoy thewidest liberty consistent with theliberty of all. This he interprets tomean that we must do what wecan to ensure that even the leastadvantaged will enjoy freedom asa goal worth pursuing. This viewimplies something like a WelfareState.

(ii) Sufficient checks must beprovided in the form of rights, ruleof law and adherence toinstitutional arrangements ofsociety.

(iii) There must be some area left tothe individual in which the statewill not interfere without sufficientreasons.

TYPES OF LIBERTY

There are three types of liberty—political, economic and natural ormoral. By political liberty we mean themaintenance of an atmosphere in whichthe state does not interfere in anindividual’s life without sufficient andcompelling reasons. Thus, the libertyof speech and expression must not beinterfered with by the government,because any interference with it mightmuffle public opinion which stands fortruth. Without such an assurance ourliberty is of no avail. Political liberty hastwo aspects — it implies that societyshall not remain subservient to anyother society. It would have completeautonomy to manage its own affairs.Every society has its own peculiar anddistinctive character which must be

preserved by it; only then it is fit tocontribute its best to the ever-flowingstream of civilisation. A colonialcountry, or a country perpetuallydependent on others, or which is ruledby others is like a dead body which hasno life and vitality. Every society has itsown peculiar ethos, which can bedeveloped only when it is not dependenton others and when it has completeliberty to manage its own affairs. WhenTilak declared, ‘Swaraj is My BirthRight’, he meant that so long as onecountry is in the clutches of another, itcannot develop according to its geniusor realise its ends.

Secondly, political liberty alsoimplies that the state or its agents shallnot use their powers to interfere orcontrol individual autonomy. It impliescreation of an atmosphere in whichindividuals will not live in fear ofpersecution for holding beliefs orexpressing views contrary to whatholders of power at a particular timehave. It also means rule of law asagainst the rule of human caprice.

The state should interfere only whenit is absolutely necessary and isdemanded by the happiness or interestof the society at large. Indiscriminateinterference, not warranted by theabove considerations, destroysindividual’s freedom. It makesindividual a mere puppet or a lifelessmachine. Here we should bear in mindthat it is only when individuals aremade to feel that the state seeks tomake their lives better that they obey thestate. The moment this feelingdisappears, discontent,’ anarchy and


13LIBERTY

sometimes even violent disturbancesovertake the state, a phenomenon whicheither destroys it beyond repair, orinfluences a new life and vigour into it.

Political liberty in its internalaspects is too often tied up with citizen’sparticipation in the affairs of state. Nodoubt this participation constitutes animportant segment of the full circle ofpolitical freedom. But there are othersegments too. For example, if in ademocracy the machinery of the stateis in the hands of self-seeking andcorrupt politicians or officials whomake use of it to further their ownselfish interests in wanton disregard ofgeneral welfare, there is, in effect, to noreal political freedom. Even if it exists,it is a farce. It is true that we must havea right to vote so that we can translateour consent into practice, but this rightwould be meaningless in a society whereofficials tamper with ballot boxes, orpoliticians use all sorts of devices tomake democracy a farce. Anyone whois familiar with the history of Englandin the nineteenth century orIndia or Pakistan or some otherunder-developed countries today willrealise the urgency of having rulers andpoliticians who are imbued with a spiritof sacrifice, who have knowledgeenough to grasp the basic needs ofsociety, and who have sincerity enoughto pursue the public good ruthlessly.No state can survive for long, if it doesnot make an attempt to harmonise itsauthority with the general good ofsociety. If both are in harmony, societyflourishes and gives stimulation to thefiner aspects of life. But if both are at

loggerheads, sooner or later one’ or bothare destroyed. A Frankenstein’smonster will never produce a freepeople. It is only a state which regardsgeneral happiness as its ownhappiness, and works to realise suchhappiness in practice can be lasting.

Civil liberty is the most importantcomponent of political liberty. It isavailable to citizens in all democraticcountries. Our own constitutionguarantees it. It means the right of everyman to stand on trial on equal terms inthe courts of the land. No one has aspecial prerogative. There are nojagirdars or zamindars who could claimspecial privileges. The most importantdefence of civil liberty is the writ of theHabeas Corpus. A person who has beendetained can apply for this is writ. It is,to quote Dicey, “an order calling upon aperson by whom a prisoner is alleged tobe kept in confinement to bring suchprisoner to have his body, when thename habeas corpus, before the Courtto let the Court know on what groundsthe prisoner is confined and thus to givethe Court the opportunity of dealing withthe prisoner as the law may regulate”.Every person is considered innocentbefore he is proved guilty. Civil libertyrequires that a prisoner must be foundguilty of breaking some law, or else hemust be set free. In an authoritariansystem, a person can be taken prisonerin the middle of the night can be removedto a concentration camp, or kept underprotective custody. He has no remedyavailable to him against arbitraryexercise of power. In these systems it isthe executive and not the judiciary which



decides whether the person can be setat liberty.

One important aspect of civil libertyis the freedom of speech and expression.It implies freedom to communicate one’sthoughts to others. It implies freedom ofspeech, freedom to print and to speakin public. It also implies freedom ofconscience, and enjoins all of us topractice tolerance. We owe much offreedom of speech and expression toancient Athens. Our own law givers tooemphasised its importance. But inAthens it reached its high watermark.Socrates became the first martyr for itssake. His life in a way exemplifies theparadox of freedom. He was condemnedto death because he preached beliefs andideas unpalatable to the government ofthe day. He told his judges, “Dailydiscussion of the matters about whichyou hear me conversing is the highestgood for man.” He was of the opinionthat life in which there is no suchdiscussion is not worth living.

But Socrates was also aware of theresponsibilities of a person who enjoysfreedom of speech and expression. Itcannot be used for libellous or seditiouspurposes. If Socrates promised silenceand stopped perpetual discussion, thejury was prepared to acquit him. But“I shall not change my ways”, he said,“though I die a thousands deaths”. Heupheld the freedom of speech andexpression, but denied the right ofsedition. Speaking of man’s debt to hiscountry, as he lay in prison, he toldCrito, that every person ought to respecthis country and submit to her and workfor her when she is in need.

Social liberty implies freedom fromorthodoxy or narrow walls of fanaticismor any social compulsion to makepeople conformists. The majority ‘hasa tendency to suppress the minorityand become tyrannical. In the past somany great human souls have beensent to the’ scaffold simply because theyheld beliefs which were contrary to thebeliefs of the majority of members insociety. Indeed the tyranny of majoritycan be much worse than the tyranny ofone man; for the former, if it chooses,can penetrate into almost all the nooksand corners of the life of individual.Therefore, it is the responsibility of thestate to remove obstacles in the way ofan individual pursuit of autonomy andfree articulation of his faculties withoutany fear.

Economic liberty provides anopportunity to get all the basic thingsof sustenance, without depending onthe will of somebody else. Economicliberty is the backbone of a free society,human being who is to dependconstantly on somebody else for thewants of tomorrow cannot be expectedto adhere to any notion of civic virtue.He is likely to lose even the basicsediments of humanity. This applies asmuch to the state as to the individual.A state which depends too much onforeign assistance, sooner or later, iscompelled to compromise its freedomfor the economic advantage it gets inreturn. The experience of the countriesof Latin America is the best example.Similarly, an individual who isconstantly haunted by the nightmareof hunger, disease and poverty cannot


15LIBERTY

lead an autonomous life. He/shebecomes incapable of contributing hisbest to society. The phrase’ basic thingsof sustenance’, however, does notinclude all the riches or the consumerarticles which our civilisation has thrownup in a great variety. It only meanssecuring of one’s daily bread withouthaving to depend on other’s will. In thisconnection Laski says, “let there besufficiency for all before there can besuperfluity for some”. A human beingwho is constantly worried about breadfrom dawn to dusk; who is frustrated,ignorant, living an aimless existence,who has to depend upon somebodyelse’s will for his sustenance cannotexercise his autonomy. For want ofeconomic liberty, sometimes, a personis obliged to sacrifice ones character, andeven ones political liberty.

Indeed, political liberty has nomeaning unless it is founded on thebasis of economic liberty. Such a notionof economic liberty also implies thateveryone in society, if one has thecapacity or will to work, will get enoughto enable one to participate in social andpolitical life without any hindrance.Thus, a labourer, who can be dismissedby his employer without an impartialenquiry enjoys very little of economicfreedom. Indeed for a starving persondemocracy or its paraphernalia hasvery little meaning. It has been arecurring phenomenon in humanhistory and more so in societies inwhich poverty is writ large that personsdevoid of their means of subsistenceconvulse the societies with violentrevolutions.

Liberal thinkers put more emphasison social and political liberty. They havemustered up all the armoury at theircommand to prove that democracy is asuperior form of government than anyother known so far. They have soughtto build up a strong case for theminimum role of the state in the lives ofindividuals. It is argued that thingsshould be left to the individual’s owninitiative because mostly the progressof humanity has been due to this spiritof individual initiative and adventure.John Stuart Mill argued that even if anact was badly done by an individual, itshould be done by him as a part of hismoral education. But this line ofthinking ignores the vital fact that theremight arise circumstances beyond anindividual’s control, which aredestructive of his very existence as amoral being. There are large number ofpeople in India who live below povertyline and in reality enjoy very limitedfreedom.

Liberty to vote or of religion andmorality has no meaning for them. Theyeven suspect that the state itself hasbecome an instrument of theeconomically well-off classes forexploiting them. Indeed, to talk of theright to vote or to talk of religion inrelation to a starving man has nomeaning. A nation of paupers, sooneror later, meets its nemesis. Either thepoverty-stricken class meeklyreconciles itself to its status under thevain belief of past Karma (action ofprevious birth) or it is driven to resortto various kinds of resistance whichoffer it any glimmer of hope, and



sometimes even to violent revolution. Insuch societies the power of money maybecome the most important power.Votes are sold and purchased duringan election. A starving man may findfive chunks of gold, ill-gotten or well-gotten; and for him his duty to vote forthe right person is much less importantthan to quench his thirst and hunger.

Let us not forget that even RanaPratap at one weak moment of life,finding his son weeping for a loaf ofbread, decided to accept theoverlordship of Akbar, the Emperor ofIndia. If this weak moment could comein the life of Rana Pratap, how can weexpect ordinary people to safeguardtheir own liberty in the face of adversecircumstances.

Moral liberty, as Kant perceived,implies personal autonomy so that weare complete masters of ourselves.Moral freedom consists in the pursuitof the ‘universal objects’, i.e. of objectswhich impart character and solidarityto society. It can be attained onlythrough a process of self-sacrifice andself-purification inherent in what theAncient Indians called the saatvik wayof life. The strength of a state, in the finalanalysis, depends not upon its wealthor armaments or even its numbers butupon the spirit of sacrifice for thecommon good or general welfare, whichits citizens have.

However, moral liberty is not thefreedom of the ascetics far removed fromthe din and the noise of the world. Forthe world around is a reality andperhaps the supreme reality. If there issomething beyond it, we do not know.

Moral freedom, therefore, lies inharmony of impulses in ones privatelife. It can be attained through thepursuit of creative things or saatvikthings. In social life it consists inidentifying oneself with society throughlove, sacrifice, friendship andsympathy. The first is through virtueand the other through friendship. Moralfreedom in this sense, however, isbeyond the scope of the state. The statecan provide all the necessary conditionsfor the pursuit of moral life but cannotmake a human being who has neitherthe capacity nor the desire to be, moral.And therefore, as far as the state isconcerned, it has only to create thatatmosphere in which people have anopportunity to develop and exercises allthe virtues underlined above. Politicaland economic liberty are meaninglessunless they provide scope for therealisation of the ends of moral liberty.Conversely, the idea of moral liberty ishard to attain in a society where thereis either complete, mechanicalregimentation or the society is full ofpoverty and squalor or where there isan undue craze for wealth.

LAW AND LIBERTY

Law lays down what a citizen is free todo and is not free to do. Since the statecontrols coercive power, its law is ableto secure freedom to all by preventingcoercion by an individual or group.Liberty does not mean absolutefreedom to do whatever one wants. Weoften inflate our demands. Anabsolutely free society is impossibility.


17LIBERTY

Such a situation will lead to anarchy inwhich no one except the powerful willbe able to exercise his freedom. We canbe absolutely free in a vacuum in whichthere are no other individuals. This isso because the moment there are otherindividuals we shall begin to coerceeach other for the fulfilment of ourdemands and wishes. Therefore, lawand liberty are closely connected. Lawmay be ‘a necessary evil’ and we mayaim at minimum of law, but it is aninescapable condition necessary tosecure freedom of all.

Some restrictions become necessaryto enhance our liberty. Sometimes lawrestrains it in the name of publicinterest. The law of copyright, forexample, restrains man’s freedom ofspeech and expression because if therewere no such law, we would preventauthors from reaping the fruits of theirlabour. Similarly, restriction of freedomto secure equal treatment of all is onesuch example. We insist that same pricebe charged to anyone for buying thesame articles. We do not encouragepeople to open schools if theydiscriminate in the name of caste,religion, language or community.

But, as has been pointed out earlier,not every law is conducive to liberty. Lawhas often been abused. Not all laws arereasonable and just. Sometimes theauthorities may promulgate a law ingood faith but the decision they havemade may be wrong or there may beno access to courts for justice so thatthere is no procedure for dealing withdisputes except the will of the executive.Sometimes even the adjudication of the

courts may be arbitrary. People can bepunished’ for the crimes they have beenalleged to have committed withoutproper investigation. That is whyfreedom from arbitrary exercise ofauthority has been claimed from thebeginning or the government mighthave usurped power by insurrection orcoup d’etat or there may have beenforeign power ruling over us. If the ruleris arbitrary or unlawful, it will bedifficult for anyone to disobey. Unlessthere are limitations, we lose ourcapacity to resist unlawful or arbitraryor immoral authority. We may becompelled to do a certain thing just forthe fear of punishment like threat ofdeath, torture or even of losing our job.

It is for this reason that checks andbalances are created within the legalsystem. Rights are secured andimmunities are granted so that citizenscan know that there is nothing to fearfrom government. We insist on rule oflaw and independence of judiciary.Rights prescribe the limits beyondwhich the rulers cannot go. They definefreedom of citizens vis-a-vis thegovernment and are the most classicexpression of freedom. They providesecurity against the exercise of arbitrarypowers. We cannot freely participate incivic life unless we are free fromcoercion. It is for this reason also thatwe insist that the process by which lawis administered should be proper.Freedom from coercion except by dueprocess of law becomes the firstcondition of our being free in the largersense of the term. The due processshould be recognisable so that everyone



EXERCISES

1. Explain the concepts of Liberty.2. Distinguish between ‘Negative Liberty’ and ‘Positive Liberty’.3. What is Political, Economic and Moral Liberty?4. Discuss the relationship between Law and Liberty?5. What do you understand by the freedom of speech and expression?

knows not only the decision but alsoas to how it is reached. This createsconfidence in the minds of citizens. Thecitizens will know that the authoritiescannot get them unless they have donea wrong in terms of a specific law. I maybe in the bad book of the police, but Ican be sure that I will not be punishedunless I have violated a definite law.

Citizens are not only free, but theymust know that they are free. Thesesubstantial as well as proceduralsafeguards protect people against theabuse of law. It is a need that has beenfelt more in recent times with themassive expansion of governmentactivities in all spheres of life.

In the ultimate cases when thesystem is abused, people claim right torebellion and duty of resistance in order

to protect their own liberty. The FrenchRevolution was one such case. Legalpositivists may be right in normal caseswhen they declare a law valid on theground that it is enforceable. But inabnormal situations we are remindedof St. Augustine that states withoutjustice are but rubber bands enlarged.Nazi system in Germany was effectivebut insane. The British rule in India waseffective but exploitative. In suchsituations we may be obliged to obeyin the sense that if we do not, we shallbe shot dead; but there is no moralcompulsion to obey. As Rousseaupointed out, we are obliged to obey onlylegitimate powers, which confirm to thecommunity’s sense of what is right andlawful. And every law must conform tothis requirement of legitimacy.


19

Equality

CHAPTER 3

WHAT IS EQUALITY?

SOME people have viewed equalityas the principle of absolute and

unconditional equality. They emphasisethat all men are similar in certain basicfeatures and traits and, therefore, theyought to be treated as equal. Some haveemphasised that ‘all men are createdequal’. Some religious traditions as wellas thinkers argued that since all arechildren of God, they are equal. Earlyliberal thinkers argued that all men areequal because they share commonnatural rights. Utilitarians like Benthamargued that all share common capacityto experience pleasure or pain. Kantthought that all men are equal becausethey have the same capacity to be moraland formulate moral laws. For socialistsmen share a ‘common humanity’; theyhave the same physical characteristicsand social needs. All these viewshighlight that all men share certainbasic characteristics and needs. OurConstitution rejects any discriminationon the basis of caste, class, creed, sexor race.

This argument implies that sincehuman beings are equal they ought tobe treated equally. But this is

impossible to achieve because they arefound in different social settings. Forinstance, the character or the positionof the family is bound to exerciseinfluence upon the character of thechild. So long as the family systemexists, and there is no reason why itshould not, it is impossible to createperfect equality.

It is for this reason that differencesare justified in terms of relevant andsufficient reasons. Aristotledistinguished equal cases on the basisof virtue. Some are good atmathematics others at flute-playing.The first deserve training inmathematics and the latter deservegood flutes. Caste system was justifiedon the basis of different functionalcapacities of different individuals. Somecontemporary egalitarians do so on thebasis of need. All people should receivethe same treatment. Anything else isirrational.

The argument of needs or virtue ormerit is often linked to equality ofopportunity. A child may have talentbut the poverty of his parents mayprevent him from developing it. That iswhy both ‘nature’ and ‘nurture’ areimportant. Plato conceived of a society



in which equally meritorious childrenare provided equal chance. Adequateopportunities mean that all shall haveconditions necessary for thedevelopment of their personality. Itimplies that a daughter of a poor man,if she has some special nature or talent,will not be hampered by either thestatus of her parents or for want ofmoney. It recognises the value offreedom and autonomy of the freedomto pursue one’s own life plan. But wemust have opportunities to pursue it.

Early liberals postulated absoluteright to property. But it has beencriticised on the ground that it does nottake into account the need to distributethe resources of society. Without suchdistribution the weaker sections cannotmaximise their freedom. We haverealised, for instance, that protectivediscrimination in favour of thescheduled castes is necessary to makethem equal and free.

Liberals have emphasised politicalequality. All should participate in thepolitical process as equals. For thissome argue in favour of directdemocracy. Others think that since itis not possible in the modern states,which are large in size, we should go infor more and more decentralisation ofpolitical power.

Marxists and Socialists, emphasiseeconomic equality. A few propertiedpeople should not decide the fate of all.They criticise various kinds ofinequalities in society because all theseinequalities lead to concentration ofpower in a few hands. Some socialistsplead for nationalisation of all wealth,

others think that it increases the holdof bureaucracy. This bureaucracytakes the place of the property owners.Socialists, therefore, plead fordecentralisation of economic along withpolitical power.

In a truly egalitarian society all haveequal opportunities to satisfy their needsand realise their potential unaffected bypolitical control, social discriminationand economic deprivation.

LIBERTY AND EQUALITY

As one can see, the general concept ofliberty is inseparably tied to theconcept of equality. Liberty is thecondition of equality and vice-versa.We can be free when we areautonomous and self-determining andwe can be so only when we are equal.And yet people like Lord Acton believedthem to be incompatible. In his lectureson liberty he declared that in the courseof the French Revolution “the passionfor equality made vain the hope offreedom.” But such a concept as thatof Acton is based on misunderstanding.Liberty does not mean mere absence ofrestraint. It is a more positive thing. Itmeans to be autonomous and self-determining. It implies that whateverautonomy I have will not prevent othersfrom equal autonomy. It implies thatwe are all equally entitled to realise ourcapacities. Equality is the condition inwhich this takes place to the maximum.When we say that men have a right toliberty, we imply equal liberty or equalclaims. It is for this reason that equalityis often identified with justice. The


21EQUALITY

amount of liberty that one has isonly as much as is compatible withequal amount for others. Let ustry to delineate the relationshipbetween liberty and equality in a fewspecific areas:

(i) Political equality is bestguaranteed in a democracy inwhich, as Bentham has pointedout, each citizen is to count forone. There have been cases whendemocracies led to dictatorships.That is why Tocquivelle thoughtthat combination of democracyand aristocracy was the bestguarantee of freedom. But, on thewhole, the experience tells us thatdemocracy guarantees liberty andequality more than any other formof government.

(ii) Civil equality or equality beforelaw is the basic pre-condition offreedom. It means that law will notdepend on whims or caprice orpartiality of those who rule. Lawshould equally guarantee securityof person and property becauseit is only then that we canhave conditions necessary forenjoyment of our autonomy orrealisation of our excellence.

(iii) Economic equality is alsonecessary. All laws and taxesdiminish one’s liberty. Butsometimes they do so to increasethe general liberty. A socialisticlegislation which tries to checkinequalities in society far frombeing a violation of liberty, is itsnecessary condition. It aims at

more and more equality byreducing the power’ of thelandlord or the capitalist to exploitthe peasant or the workerrespectively.

Consider a simple case ofmonopoly. If the total electric supplywere controlled by one person, allothers will not be able to exercise theirfreedom. The person, who controlselectricity, will be able to extractwhatever price is demanded. One couldat the most commit theft. But if theownership of electricity were equalised,the only loser of liberty would be theoriginal monopolist. But the personsloss would be insignificant comparedto the advantage of others. All laws,which favour equality in proportion toneeds or capacity, therefore, do notconflict with liberty.

What then is the relationshipbetween political equality, civil or legalequality and economic equality. One’sright to participate in civic affairs isuseless without freedom of speech andexpression. Political freedom ismeaningless without economic equality.Economic power gives influence, powerand patronage may be used to destroypolitical freedom of others. Even legalequality is threatened in the absence ofeconomic equality. The poor cannotengage a good lawyer or is not in aposition to fight a protracted legal battlewhich may take years to decide.Equality is thus necessary to securegreater freedom to greater numbers.

Not all agree about the importanceof equality. Some critics point out thatthe price to be paid for creation of



EXERCISES

1. What do you understand by the term Equality?2. ‘Liberty is the condition of equality and vice-versa’. Explain.3. What do you understand by Equality before law?4. Distinguish between Political Equality and Social Equality.

equality of opportunity is enormous.Our attempt to distribute income maylead to lower incentives. This willadversely affect efficiency in production.It may adversely affect family autonomybecause it will lead to increasedcompetition in the society. The ideal ofequality may sometimes conflict withother social values. We might preventpeople by using their own talents ortheir own chosen life plans. Equality as

defined by socialists may create theproblem of bureaucracy whichincreases the gulf between labour andthe state. Most contemporaryequalitarians, however, defend somesort of a mixture of democratic andsocialist equality. They argue fordecentralisation of political power alongwith economic power as a necessarycondition for the creation of anegalitarian society.


23

Justice

CHAPTER 4

WHAT IS JUSTICE?

THE word “justice” is derived fromthe Latin word jungere (to bind, to

tie together) and jus (a bond or tie). Asa joining idea, justice combines peopletogether in a right or fair order ofrelationships by distributing to eachperson his or her due share of rightsand duties, rewards and punishments.Justice does this by bringing aboutadjustment between people andbetween the principles of liberty,equality and co-operation.Traditionally, the principle of justicewas taken to be a principle whichbalances or reconciles the principlesof liberty, equality, etc. Such abalancing or reconciling is done withreference to some ultimate value, e.g.the value of the greatest happiness ofthe greatest number or the value offreedom and equality of all the membersof a society. In this context, it may benoted that it is the balancing orreconciling nature of justice, which isrepresented in the figure of personifiedjustice. The figure holds a balance inher hands; it is blindfolded to conveythe idea of the formal equality of thesubjects of law, i.e. an equality which

disregards differences of gender,religion, race, caste, wealth, etc.

We tend to judge a state on the basisof the ends it seeks to serve. It is believedthat the laws of the state should securejustice to its citizens. But justice is noteasy to explain. It is a complex concept.It is sometimes used as a legal conceptand sometimes as a moral one. It maybe regarded to flow from laws of thestate. It may also be regarded as aconcept which aims at the good of thewhole society. From such notion ofjustice we can identify three importantdichotomies in the concept of justice:(i) Legal and moral justice; (ii) Generalorder and individual interest;(iii) Conservative and social justice.

(i) Legal justice deals with principlesand procedures as laid down bythe system of law prevailing in astate. The entire system is calledjustice. Sometimes a distinction ismade between natural justice andlegal justice. The natural justicedeals with basic principleswhereas legal justice deals withlaws, customs, precedentsenacted or made by humanagencies. Moral justice, on the



other hand, deals with what isright and what is wrong, what areour rights and what are our dutiesas human beings, etc. Legaljustice most of the time merelyprotects and enforces these rightsand duties.

It does not mean that everything thathappens in a court of law is justice. Itmay be legally right but can be criticisedfrom moral angle as injustice. If aparticular law fails to meet therequirement of moral ideal of justice itcan be called injustice. Similarly, asystem of administration can be calledunjust, if it fails to meet the requirementof justice as fairness.

(ii) Justice on the one hand, is for thegeneral order of society as awhole, and on the other it protectsthe individual. Criminal law is thebest example. Its purpose is notmerely to punish the criminal butalso to protect the fabric of society.The individuals settle their claimsagainst one another in terms ofpunishment or compensation forthe crime. But in the process, it isbacked by the general desire ofsociety to be protected fromharmful conduct.

This does not mean that social goodalways takes precedence over theindividual good. The system of justiceis supposed to stand for the rights ofthe individual. That the innocent shouldnot be punished is the basic principleof all civilised systems of justice.However, there may be exceptionalsituations like war when the state mayforce an individual to conform to its own

notion of justice. The case of preventivedetention without trial is an example ofthis. Justice, therefore, is concernedabout the relationship between theindividuals and also relationshipbetween the individuals and thegroups.

(iii) Some people believe that justiceimplies establishment of statusquo. It seeks to protect freedom,person and property of theindividual. This is calledconservative justice. There isanother concept of justice whichis called social justice. It seeks toreform society in accordance withcurrent idea of what is right or fair.In our own times it seeks to bringabout changes in landdistribution and property right. Italso seeks to preventdiscrimination on grounds of race,sex, caste or creed so that there isequitable distribution of nationalresources and wealth. All courtstend to shift their emphasis fromtime to time in order to suit therequirements of the people. Ourown Supreme Court has beentaking a very conservative positionin property cases and veryreformative attitude in defence ofcivil rights.

However, in all cases the idea ofjustice is equated with equity andfairness. Originally both these termsimplied equality. Indeed, the notion ofequality is in some sense central to anynotion of justice. Our own constitutionaccepts equality before law as one of thefundamentals of the system of justice.


25JUSTICE

In the history of ideas, there are twomajor concepts of justice:

(i) Numerical Concept of Justice

(ii) Geometrical Concept of Justice

(i) Numerical Concept of Justice

It gives equal share to all. JeremyBentham said, “Everyone is to count forone, nobody for more than one”. Itmeans even unequal would be treatedas equal. The Greek city states took therule so far that many offices were filledby lot. The holding of an office did notcall for any special knowledge orqualification. Modern liberaldemocracies are also based on thisprinciple.

(ii) Geometrical Concept ofJustice

Plato and Aristotle favoured thisconcept of justice. It is a concept ofproportionate equality. It meansequal share to equals and unequal tounequals. It also means thatdistribution of power and patronageshould be proportionate to the worthor contribution of the individual. AsAristotle put it, if flutes are to bedistributed, they should be distributedonly among those who have thecapacity for flute-playing. Similarly,only those people should rule who arecapable of ruling. In this concept ofjustice, benefits and responsibilities areequated with the worth of recipient.Numerical Justice is sometimes calleddemocratic justice and geometricaljustice is equated with aristocraticjustice.

In Plato’s ‘Republic’ too justice isrelated to the social order. His idea ofjustice in the soul is analogous tojustice in the state. In the individual itconsists in keeping balance betweendifferent elements. It consists in givingdue satisfaction to different elementssuch as appetite (labour class), courage(warrior class) and reason (ruling class).Justice in the state, according to Plato,consists in harmonious order betweendifferent social classes. When each classminds its own business and does thejob for which it is naturally fitted anddoes not interfere with the job of others,there is justice in the state. The ancientIndian concept of Dharma also hadsimilar implications insofar as itidentified justice with harmony of socialrelations in terms of the principle of “mystation and its duties”. Rights orprivileges of different individuals flowedfrom this principle of Swadharma.

Most people, however, agree thatjustice as equity or fairness does notmean strict equality. It is largely amatter of proportionate distribution interms of morally justifiable differences.The state can discriminate on the basisof some classification. This classificationcan be in terms of sex or need or meritor ability. Justice in this sense isequality of circumstances. It means totreat like cases alike and unlike casesdifferently.

Our Constitution has acceptedequality before law as the basicgoverning principle. But this does notmean that the judge should treat allalike. He will have to make a distinctionbetween the innocent and guilty, sheep



and wolf. The judge has a right to makedifferences. The principle of fairnessrequires two things.(a) The judge should not be a

respecter of privileges. He shouldnot favour someone becauseone is rich and powerful andpunish someone merely becauseone is poor.

(b) The judge should discriminateonly in terms of relevantdifferences. For example, in acriminal court the relevantdifferences will be one’s guiltor innocence. Simi lar ly , forappointment to teaching positionthe relevant difference would beone’s capacity to teach.

All discrimination is not bad.Sometimes law has to discriminate infavour of some people to ensure largergood of society. Rawls would think thatit is justice if the laws work in favour ofleast advantaged. Most socialists andMarxists would identify justice witheradication of exploitation of the weakor the working class. Some identify itwith equality of opportunity. Othersconsider satisfaction of basic needs asbasic to any concept of justice. Therecannot be universal agreement aboutthe areas where discrimination is just.But if the state is doing something forthe least advantaged or weaker sectionof the society, it is obvious that it isworking for the betterment of thepeople. This is known as protectivediscrimination.

It implies discrimination in favourof the weaker and the backwardsections of society. It also implies giving

preferential treatment to the weakersection of the society. For example, inour society there has been a widespreadpractice of discriminating against thescheduled castes. The state is nowentitled to discriminate in their favour.Without this kind of discriminationthese people will not be able to’ lead ahuman life. Whatever the state does tosecure them their rights is justice andit is covered by the words ‘equity’ and‘fairness’. The blacks in South Africawere discriminated against. The statesystem there was unjust because itspractices were morally unjustifiable.There was no equality of any kind. Thestrong discriminated against the weak.The system thus worked in favour ofthe most advantaged section in society.The apartheid as it was practiced inSouth Africa is morally an offence,because it considers the powerful assuperior to the less powerful on accountof the racial lineage. In India the castesystem, is bad not because it separatesdifferent groups but because itpostulates a hierarchy in which somegroups are considered superior toothers on account of heredity.

The object of protectivediscrimination, however, is not to givespecial advantages to a particularsection but to raise them to a level wherethey can take advantage of the principleof equality of opportunity and competewith other sections of society on equalfooting.

The state, therefore, tries to removeimbalances in social, political andeconomic life. It provides employment,maternity benefits, insurance against


27JUSTICE

sickness and old age security. It triesto fulfil basic needs as also to eliminateunjust inequalities. As per Laissez fairethe business of the state was only tohold the ring for the competition in thesociety. Everyone was left to oneself. Ifthe weak perished it did not matter. But,the welfare state implies that everyonehas a right to fulfilment of ones’ basicneeds. Fulfilment of these basic needsis a matter of justice.

The Communist view of justice goesa step further. Marx declared ‘from eachaccording to his ability, to eachaccording to his needs’. It means thatthe burden should be distributedaccording to our capacity while benefitsbe distributed according to our needs.Merit does not come into the picture.The basic presumption is that all of uswill spontaneously work for thecommon good and we shall be contentto receive whatever the society gives usin lieu of that work. It expects all tocontribute consciously to commongood and not for any private good andbe satisfied with the rewards given bythe society. As we have seen earlier, thereare problems with such a view. Thereis some selfishness in all of us and thisview does not take that into account.

The welfare idea of distributivejustice has been put forward by acombination of the socialists and theliberals. It accepts that fulfilment ofbasic needs of all is necessary. But oncethese needs are fulfilled, the individualsshould be free to compete for greaterbenefits. People will differ about whatcould constitute the basic needs. Theirviews will vary from country to country

and person to person. A refrigerator inAmerica is a basic need while in Indiait may be considered a luxury whenmillions live in dire poverty. Butwhatever the difference, there is aconsensus that there should be afulfilment of basic needs of all before wecan allow fulfilment of superfluousneeds of some. In our country peoplecan obtain free medical aid ingovernment hospitals. But if they wantgreater personal care and morefacilities, they are expected to pay forit. The view is that protection againstdisease is basic but not the extracomforts of a private nursing home.

It is in this sense that social justicebecomes important. Plato and Aristotlewere perhaps right when they talked ofdistribution in terms of needs, abilityand capacities. There are differentspheres of justice. Each sphere has itsown logic. Justice which is applicableto the realm of friendship is differentfrom justice in the realm of state. Wechoose a friend according to our ownliking. We are sometimes partial tothem. There is nothing wrong in that.This is all the friendship is about. Butwe cannot be partial in the sphere ofstate. Duty to act impartially is built intothe notion of equality before law.

SOCIAL JUSTICE IN INDIA

At the time of Independence in 1947,India was one of the poorest countriesin the world. It was largely a result ofeconomic stagnation under the British.But another reason was the growth ofmany patterns of inequalities based on



caste, class and religion. That is why weaccepted the goal of social justice fromthe beginning. The Preamble of theIndian Constitution proclaims that theDemocratic Republic of India standscommitted to securing to all its citizens“Justice, social, economic and political.”

The state has provided for freeand compulsory education tochildren. Since independence variousprogrammes have been launched whichaimed at tackling the problem ofpoverty. For instance, the MaharashtraGovernment had passed a legislationguaranteeing employment at aminimum rural wage there. TheAntyodaya scheme aims at theupliftment of the poorest by helpingthem to acquire income earning assets.Various programmes like FarmerDevelopment Agency Programmes havehelped small farmers with holdings ofless than two hectares by giving themspecial loans. The Five Year Plans haveevolved programmes of fulfilment ofminimum needs particularly forbackward areas as well as backwardpeople. The state has also takenvarious steps to improve health andsanitation, housing and education. Thestate has tried to provide living wage,good conditions of work and reasonablestandards of living to all workers. Inaddition, some land reforms have beenimplemented and efforts have beenmade to contain growth of monopolies.

Special steps have been taken toimprove the economic condition andsocial status of the scheduled castesand scheduled tribes. Reservationshave been made in the services. Thestate has positively discriminated intheir favour by giving thempreferential treatment in schools,colleges and employment. Posts havebeen reserved in favour of backwardclasses also. The state has also madespecial provisions for the upliftmentof the backward classes by reserving27 per cent of government jobsas recommended by MandalCommission. Awareness GenerationProgramme (AGP) undertaken by thegovernment aims at improving theconditions of women by creatingsocial awareness.

Inspite of all this India stillremains one of the poorest countriesin the world. Disparities between therich and the poor or in terms of caste,class, wealth and power are glaring.The legal process too is costly. Ourbudget on welfare programmes is alsonot adequate enough. In order tosecure effective social justice, we shallhave to work for speedy economicgrowth so that there are no financialconstraints. We shall also have tomake a concerted effort to reducedisparities by proper distribution ofwealth and removal of inequalities ofall kinds.


29

EXERCISES

1. Explain the term Justice.2. Distinguish between legal and moral justice.3. Describe the two major concepts of justice in the context of history of ideas.4. What is protective discrimination? Explain.5. What measures have been taken in India to secure social justice to its

citizens?

JUSTICE



Human Rights

CHAPTER 5

RIGHTS are essential conditions for good life. They help in the all

round development of people and theirpersonality. According to Harold Laski“Rights are those conditions of sociallife without which no man can be hisbest self”. All societies and cultureshave in the past developed someconception of rights and principles thatshould be respected. Some of theserights and principles are considereduniversal in nature. The struggle for therecognition of such rights and thestruggle against political, economic,social and cultural oppression, againstinjustice and inequalities, have been anintegral part of the history of all humansocieties. The concept of rights whichevery human being is entitled to enjoyby virtue of being a member of thehuman species have evolved throughhistory in the course of these struggles.

The origin of the concept of humanrights can be traced to the period of theRenaissance and afterwards to periodof the Enlightenment. Humanism(about which you will read in detail inthe latter part of this book) was thekeynote of these periods. Humanismextolled man, stressed his essentialworth and dignity, expressed deep faith

in his limitless creative potential andproclaimed freedom of the individualand inalienable rights of the individual.The two most important declarations,which inspired revolutionarymovements the world over, were theAmerican Declaration of Independence(1777) and the French Declaration ofthe Rights of Man and Citizen (1789).The main concern of these movementswas the ending of despotic rules,establishment of democratic politicsand the protection of liberties of theindividual. A new element to theevolving concept of human rights wasadded by the socialist movement, whichemerged in the nineteenth century. Itstressed on abolition of class rule andthe establishment of social andeconomic equality.

The contemporary concept ofhuman rights and its universal natureand recognition is thus based on therich heritage of the past, and should beseen in the specific historical context ofthe twentieth century. The history ofalmost the half of the 20th century ischaracterized by the prevalence ofcolonial rule in a large part of theworld. The rise of authoritariangovernments in many countries and the


31HUMAN RIGHTS

establishment of fascist, barbarous andaggressive regimes in some of thecountries could be seen in this era.Besides, the rise of national liberationmovements in the colonies andmovements of democracy and socialprogress in various countries provideda framework for the popularisation ofthe theory of Human Rights in theentire world.

This period was also a witness tothe most devastating wars in humanhistory. It was during the closing yearsof the Second World War that theconceptualisation and articulation ofhuman rights in its proper perspectivetook place. The most significant featureof the new conceptualisation was itsuniversality. It was reflected in variousdeclaration of the aims proclaimed bycountries allied against fascism andmilitarism. It would be appropriate ifwe endeavour to know the meaning ofthe concept ‘human rights’.

MEANING OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Like various other concepts of PoliticalScience the term ‘Human Rights’ hasbeen defined and understood indifferent ways. But in general and in theultimate analysis, human rights revolveprimarily around the basic theme ofsurvival and well-being of humanbeings and respect for human dignityand humanity. Human rights are thoseminimal rights, which every individualmust enjoy by virtue of being a memberof the human society irrespective of anyother consideration. Conceptually,the term ‘Human Rights’ has two

meanings. First, human rights are thoseinherent and inalienable rights, whichare due to a person simply because ofbeing human. These are moral rightswhich are derived from humanness ofevery human being and they aim atensuring their dignity. Second, humanrights are those rights that pertain tolegal rights. Legal rights are establishedaccording to the law making processesof societies, both national andinternational. In the modern worldscenario both the moral and the legalaspects of rights relating to life, liberty,equality and dignity of the individualrepresent the core of Human Rights.

Human Rights, common to allwithout discrimination, has foundpropagation in almost all societies. Theprinciple of equality of the human racecan be found in virtually every culture,civilisation, religion and philosophicaltradition. Yet, there has always beensome justification offered by states andsocieties for violation of human dignityand discrimination between the rightsof the people on various grounds. Theconflict between the concept of havingrights from nature, and the statedenying it led to the theory of legalrights. This means rights, to be secure,must be recognised by the state andguaranteed preferably through theConstitution. It is a matter of concern,that despite legal rights, variousregimes have continued suppressingand coercing their citizens, by denyingthem the proclaimed equality anddignified human life. As such, there hadbeen a growing belief that governmentsalone cannot be trusted to safeguard



the rights of people. It was felt that theserights require both national andinternational guarantee. The majorpressure for the internationalisation ofhuman rights gained momentum afterthe Second World War. During andpreceding the War, totalitarian regimesgrossly violated human rights in theirown territories as well as in theiroccupied territories. These totalitarianregimes were also responsible for theelimination of entire groups of peoplebecause of their race, religion ornationality. The experience of the Warresulted in a widespread conviction thateffective international protection ofhuman rights was an urgent need of thetime to secure international peace andprogress. This conviction wassubsequently reflected in and reinforcedby the Charter of the United Nations.

THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF

HUMAN RIGHTS

The United Nations Charter reaffirmsfaith in fundamental human rights, inthe dignity and worth of human beings,in the equal rights of men and womenand of nations large and small. TheCharter makes repeated references tohuman rights and fundamentalfreedoms. Article 1 of the Charter statesthat one of the aims of the UnitedNations is to achieve international co-operation in promoting andencouraging respect for human rightsand fundamental freedoms for allwithout any distinction relating to race,sex, language or religion.

To define the contents of Human Rights,the UN in 1945 itself, created a UnitedNational Commission on HumanRights. Its main task was to draw anInternational Bill of Human Rights,defining the rights and freedomsreferred to in the Charter. TheCommission came out with a UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights. On 10December 1948 the General Assemblyof the United Nations unanimouslyadopted the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights as a common standardof achievement for all peoples and allnations. It is because of this adoptionthat 10 December is celebrated asHuman Rights Day. Article 1 of theUniversal Declaration lays down thephilosophy of Human Rights. It states,“All human beings are born free andequal in dignity and rights. They areendowed with reason and conscienceand should act towards one another ina spirit of brotherhood.” The article thusdefines the basic assumption as:(1) That the right to liberty and

equality is man’s birthright andcannot be alienated; and

(2) That because man is a rationaland moral being, is different fromother creatures on earth and,therefore, entitled to certain rightsand freedoms which othercreatures do not enjoy.

The Universal Declaration of HumanRights comprising a Preamble and 30Articles defines certain rights whichshould be available to all without anydistinction of race, religion, nation,gender, and colour.


33HUMAN RIGHTS

These Human Rights may beclassified into three categories. The firstgeneration rights are those that areconcerned mainly with the civil andpolitical rights of the individual. Theyinclude the rights to life, liberty,security of person, freedom from tortureand slavery, and political participation.Besides, the right to property, marriageand the fundamental freedomsof opinion, expression, thought,conscience and religion, freedom ofassociation and assembly do also forma part and parcel of the basic rights ofthe first generation. The secondgeneration rights are rights which canbe termed as ‘security-oriented’ rights;these rights provide social, economicand cultural security. These rights-social, economic and cultural are morepositive in nature in that they make itthe duty of the state to ensure that theserights are realised. The UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights reflectsthe consensus on the principles whichform the basis of the first and secondgeneration rights.

The third generation of humanrights are of relatively recent origin.They have evolved in response tovarious new concerns over whichinternational consensus has emergedin recent years. These includeenvironmental, cultural anddevelopmental rights. They areconcerned with rights of groups andpeoples rather than of individuals andinclude such rights as the right to self-determination and the right todevelopment. The developing countries

have played a leading role in bringingabout international consensus onthese rights.

Since the adoption of the UniversalDeclaration, there have been manycontroversies regarding the questionwhich rights are more important andwhich are less. The representatives ofsome states had been asserting that civiland political rights are more importantthan economic, social and culturalrights. They also had seriousreservations about acknowledging theright to development which, if effectivelyimplemented, would affect the existingpattern of economic and political powerin the world. Other countries stressedthe importance of economic, social andcultural rights and the right todevelopment. These controversies, inprinciple, can be said to have beenresolved when all human rights wererecognised to be indivisible. TheVienna Declaration, issued after aconference in which representatives of171 countries and hundreds ofnon- governmental organisationsparticipated, unambiguously affirmedthat “All human rights are universal,indivisible, interdependent andinterrelated”. It has also been affirmedthat democracy is the sole guarantor ofindividual rights — civil, political,economic, social and cultural andcollective rights within states and withinthe community of states.

The Universal Declaration, togetherwith the Charter, served as aninspiration and means for the millionsof people, particularly the oppressed



and under the colonial rule. TheDeclaration, however, was not a legallybinding document. To give legalsanction to human rights the GeneralAssembly on 16 December 1966adopted two Covenants: theInternational Covenant on Economic,Social and Cultural Rights, and theInternational Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights. The Covenants arelegally binding treaties. Any state mayor may not become party to these. Uponagreeing to become parties to theCovenants, states accept procedures forthe implementation of articles, includingthe submission of reports on theircompliance, in accordance with theprovisions of the Covenants. Apart fromUniversal Declaration on Human Rightsand two Covenants there are also a largenumber of other declarations,recommendations and conventionsadopted by the General Assembly. Ashas already been mentioned,declarations and recommendationsusually apply to all the members of theUnited Nations but do not have the samelegal force as the conventions, which arebinding upon the states that havebecome parties to them.

Importance of Declaration, however,is that it states a commonunderstanding of all members of thehuman family and constitutes anobligation for the members of theinternational community, This alsoplaces human rights in a system ofinternational cooperation. This impliesthat national borders put no limit tohuman rights; that by their very nature,human rights represent trans-

boundary values. Also internationalcooperation entails an obligation on thepart of states to fulfil in good faith theundertakings they have assumed on thebasis of the Charter of the United Nationsand Universal Declaration of HumanRights. It is in this context that in thepresent world Human Rights havebecome an important internationalissue. Their violation is considered notjust an internal matter of a state, but itconcerns the entire internationalcommunity. There is also a view thatsome big powers are misusing thisconcept of international concern and areinterfering in the affairs of other countriesin the name of protection of humanrights; this they are doing primarily tofulfil their own vested national interests.Therefore, Human Rights issue hasbecome a subject of serious debate.

Many countries are signatories to theCovenants and Conventions on humanrights, which denotes that they haveundertaken a pledge to implementthem. Therefore, it is responsibility of thegovernments to protect and promote allthese rights. However, it is necessary toremember the distinction betweenhuman rights as articulated ininternational declarations andconventions, and those rights which arelaid down by the law of the country. Thelatter can be enforced, if necessary,through the intervention of the courts.The record of the past half a century,since the adoption of the UN Charter, inthe implementation of human rights hasbeen dismal. Despite the fact that thenecessity of building an understandingand concern for making human rightsa reality had never been greater.


35

EXERCISES

1. Define Human Rights.2. Explain the meaning of ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’.3. Describe the significance of Human Rights.4. Which circumstances led to the Declaration of Human Rights?5. When is Human Rights Day celebrated and Why?

HUMAN RIGHTS

Most of the important democraticsystems, including India, haverealised the importance of humanrights for its people and have eitherincorporated them in theirconstitutions, or have accepted themthrough Declarations.

India has played a predominantrole in this respect. The framers of theIndian Constitution adhered to theprinciple of human equality anddignity and made the FundamentalRights (Part III of the Constitution)justiciable.



Dharma

CHAPTER 6

DHARMA is primarily an Indianconcept. Its root goes far back into

the Ancient Indian philosophy andthought. Our ancient seers realised itsimportance and emphasised thathuman life should be governed by theprecepts of Dharma.

WHAT IS DHARMA?

But, then a question arises. What isDharma and what are its basicelements?

The word ‘Dharma’ is derived fromthe Sanskrit word-root ‘dhr’ that means‘to adopt’, ‘to support’ or ‘to sustain’.In simple language it means “theprinciples of right”. It refers to the moralconcerns of human beings. In commonparlance, it is often associated withreligion or spirituality. But Dharma isnot spirituality alone. To stick towhatever course of duties we havedecided to follow in life is dharma. Itcannot be identified with any particularreligion. The Dharmasatras have giventhe definition of ‘Dharma’ on the basisof the Vedic tradition. According to thistradition, the ‘Dharma’ of each personis determined by the position oneoccupies in the societal system of

‘varnas’ and ‘asramas’. According toMimamsakas, ‘Dharma’ is accepted asa set of prescriptions and prohibitions.The Buddhist literature highlights it asthe basic feature of conscience.

THE CONCEPT OF DHARMA IN

ANCIENT INDIAN LITERATURE

The concept of ‘Dharma’ is widelydiscussed in the ‘Santi’ and ‘Anusan’Parvas of the Mahabharata. The viewpropounded here is a combinationof theoretical and practicalconsiderations. The basic view of‘Dharma’ is that it subscribes to amoral action. The concept lays stressupon the individual’s nature andtemperament. ‘Dharma ’ for oneconsists in the realisation of one’spotential in the context of the place oneoccupies in society. A person issupposed to take responsibility forones motives and intentions. It isassumed that one cannot be heldaccountable for the consequences ofone’s actions. But since man has soul,and ability to understand hisenvironment, and relate himself to it,his motives and intentions are crucialto moral life.


37DHARMA

In Gita, while exhorting Arjuna toact according to his ‘Dharma’, Krishnaasks him to conquer his passion andimpulses as determined by his natureand temperament, and follow his duty(swadharma) in a spirit of equanimity.Man does not know the working of ‘fate’.He cannot also ensure that the resultsof his actions will be good always. Buthe is totally autonomous insofar as hismotives and reasoning are concerned.This autonomy imposes on him anobligation to work for society. The textenjoins the central meaning of theconcept of Dharma in terms of duty towork for others. The totality of theconcept is embodied in Krishna’s ideaof ‘nishkama karma’.

How then we decide the right courseof action. It is suggested that first followthe customs of morality as embodiedin the Vedas, Smriti and othertraditional sources of moral life.Dharma covers a wide range ofmeaning. The Manu Samhita discussesvarious characteristics of ‘dharma’. Inusage, the term ‘dharma’ refers not onlyto qualities and natural characteristicsof things; it also refers to the highestvirtue and spiritual efforts. It also talksabout what one should or should notdo. Secondly, ‘dharma’ not only refersto civil, religious and spiritual matters,it also talks about general behaviour ofindividuals, as personal habits likecleanliness, sanitation and civicconsciousness, good behaviour,courteous and polite ways of conduct,and even subjects of common sense.Thirdly, ‘dharma’ can be understoodin different ways to different classes in

society and at different stages of life andstatus. It could be different for men andwomen. It is indeed a network ofdiversified but interrelated duties. Ithas to be defined in each case by theindividual himself. Fourthly, whilereferring to the areas and operations of‘Dharma’ as ordained in the Vedas andSmritis concerning four classes(chaturvarna), the law-giver Manu andother exponents of Hindu philosophyhave given a leading place to theaccepted conducts which were handeddown from generations to generationsby the well-meaning persons of thecommunity. An administrator has tosee that local customs are honourablymaintained and given propersafeguards. Fifthly, we should not onlytalk about ‘Dharma’ in the context ofclass or status and situation, we shouldalso understand and implement it inthe context of time and age. Lastly, themost important aspect of ‘Dharma’ isthe inclusion of the spiritual purposeof life within its ambit. Every creationhas a spiritual beginning as well as end.The ‘Dharma’ is related to four ends oflife. These are: ‘Dharma’, ‘arth’, ‘kama’and ‘moksha ’. Dharma is thecontrolling factor, ‘arth’ and ‘kama’ aresubservient to it and yet, it cannot bedivorced from pleasure or prosperity.‘Dharma ’ is superior because itregulates all our activities in the interestof all. It is a positive concept; it is anenunciation of the highest possibleideal; it pertains to self-realisation andsoul-emancipation.

Whenever there is a contradiction ofdifferent principles, the basic principle



has to be welfare of all (upkar). Thewelfare of the larger group must takeprecedence over the welfare of a smallergroup. The good of the society is to bepreferred to the good of the individual.The Mahabharata goes on to say thatwhile an individual can be sacrificed forthe sake of the village, village for thesake of the state, the whole world maybe abandoned for the sake of the soul.In the ultimate analysis, except twovirtues, truth (satya) and non-violence(ahimsa), the practice of all othervirtues is dependent on a complex setof circumstances which includesindividual nature and temperament aswell as the status which one occupiesin the society. Indeed, the oral life isnot made up of a straight timber.Krishna lays down two generalprinciples in case of doubt. First, onemust strive to follow the example ofgreat men in similar situations in thepast. Second, one must subordinatepersonal interest to the welfare ofsociety (loksamgraha). While Manusummed up the concept of dharma inone word ‘upkar’.

DHARMA, STATE, LAW AND

SOCIETY

The above description of Dharmamakes it amply clear that although theconcept of Dharma is not directlyrelated to either law or to the state, yetit has its influence on both.

You have already learnt about‘secular state’ in your earlier class. Bysecular state we mean that the state hasno religion of its own. It gives protection

to all its citizens irrespective of theirreligion, caste or creed. The IndianConstitution, as you know, is emphaticon this point. The right to religiousfreedom and equality before law areincluded in the chapter onFundamental Rights.

However, one thing is of paramountimportance to know that behind asecular state, there must be a secularsociety to sustain it. This means thatthe members of the society should notonly refrain from hurting thesentiments of fellow members of theirreligions, but also should respect theirfeelings. Secularism is, thus a positiveconcept. India has a long tradition oftolerance and living in harmony withtheir fellow-members.

Against the above backdropdharma cannot exactly be translated asthe English word ‘religion’. In our ancienttradition and culture Dharma, being acomposite word, meant four thingstogether. It meant (1) righteousness,(2) duty, (3) lawfulness, and (4) rightfulclaims.

In the Western tradition the essenceof Dharma is captured by the motto ‘Mystation and its duties’. It means thatevery one should discharge thefunctions of his station dutifully. InIndian tradition this is the philosophyof four classes (chaturvarna). For Plato,justice in an ideal state means ‘divisionof labour’ and ‘specialisation offunctions’ among the three classes ofsociety. To him, an ideal state/societyis comprised of three classes not on thebasis of birth, but on the basis ofinherent qualities of individuals. These


39

EXERCISES

1. Explain the importance of Dharma in our social, political and civic life.2. Explain the ancient Indian concept of Dharma.3. Do you agree with the statement that the concept of Dharma is vague and

idealistic? Explain with illustrations.4. Explain Dharma as highest ethical, social and civic virtues.5. Write short notes on :

(i) Secularism;(ii) ‘My station and its duties;(iii) Chaturvarna.

6. “Swadharma and Students”, write an essay.

DHARMA

qualities are desire, valour (bravery),and reason. Those in whom desirepredominates they produce things forthe entire community; in whom valourpredominates, they protect the state/society, and in whom reasonpredominates they become thePhilosopher-Rulers or Philosopher-King. Thus, justice is to perform theduty of one’s class faithfully withoutinterfering in the functions of otherclasses, and to specialise in the functionof his class (station).

Gandhi identified it withcompassion for fellow human beingsin distress. (You will study Gandhianviews in one of the last chapters.) Theconcept of Dharma, however, is vague.For example, a liberal might think thatright to property is necessary. Acommunist might argue against this.The principle of ahimsa is valuable. Noone would dispute the importance ofthe adage “ahimsa paramo Dharma”but in actual practice it is admitted

that there is always a choice betweenthe more or the less. The sageMarkandeya thus declared that “theways of the righteous are subtle,diverse and infinite”. When life orproperty or the moral principlesthemselves are at stake, one maydeviate from the basic position.However, in most cases the ground onwhich deviation is permitted is thewelfare of all.

The concept of Dharma, thus, is toowide, and it is too idealistic. Despite itsidealism, it is valuable in so far as itemphasises the need for a moral order,which applies both to the states and tothe individuals. Just as individuals arebound by moral rules, the states toomust conform to moral principles.Some ancient texts point out that a kingwho discards dharma loses bothrighteousness and merit. To sum up,the philosophy of dharma affirms lifeand enjoins us to look at it in terms ofall its complexities.


UNIT II

STATE AND THE CITIZEN


Rights and Duties:Meaning and Relationship

CHAPTER 7

WHAT ARE RIGHTS?

THE Rights of the citizens arenecessary for the creation of a better

life for them. They provide externalconditions necessary for thedevelopment of individual personality.The state exists for the enrichment ofhuman personality. It is not an allembracing Leviathan, but just anecessary contrivance for humandevelopment. Some normativephilosophers would assert that if it isto be a state in the real sense of the term,it must grant certain minimum rights.Indeed, rights are in the nature ofclaims. But all claims are not rightsbecause rights are only those claims,which are recognised as such by societyand enforced by the state. Without sucha recognition rights are empty claims.Society is organic in character and anindividual obviously cannot have anyright apart from what the societyconcedes. An individual can realise theaims of his existence only through themedium of society of which he is anintegral part. A selfish claim cannot,

therefore, be considered a right. To bea right, it must aim at the good ofsociety, and it must be recognised assuch by the general opinion of thesociety. If rights were not dependent onrecognition by society, one would beclaiming anything, depending uponone’s convenience. In the midst ofconflicting claims, it would be difficultto determine their relative validity.Obviously, society alone, subject tocertain limitations, is competent topronounce upon their relative validity.Sometimes society may make mistakesbut its overall wisdom has to be trustedin cases of the conflict of rights.Therefore, in any state, the content ofrights has to be determined accordingto the general opinion or consensus ofthe society; We might try to change themfrom time to time in order to make themmore humane, but ultimately it is thesociety which determines the characterand the content or our right.

However, recognition by society isto be distinguished from recognition bythe state. Rights are not alwayscreatures of law as Hobbes and



Bentham believed. Since rights are theconditions necessary for thedevelopment of individual personality,these are those principles from whichthe state laws derive their own validity.A state is to be judged by the conditionsit is able to create for its citizens for theirdevelopment; and those conditions arecalled Rights. A purely legalistic theoryof rights, making it ‘creature’ of the willof the state, as Laski points out, hasnothing to contribute to thedevelopment of political philosophy. Hesays: “It merely tells us what in fact thecharacter of the state is. It will not tellus whether rights recognised needrecognition”. Rights are those claimswithout which the individual cannotrealise the purpose of his existence.Since the state exists to secure humanhappiness, it can only succeed byrecognising and granting to its citizenssuch rights as are demanded by themas necessary to their development.

Sometimes there might be a conflictbetween the rights recognised by thestate and the rights approved bysociety. A state might try to protectcertain privileges, as the ancient regime,for instance, did in France before 1789,which ultimately kindled the flames ofthe French Revolution. In thosecircumstances the advocates of theideal rights would try to subvert thefoundations of the state in order toreplace it by a new one, which wouldrecognise the ideal claims of individuals,as embodied in the social will.

Locke had advocated the theory ofnatural rights, which people enjoyed inthe state of nature. In the state of nature,

before the emergence of civil society, thelaw of nature, it is claimed, establisheda system of reciprocal claims andobligations in the form of natural rightsand duties. The state of nature wasconceived by him to be a vast networkof reciprocal claims and duties. Therights which man enjoyed in the stateof nature, according to Locke, wererights permanent and indefeasible; themost important rights being the rightto life, liberty and property. But Lockeas well as Hobbes never succeeded indelineating precisely the contents ofwhat is ‘nature’. Sometimes the wordnatural is identified in their theory withwhat is inherent in the spontaneoussearch of man for security or sheeracquisitiveness, or even, for means tosatisfy his aggressive instinct.Sometimes, it is identified withsomething which perfect reason wouldprompt us to do. Indeed, the doctrineof natural rights as rights enjoyed bymen in the childhood of the human raceis a myth. It is based on the falseassumption that we can have rights andduties independently of society. Burkevery eloquently pointed out that wecouldn’t enjoy the rights of civil anduncivil state at the same time. The moreperfect the natural rights are in theabstract, the more difficult it is torecognise them in practice.

The rights are the products of socialcircumstances. They cannot beindependent of society. Even if they arenatural they are natural in the sensethat they represent the ends we oughtto pursue. They are natural in the sensethat they are the conditions which


45RIGHTS AND DUTIES : MEANING AND RELATIONSHIP

human beings need to realisethemselves. On the one hand, they areclaims of the individual without whichone cannot realise one’s personality;and on the other hand, they areconcessions granted by the society toenable human beings to realise theirclaims. It is the society, whichrecognises and gives validity to ourclaims. Rights have a relevance andvalue when they contribute at the sametime to the attainment of social good.These are the media through which anindividual can promote the good ofsociety as his own good. Rights are theconditions of our capacity to participatein the social good. On the other hand,the society can develop only on therecognition by its members of the claimsof each other as contributory to thegood of society. Such mutualrecognition is the foundation of rights.

Thus, rights are the conditions ofthe welfare of an individual as a memberof the society. These are thoseconditions of social life without whichno one can seek the identity of one’sown interest with the interest of society.The state only enforces these conditions.It is the purpose of the state to createconditions for the general happiness ofthe individuals and, therefore, if a statefails to maintain rights in the sense ofconditions necessary for individual’sdevelopment, it forfeits its claims to ourallegiance. No doubt, it is difficult todefine ‘common good’. It might inpractice mean either the greatest goodof the greatest number, or of majorityinterest, or what government thinks tobe the common good of society.

However, which claim is to be recognisedas a right is a practical problem. Thecontents of rights are very largelydependent upon the customs and ethosof society at a particular time and place.No list of absolute rights, which areuniversally applicable, can beformulated. Any such attempt wouldbe tantamount to raising the values ofone’s own age to the level of absolutetruth. Such a hypothetical concept ofrights has very little relevance for atheory seeking to lay down generalprinciples. All attempts to frame a listof ideal rights in the past have beenguilty of what is known in technicallanguage as “the reification ofconception”, namely of raising one’sparticular values to the level of generalor universal values. Whether it was anattempt of Locke or of Thomas Paine,each was installing his own preferencesas absolute principles. Every age andevery society needs to define afresh foritself as to what particular rights it isgoing to have, in order that they mightbe made secure and put beyond thepale of doubt. Locke considered rightto property as natural. We no longer doso because circumstances havechanged.

Thus, it must be clearly recognisedthat rights are not absolute in character.The welfare of the individuals asmembers of society lies in a happycompromise between their rights asindividuals and the interest of societyto which they belong. A list of rightsmust acknowledge the fact that therecannot be such a thing as absolute oruncontrolled rights, for that would lead



to anarchy and chaos in society. Myright is limited by rights of my fellowhuman beings. Rights have to be limitedby the social control in order to beeffectively possessed. In USA , there wasno limitation imposed upon any of thefundamental rights added to theConstitution by the first-tenamendments of the Constitution. Butthe inefficacy of this arrangement inmaintaining public order or for theprevention of corruption and ofincitement to crime was soon realised.The Supreme Court of the USA whichis charged with the responsibility tointerpret the Constitution, had soon toinvent the ‘doctrine of implied power’under which the inherent power of thestate as a co-ordinating agencyimposing restrictions (on thefundamental rights) necessary toprotect the common good wasrecognised. Our Constitution, too,recognises limitations on rights.

KINDS OF RIGHTS

Coming to the particular rights whichare necessary for our own age, the firstright, a citizen needs is the right topersonal liberty as embodied in thenotion of rule of law. Our Constitutionassumes that no one should bedeprived of his “personal liberty exceptaccording to the procedure establishedby law”. The right to personal libertydoes not mean absolute freedom to doanything. A criminal who is alwaysobsessed by anti-social impulsescannot claim the right to personalliberty. The right to personal liberty

means that we should be punished onlyfor a breach of a definite law and onlyin a definite manner after a fair trial.

The detention of persons without afair trial, in civilised societies, is the verynegation of the rights of individuals. Inthis context, the preventive detention inour Constitution is one such provision.However, in times of grave nationalemergencies or wars, the case isdifferent. No state can allow its securityto be threatened.

The second important right is theright to equality. Equality has beenused here in two senses, viz. (1) equalityof opportunity, and (2) equality beforelaw and equal protection of laws. Rightto equality does not mean, as we havealready seen earlier, perfect equality.Perfect equality is not only impracticalbut is also not desirable. Equality is onlya system of proportions. It means thatevery one in society would have at leastthe minimum necessities for anhonourable existence before some onecan have superfluous wealth. Everystate must seek to assure this basicminimum to all its citizens irrespectiveof the class or status. To be citizens inany real sense of the term, we must befree from fear of starvation orunemployment.

Equality before law means theabsence of special privileges, and equalsubjugation of all classes, viz., weak aswell as strong, according to theprocedure established by law andadministered by the ordinary courts ofthe land. Equality before law meansequality of treatment in equalcircumstances. It means like should be



treated alike. However, the state canmake some classifications; the exampleis laws relating to reservations for theScheduled Castes and Tribes. Suchclassifications must be reasonable andought to be justified on no other groundbut that it would lead to the publicgood. If a law deals with the membersof only one well-defined class for thesake of the common good, it issupported to be upholding theprinciple of equality.

Third important right, whichmust be guaranteed to the citizens, isthe right to freedom of speech andexpression. This would enable peopleto ventilate their grievances andorganise public opinion on issues ofpublic concern. Conversely, it wouldalso enable the rulers to know the mindof the people. John Stuart Mill gave theclassic argument in ‘favour of thefreedom of speech and expressionwhen he asserted that even the wholemankind has no right to silence a singledissenter, for who knows that he mightbe in the right and all others in thewrong. Human history is replete withsuch examples when a single dissenterwas ultimately proved to be in the rightand others in the wrong. The cases ofSocrates, Christ and Galileo wouldforever remain reminders to us that therestrictions on our freedom of speechand expression, on the ground that itmight lead to blasphemy, or provecontrary to the well-being of society, canbe negation of individual’s freedom.

Some thinkers opine that freedomof speech and expression could not bedenied even during a war. An executive

which has a free hand in muzzling thefreedom of speech in times of war orgrave national emergencies is moreoften than not, likely to abuse hispowers. Germany and Italy before theSecond World War encountered suchexperiences and were destroyed in theprocess. However, there are limitationsto the extent to which a governmentwould allow this right to be exercisedin actual practice. No governmentwould allow a part of its population tocarry out subversive propaganda. Itcould not obviously allow anybody togo and tell the army not to fight whilethe war is on. If it does so, it would ceaseto be a government. Similarly, anattempt to plead for a civil war or thedisintegration of the country cannot betolerated by any government. The firstduty of the state is to ensure its ownintegrity. If it does not survive, how willthe right to freedom of speech andexpression survive? Moreover, freedomof speech and expression does not meanright to make libellous charges or toexcite the public to commit crime. If theright is thus abused, everyone affectedhas a right to have a suitable remedy.

Fourth important right is the rightto work and be paid adequate wages.Citizens have a right to employment andit is the responsibility of the state toprovide suitable work to them. Theright to work does not mean the rightto do a particular work. It only meanssome gainful work in society by whichone can sustain and nurture ones ownself and dependants. It is, therefore, saidthat the state must pay compensationif a person is unemployed during a



certain period of time depending uponthe ability of the person concerned. Theright to be paid adequate wages is anecessary corollary of the right to work.This right, however, does not implyequality of income. It only meansconformity to the general principles ofequality. The right to work is a claimon the part of the individuals to occupya definite place in society and performits attendant duties.

Fifth important right of the citizenis the right to health care. It does notmean that a state can make us free fromdisease. Such a freedom will ultimatelydepend on our own care of our health.If a man struck with paralysis refusesto take advantages of the facilitiesprovided by the state, the state is notheld responsible for his health care. Theright to health means that anybody whois interested in keeping fit, as most ofus are, shall not be hampered for wantof proper facilities. This means that it isthe responsibility of the state to ensurethat adequate medical treatment isavailable to all. A state can do so byensuring that the poor patients are notneglected or inefficiently treated.Moreover, the state ought to provideproper safeguards against the spreadof contagious disease. This could bedone state through the schemes ofvaccination, inoculation, etc.

Right to education is anotherimportant right for humandevelopment. Citizens must beprovided with proper means by whichthey can follow public debates withinterest and participate intelligently inthe social, political and culturalprocesses of then country. But again,

the right to education does not meanequal education for all. Obviouslypeople differ in their capacities andaptitudes and, therefore, all of them arenot equally fit to get the same type ofeducation. The right to education alsodoes not mean that everyone in societyshould be able to get universityeducation unless he is fit to do so. Toteach the unfit and reluctant membersof society would be a waste of humanresources. What is necessary is thateveryone in society should have, acertain minimum of education which isnecessary for him to be a citizen in ameaningful sense and be able toperform necessary functions in society.

Among other rights, which needenumeration, are the right toparticipate in the affairs of the state,including the right to vote and theright to contest elections, and toform associations and to haveadequate hours of rest and leisure.All these rights are necessary tomake the state a real politicalcommunity. They are necessary tomake us active citizens. However, theextent to which these rights arerecognised will vary with the nature ofthe state. In fact, the state often adjuststhe various rights in terms of theirpriority according to nature and theproblems of the society in which it hasto operate. In a society in which povertyis writ large, economic rights will getprecedence over political rights; and ina economically developed society a needwould be felt for a greater stress onpolitical rights. The mounting pressurefor liberalisation of political life in some



of the economically developedcommunist countries such as the eastUSSR is an eloquent testimony to thefact that no society can permanentlyremain without recognising some of thepolitical rights in order to have a soundsocial organisation.

Indeed what is important is not theform of the Government but its spiritand its achievements, the extent ofhappiness which a particulargovernment is able to infuse into the lifeof its citizens and the confidence, whichit is able to generate in its purposes.People may have a right to vote and yetthe state can be the most ill-governed.If a particular state gives to its citizensat least the rights, which have beendescribed above, and implements themsincerely, all other rights willautomatically follow.

So long as state is able to make itspeople happy, it does not matter muchwhether its citizens formally enjoyrights or not in the form of a bill of rights.There are so many instances of peoplehaving been guaranteed rights in theconstitution of their country in the formof a bill of rights and yet, those rightsremained unfulfilled in practice.Embodiment in the constitution mightgive rights greater sanctity but wouldnot ensure their realisation. Hitler andMussolini became dictators in theirrespective countries inspite ofdemocratic constitutions that theircountries had. The pre- condition for thetrue realisation of rights is enlightenedpublic opinion and educated people.

Here comes the question of politicalobligation. Should the people obey even

an unlawful authority? In fact, it is totackle autocratic and dictatorialpower that the right to disobey anunlawful authority is sometimesregarded as the most fundamentaland inherent right of the people.This right cannot be taken away evenby the best of the governments. Itconstitutes the ultimate safeguard inthe hands of the people. The welfare ofa state is ultimately built upon thewelfare of society and its members. Theinterests of the two are inseparablyconnected with each other. Our dutyto the state is after all a duty to thestate, which is able to maintain andprotect our lives and ensurereasonable conditions of ourdevelopment. Locke argued that thestate is a trust and, therefore, itspurpose is to ensure safeguard and ofthe life, liberty and property of thepeople. If it fails to perform thosefunctions for which the power has beengranted to it or fails to attain thoseends, which are necessary for therealisation of general happiness, itforfeits its claim to general obedience.In such circumstances, it may becomean obligation for the citizens to resistthe authority of the state in order tochange and replace it by a better typeof government. No state can be sure ofa healthy continuance unless this rightis recognised by all its members asa sacred right. Undoubtedly, thereare risks involved in recognisingsuch a right to the society and inorder that these risks are avoidedand mitigated as far as possible, it isup to the state to take necessaryprecautions against it.



RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RIGHTS

AND DUTIES

It must be emphasised, however, thatrights have corresponding duties aswell as obligations. The two arecorrelated. Rights and duties ofcitizens are two sides of the same coin.The relationship between them is twofold. Firstly, society functions on theprinciples of reciprocity. My rightsinvolve a duty, on the part of othersto respect my rights and also a dutyon my part to respect the similar rightsof others. Society works on theprinciple of, “he who takes gives andhe who gives takes”. Indeed, my rightis a part and parcel of the good ofother members of society and,therefore, the degree of my enjoymentof a particular right has to beconceived in terms of the similarclaims of other citizens. My right isintegrally related to the rights of myfellow human beings. The one cannotexist without the other. A society inwhich people care less for their ownduties and more for their rights,sooner or later, disintegrates. In theirfrantic effort for the vindication of theirown rights at the expense of fellowhuman beings, society will be reducedto the status of a jungle in whichultimately the law of might willprevail. In order that everyone enjoyshis or her rights it is necessary thatwe recognise our obligations towardsothers. We cannot say that we shallbe free while others will be bound withtheir obligations. Such a position isquite untenable and inhuman.

Secondly, the logic of rights andduties also implies that if we havecertain claims against the state, it is alsoour responsibility to contributesomething towards its enrichment bydoing a socially useful work. The statecreates those conditions in which wecan realise ourselves. In return for this,it is our duty to take advantage of theseconditions and give our best to it. Thebest way in which we can contribute tothe social stock is by following dutiestowards our nation, in recognisingour social responsibilities andunscrupulously respecting the similarrights of others. One does notcontribute only by being a son of aprime minister or a poet but by beingoneself. I may not succeed in my life,but if I have given sufficient indicationsof sincere efforts to make suchcontribution, as I am capable of, my jobis done. It is a duty of every one of usthat we must develop our personalityso as to be able to contribute our bestto society. A citizen should makeavailable valuable judgement on thevarious issues confronting it. One mustpay one’s taxes to the state and mustrefrain from interfering with’ the similarrights of other members of society. Solong as the state helps in fostering aclimate conducive to happiness of theindividuals, the citizens must also helpit in maintaining law and order andmust honestly perform their publicduties. They should leave no stoneunturned for strengthening their owncountry and if need arises must beprepared to defend it at any cost. Theseobligations by being reciprocal in


51

EXERCISES

1. What are Rights? Distinguish between Rights and Claims.2. Why are Rights necessary for the betterment of individuals?3. Are rights absolute? Give reasons in support of your answer.4. Explain the role of Education in the development of human personality.5. Under what circumstances can a citizen disobey the state?6. Write short notes:

(i) Right to equality;(ii) Freedom of speech and expression;(iii) Right to work.

RIGHTS AND DUTIES : MEANING AND RELATIONSHIP

character do not impose restrictions onthe rights of individuals; rather, theygive them fuller and greater reality. Tothink that my rights can be separatedfrom my duties is to be guilty of grossselfishness. It is only by performing auseful function in society that wecontribute towards its enrichment. Astate in which citizens care more abouttheir rights, and less about their dutiesremains in a precarious situation. Itwould lead first to anarchy and then toits disintegration. In order to preservemy right it is necessary that I must

convince my fellow human beings thatin granting such a right they would beenabling me to participate in the goodof society. I must show, that so far asthe society does not secure me thisright, it derogates me from the statusof a human being and my capacity tomake my contribution to social welfare.It is only in the apprehension of thisequation between individual’s functionsand social well-being by the membersof society that a true theory of rightscan be constructed and society can bebuilt on stable foundations.



The Changing Nature of State Activity

CHAPTER 8

WHENEVER men come into contactwith other fellow-beings, some sort

of conflict is inevitable. In order that suchconflicts do not create chaos andconfusion in the society the need for aninstitution arises to ensure law and orderand maintain harmony of social relations.This institution is the State. We need astate to keep our anti-social impulses incheck and to reconcile the claims of oneanother in society so that there isharmony in social relationship. The statecomes into existence to create thoseexternal conditions, which are necessaryfor the development of individualpersonality. The role of the state is akinto stomach in a human body. It seeks tomaintain a semblance of authority. Itharmonises different and conflictinginterests. It ensures peaceful exchangeof goods and services.

The state creates laws and rules toregulate human behaviour. In case ofviolation of laws, it may coerce membersinto obedience. The claims of the stateare superior to the claims of any one elsein society. “The State”, wrote R.M McIver,“is an association which, acting throughlaw as promulgated by a governmentendowed to this end with coercivepower, maintains within a community

territorially demarcated the universalexternal conditions of social order”. Theprimary function of the state is to protectthe ‘rights’ of its citizens from internalthreat or disturbances and from outwarddanger like war, and to establish peace.It has also to work for the developmentof its members. It is because of thesefunctions that Aristotle in the Ancienttimes said ‘the state comes into existencefor the sake of life, and continues to existfor the sake of good life’.

CHANGING CONCEPT OF STATE

ACTIVITY

The 20th century saw profound socialchanges as a result of the developmentof science and technology. Thesechanges required new perspectives onnational sovereignty and in theapparatus of the state and governmentin the control of economic activity. Wehave to develop a new outlookincorporating both individual andcollective claims and adjust them to thechanging conditions of the modern world.The order of the state is not merely forthe sake of order. It is also, as Kautilyaput it, for protection, conservation,development and distribution. It protects


53THE CHANGING NATURE OF STATE ACTIVITY

citizens, conserves natural resources,takes steps to develop them anddistribute the national wealth sodeveloped among the citizens. Just asthe concept of ‘order’ widens intoprotection, protection in turn widens intodevelopment of what has been protectedand proper distribution of what has beendeveloped. In the nineteenth century themain function of the state wasunderstood to be providing stability andsecurity. It was also expected to providesupport to private enterprises at homeand abroad. The power of feudalism hadto be broken.

Today the function of the state israther different. It still includes law andorder and making of foreign policy; butmore than that, it includes managementand administration of vast services andindustries. This expansion in the role ofthe state is the result of the industrialrevolution, rise of the nation-state, andmass participation in policies. When thestate structure was not fully developed,people did not look to the state to createconditions necessary for development.But now people expect that the statewould alter inequalities arising out of thedistribution of land, wealth, income, raceand colour. The great IndustrialRevolution in England and the GreatDepression of 1929-1933 in Americaled to grave economic crises. In the firstcase there was concentration of wealthin a few hands. It led to impoverishmentof large mass of population which wasrequired to sell labour. In the secondcase, economic crises led to severeunemployment. Private parties andmeagre state and local programmes were

too inadequate to cope with the hugeproblem. The state had to undertakemassive relief work.

The essential functions of the statehave remained more or less the same. Butin different times, different activities havebeen emphasised. In the nineteenthcentury the state was looked uponprimarily as an organisation responsiblefor law and order. This was the period ofearly liberalism in which liberals pleadedfor the cause of free market andmaximisation of individual liberty. Theyconsidered the state as evil, yet the statewas necessary to hold the very basis ofcompetitive society. It was supposed tomaintain law and order. These liberalsstood for free market, free trade and non-interference of the state in economicaffairs. The primary role of the state wasto ensure that citizens, in their pursuit ofprivate goods and happiness, do notharm each other. This view is known aslaissez-faire. It means: (1) absence ofpaternal Government, and (2) freedomof trade and commerce.

WELFARE STATE

There is another view of the state activity;it does not agree with the laissez-faireview of limited State functions. Itconsiders state as an agency to transformsociety for the welfare of all. The state,according to this view, is a pro-activeagent to ensure the welfare of the people.John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946)pioneered the idea in the context of theevents during the World War-II. Theemphasis becomes more on state playingan active role in the field of public health



and alleviation of poverty. It is expectedto create basic facilities, which will enableevery one to have at least the minimumof education for effective participation inthe affairs of the state. Further, the statemust ensure right to work, the right tosecure income and the right to shelterto all its citizens. The state becomes aregulator, a promoter and a manager,all in one. It regulates private enterprisesto secure justice for all. It providessubsidies to agriculture and works forland reform. It manages industries bysetting up enterprises in public sectoror joint sector.

After independence, India worked onthese principles under our Five YearPlans. We make comprehensive effortsto reduce inequalities in society, createan atmosphere of security and serviceand provide a notional minimum to all.The slogans such as ‘garibi hatao’ and‘employment for all’ became common.The state made extra efforts to securesocial rights to weaker sections includingscheduled castes and scheduled tribes.In the beginning after Independence,Banks were nationalised and majorindustries were set up in the publicsector in the beginning afterindependence. The state becamethe biggest employer in the country.Private sector was subjected to massivestate regulations.

However, the experience of a statemanaged economy also started showinginadequacies. It led to bureaucratisationand red tapism. In India, for instance, itled to what is known as ‘licence—permitraj’. It stifled incentive, opportunity andresponsibility. Little was left for

encouragement of voluntary activities.It also increased expectation from thestate with the result that in the duecourse of time, it created enormouspressure on the state to perform. Every‘interest’ turned into a ‘vested interest’to reap maximum benefit from the state.In the initial years, the state had somecapacity to give concessions to differentsections. The leadership also enjoyedgreat prestige on account of theirparticipation in the freedom movement.But as older leadership began to vanishand the state’s capacity to cope withincreasing demands began to shrink,the political system began to show signsof crisis; private initiative was stifled andthe state machinery became corrupt.

Today, as per the third view of thenature of state activity the emphasis ison private production and social use.The idea is that the state should notmanage the economic activities itself; itshould act as a facilitator or regulatoronly. A new relationship is emergingbetween the state and corporations onthe one hand and the state and theagriculture on the other. It is beingincreasingly felt that more we allowprivate competition and initiative toflourish, the better will be the growth ofour economy. Competition will make theeconomic system more efficient andproductive. But the emphasis oncompetition is tied to the idea of the stateas regulator and facilitator. It is the dutyof the state to ensure that terms ofcompetition and socio-economicengagement are just and fair. JohnRawls particularly highlighted this viewin his book ‘A Theory of Justice’. One ofthe basic conditions of the success of this


55THE CHANGING NATURE OF STATE ACTIVITY

model is that state must ensure equalopportunities to all. The earlier systemtried to achieve this in the terms ofsubsidies and reservations, whichcreated a patron-client relationshipbetween the state, and others affectedby its decision (particularly the weakersection). The new model insists that thestate must make maximum investmentin education and health. These are basicrequirements without which therecannot be equality of opportunityessential for a fair justice in society. It isalso being felt that the state must ensurethat economic development does notplay havoc with our environment. In fact,it is the duty of the state to provide basicsafety net to all its citizens.

Against the above backdrop, a thirdview of state-activity has recently comeinto prominence. This view has grown asa result of globalisation on one hand andfrustration of workers with the welfareeconomy on the other. There is also amovement towards integration ofeconomy of developing countries with theworld economy. It is believed that marketeconomy can stimulate economic growthmuch better than what is possible undereither welfare or socialist model. It isargued that acceleration in the rate ofeconomic growth can reduce poverty bytrickle down effect. It would also lead tobetter political managements.

GLOBALISATION

As mentioned above, in recent yearsthere is going on a process of‘globalisation’; and this has affected thenature of state activity.

Globalisation often means differentthings to different people. To some itmeans a brave new world where there areno barriers. For others it implies a processof neo-colonialism in which ultimately theaffluent countries will dominate.

Both the views take extremepositions. Globalisation is a process inwhich effective integration of economiestakes place through exchange of ideas,information, technologies, goods andservices. It is a product of thetechnological revolution in recent yearsand implies faster movement of capital,goods and services as a result of increasein speed of communication. The essenceof globalisation is connectivity.Integration can have several dimensions— social, cultural, political and economic.

There are apprehensions aboutglobalisation. Most of the apprehensionsflow from the prospect of cultural andsocial integration endangering localcustoms and traditions. But in today’sworld there is no escape from it becausethe impact of economic integration ofcapital and finance, goods and servicesas a result of changes in technology, isall pervading.

Here it will not be out of place tomention that globalisation is not newfactor. It started much earlier. During1870 to 1940, there was rapid integrationof economics, in terms of trade. It was inthe inter-war period that tariff barrierswere created by states to protect localindustries. However, the pace oftechnology in recent years againaccelerated interaction between states. Infact, most economists are of the view thatinternational trade is in general beneficial


EXERCISES

1. “State is a necessary institution”. State three reasons in support of this statement.2. Explain the role of state according to Kautilya.3. State the causes for the changed role of state in the twentieth century.4. Mention the features of a Laissez-faire state.5. Write short notes on:

(i) Welfare State;(ii) ‘License-permit raj ’;(iii) Globalisation.

to all, including the developing countries.For instance, the inflow of foreign capitalhas made a significant impact on EastAsian Economies.

If developing countries really want toreap full benefit from the process ofglobalisation, the states in these countrieswill have to gear themselves up fordifferent roles. They will have to ensurethat their economies reach full potential.They are also required to regulate inflowor outflow of foreign exchange so thatsudden fluctuations do not create crisisin economy as it did in East AsianEconomies recently.

The process of globalisation hasgiven rise to the World TradeOrganisation (WTO) entrusted withtheresponsibility of evolving an appropriateframework of free and fair economictransactions. While the developedcountries have pleaded for free trade, theyhave not always been ‘fair’ in the sensethat their trade barriers remain higher onmany products. For instance, in some ofthe developed countries major foodproducts have tariff barriers exceeding100 per cent.

In any case, since globalisation islinked to changes in technology, it isinevitable. The developing states canderive maximum benefit only bynegotiating as hard as they can in thefields of environment, labour standardsand protection of indigenous knowledgeand products. They will have tostrengthen their patent regimes. Butmore than that the state will have toensure rapid economic development athome to be able to competeinternationally. For instance, while in thefield of information technology, transferof skill would mean migration ofinformation experts, India will have toensure that the advantage it hascontinues, and is not undermined.Globalisation also makes it incumbenton the state to provide safety to the poorand weaker sections of society byinvesting more in education, health andenvironment. This will surely strengthenequity at home and ability of the localindustry and production to competeabroad. Indeed, the states areincreasingly required to provide a humanface to the entire process of globalisation.


UNIT III

COMPARATIVE POLITICS


Approaches to the Study of Comparative Politics:Traditional and Modern

CHAPTER 9

WHAT IS POLITICS?

IN ancient Greece the unit ofadministration was ‘City-State’; and

it was known as ‘Polis’. The wordpolitics/political science emerged out ofthis meaning of the state (Polis). Thus,Politics/Political science is the study of,or knowledge of, the state (Polis). Thisnomenclature has since continued,although now we are living in muchbigger states having wide territorialboundaries and large population.

In a wider sense Politics, PoliticalScience, Political Theory and PoliticalPhilosophy—all conceived with theknowledge and study of the state—areused in synonymous terms. However, ifwe see minutely we will find some finedistinction between these terms. Politicsmay be used in a general sense. WhereasPolitical Theory is a set of generalisationson issues concerning state. Politicalphilosophy denotes reflections on thoseissues on the basis of ethics andmetaphysics. Again, whereas politicalphilosophy deals with what ought to beregarding matters relating to the state,political science deals with what isregarding those matters. Political science

is empirical; and empirical method isscientific.

COMPARATIVE POLITICS

Comparative Politics is an importantcomponent of contemporary PoliticalScience. It helps in the study of politicalissues in a scientific and systematicmanner. The scope and approaches tothe study of comparative politics aregetting widened day by day becauseof the new development in theinternational arena.

Comparative politics is mostlyconcerned with a comparative analysisof political institutions, politicalprocesses, ideological foundations,norms and societal frameworks ofdifferent political systems. There is adistinction between comparative politicsand comparative governments.Comparative government refers to thedeliberations on studies of different formsof state systems, their institutionalframework and functions, and theirconstitutional background andformulations. On the other hand,comparative politics is more concernedwith non-state institutions, political



processes and behaviour, societalstructures, norms and values. Thus, thescope and framework of comparativepolitics is wide and comprehensive innature.

Aristotle is acknowledged as thefather of Comparative Politics. He wasmore concerned with an historicalexamination of legal institutions of states.But, in his studies on governments, notmuch attention was given to the analysisof informal institutions of the politicalsystems such as tribes, communities,norms and behaviours of social groupsand interest agencies, and belief patternsof the ruling elites.

APPROACHES: ITS MEANING

In simple terms an approach may bedefined as a way of looking at and thenexplaining a particular phenomenon.The perspective may be broad enoughto cover a vast area like politics of anentire country or it may be very smallinvolving just an aspect of local, regional,national and international politics.

There are many approaches to thestudy of politics; and sometimes differentapproaches overlap each other. However,in a broad sense these can be classifiedunder two heads: Traditional andModern. Traditional approaches arespeculative and prescriptive in nature.In contrast modern approaches areempirical and scientific.

In short, traditional approachesinclude: (1) Philosophical, (2) Historical,(3) Legal, (4) Institutional.

Modern approaches include: (1)Behavioural approach, (2) Systemsapproaches with its offshoot in the form

of structural functional and input-output approaches.

TRADITIONAL APPROACHES

(a) Philosophical Approach orPhilosophical-Ethical Approach

This is the oldest approach to the studyof politics. The philosophical approachis normative in character. Here the studyof state, government and the people isinextricably linked with the pursuit ofcertain goals, morals, truths or highprinciples. Plato, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel,Leo Strauss, et al. pursue this approach.

The philosophical approach iscriticised for being too abstract; it takesus far away from the world of reality andis impracticable. However, it can beappreciated on the basis thatprotagonists of this approach put beforeus certain ‘goals’, which might beunattainable; but in trying to reachthose goals our present standards woulddefinitely improve, even though we maynot reach the ‘goal’.

(b) Historical Approach

The historical approach became popularin the last quarter of the 19th century.It is based on the idea that in order tohave proper understanding of politicalinstitutions and processes, it isnecessary to have a clear understandingof the historical background of thoseinstitutions. Its merit is that it seeks tounderstand the state and its institutionsin their process of change. But in itssearch of theories and general trends, itmisses the central role of individualsand institutions in the process,


61APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF COMPARATVE POLITICS: TRADITIONAL AND MODERN

and knowledge remains static andtradition bound.

However, the significance of thehistorical approach cannot be denied.It has its importance in studying therelevance of the origin and growth ofpolitical institutions. G.H.Sabine,McIlwain, A.J.Carlyle, Catlin, Dunningand others follow this approach.Historical approaches thus, becomesuseful in understanding the views ofgreat thinkers from Plato and Aristotlein ancient times to Lasswell, Rawls,Nozick and others in the present times.

(c) Legal approach or Legal-juridical approach

In this approach the study of politics islinked with the study of legal and juridicalaspects of the state. Here the theme of lawand justice is not treated merely as amatter of jurisprudence. Politicaltheorists belonging to this category lookat the state as a maintainer of an effectiveand equitable system of law and order.Thus, this approach treats the stateprimarily as an organisation for thecreation and enforcement of law.

Jean Bodin and Hobbes whopropounded the theory of sovereigntymay be said to be the early supporters ofthis approach; because for both thethinkers the sovereign is the highest law-maker and his command is law. Theworks of Bentham, Austin and A.V.Diceymay also come within this category.

This approach may be criticised onthe ground that law embraces only oneaspect of people’s life and, as such, itcannot cover the entire behaviour of apolitical man.

(d) Institutional approach orInstitutional - structuralapproaches

The experts who advocate this approachwant the scope of comparative politics tobe confined to the constitutionalprovisions of the formal institutions suchas legislature, executive and judiciary. Italso emphasises on the comparativeanalysis of political institutions.

The institutional approach was verypopular during the first quarter of thetwentieth century. The protagonists ofthis approach were Walter Bagehot,James Bryce, Giovanni Sartori et al.

This approach is criticised for beingtoo narrow. It ignores the role ofindividuals who constitute and operatethe formal and informal structures of apolitical system. It also does not analyseinformal organisations of politicalsystems such as pressure groups, nordoes it give any importance to the socialcontext in which institutions function.It is also argued that the institutionalapproach was strongly culture bound,as it was mainly an analysis ofinstitutions of Europe and America.

However, this approach has come tohave an importance of its own in anindirect way. It is assimilated into theBehavioural approach about which youare going to study now. Moreover, thisapproach is still important in the sensethat it draws our attention to the role offormal rules and institutions.

MODERN APPROACHES

(a) Behavioural approach

You have learnt above about four typesof traditional approaches. All those are



normative approaches, and are value-laden. Critics feel that value-ladenapproach becomes too idealistic andutopian, and therefore, it becomesimpracticable. Science deals with factsand not with values. The protagonists ofmodern approach, therefore, insist on theuse of scientific method to explain mattersrelating to Politics. Scientific approach ismarked by an empirical investigation ofthe relevant data. It uses the scientificmethodof observation, quantification,generalisation and integration.

The modern approach finds its bestmanifestation in behaviouralism. Itbelieves that observing the outwardbehaviour of political actors and politicalinstitutions, and analysing their behaviourby scientific method can acquire theknowledge of political system. It drawsheavily upon sociological andpsychological approaches. A leadingGerman sociologist, Max Weber hastreated sociology as the basis of politics.Similarly, those subscribing topsychological approach try to study andexplain political institutions andphenomenon through psychological laws.The tools of psycho-analysis, they say, canbe used to the study of political behaviour.

The behavioural revolution emergedin the USA in the second quarter of thetwentieth century. The main protagonistsof behavioural approach are — CharlesMerriam, Heinz Eulav, Robert Dahl,Lasswell, David Easton and Almond.Some of the main characteristics ofBehavioural approach are:1. They study politics by focussing

attention on the ‘Individual’and ‘Group’ behaviour and onpolitical processes.

2. They advocate a new method. Theyinsist upon survey research.

3. Their method is inter-disciplinary.It means they largely borrow from

the various disciplines of social andnatural sciences.

The central assumption of thebehavioural approach is, to quoteEulan, “the root is man”, Institutionsonly provide the framework in whichpolitical actors, (i.e. individuals), playtheir respective roles, and it is thisinterplay of political actors whichdetermines the framework.

The behavioural approach indeedhelps to provide us greater insight intopolitical process and how ordinarilyindividuals participate in it. But, whileit helps us to understand publicopinion, pressure groups and electionsand quantifies the results of our study,it leaves us poorer when it comes to thestudy of institutions or processes, whichcannot be easily quantified. In a sense,both behavioural and institutionalapproaches represent two extremes.

(b) System analysis approach

Input-Output and Structural-Functional approach

System’s analysis is one of the majoraspect of behavioural approach.Behaviouralists study ‘Political system’and not the state. System is defined asthe ‘set of elements interacting with eachother’. A political analyst tries to know,(1) The function of the political system,(2) The structure of the political

system, and(3) Under which conditions the system

works.


63APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF COMPARATVE POLITICS: TRADITIONAL AND MODERN

To know the above the systemanalysts use two types of approaches:(1) Input-Output, and(2) Structural-Functional

Input-Output approach

This approach is popularised by DavidEaston. In his construction of an input-output framework, Easton wasinfluenced by the new ‘communicationssciences’. Here the idea is that a politicalsystem has feedback mechanisms, whichare capable of transmitting informationof a positive or a negative kind. Throughfeedback two types of input go to thepolitical system ‘demand’ and ‘support’.If there are too many demands that go tothe system and the government is unableto cope with them, the system breaksdown. But, if the people support its rules,the system survives and becomes stable.Easton’s analysis of the working of thepolitical system is dynamic, whereasAlmond’s analysis is static.

The Structural-Functional approach

It is a response to the failure ofthe institutional approach. TheInstitutional approach studiescomparative politics in terms of study ofinstitutions such as legislature, executiveand judiciary. Its assumptions are thatthese institutions are more or less stablewith fixed boundaries. This analysis, it isargued, is not adequate in explainingsituations, which are constantly in aprocess of change, especially in the worldof developing countries. Sinceinstitutional arrangements in thesecountries are fluid, the important issueis to identify certain political functions

which any political system must performif it is to survive. It examines the questionof survival and efficiency of institutionsin the context of political system as awhole. The leading exponents of thisapproach are Almond and Powell whohave emphasised that the threefunctions viz. political recruitment,political socialisation and politicalcommunication are concerned with themaintenance of the system. They havealso observed that these functions leadto the convertibility of demandsinto policy making and policyimplementation. According to them,demands should be converted intoauthoritative decisions and policies.

The functional approach is animportant attempt to broaden theconceptual base of comparative politics.It provides a culture free approach tocomparative politics as it seeks tounderstand politics in terms of factors,which provide stability and efficiency.However, it has been criticised to be tooconservative an approach. It is arguedthat it ignores the fact of conflict andchange in political life, specially in thecontext of the developing countries. Inthese countries, because of theprevalence of perpetual poverty, peopleare consequently interested in theprocess of change rather than stability.This can hardly be accommodated in thefunctionalist framework.

(c) Marxist approach

It will not be out of place here for you toknow about the Marxist approach,which is basically different from bothtraditional and modern approaches.Marxism provides a powerful historical



EXERCISES

1. What do you understand by Comparative Politics?2. Explain any two Traditional Approaches to the study of Comparative

Governments.3. Describe Modern Approaches to the study of Comparative Politics.4. Write short notes on:

(i) Philosophical Approach;(ii) Behavioural Approach;

(iii) Marxist Approach.

framework to examine political systemsand processes in terms of class conflict.Marx uses the methods of dialecticalmaterialism and historical materialismto justify his thesis that there are onlytwo classes in a society —those who ownthe means of production (the rich) andthose who depend on the labour powerof their body to survive (the poor). Therelations between these two classes arethat of conflict; and through this conflict(dialectics) history progresses until itreaches the stage of classless andstateless society. (You will learn moreabout Marxism in one of the lastchapters of this book).

Marxist approach is different from the‘behavioural’ approach. Whereasbehavioural approach defends thepresent system (western) as good andseeks to defend the status quo, theMarxist approach rejects the presentsystem (western) as unjust and desiresto change it.

Summing up our study of traditionaland modern approaches, it may be

observed that sometimes there is a sortof overlapping between the two. Forexample, there are traces of empiricismin Aristotle’s philosophy in the ancienttimes. Similarly, there are traces ofrelative-values in the scheme of DavidEaston in modern times. It follows thatseveral studies to the study of politics areinter-related in some respects.

In certain quarters, the study ofpolitical institutions and functions isbeing supplemented by policy analysisin which the emphasis is on thesubstantive issues of polity. However,every approach has its respectiveadherents. Today, a political scientistdraws upon them in an effective manner.He tends to explain institutions andprocesses, collective decisions and powerrelationships, as a part of wider socialcontext having a history of their own. Infact, the area of comparative politics hasbecome so widespread, that it covers allaspects of a political system, bothformal and informal, quantitative as wellas qualitative.


65

Political Socialisation, Political Participationand Political Development

CHAPTER 10

POLITICAL SOCIALISATION

ANALYSING the concepts of politicalsystem one often wonders as to

how political culture evolves and whatit is? How do people develop aparticular set of beliefs andorientations? How do these beliefs andattitudes travel from one generation toanother? The process by which aparticular set of attitudes, belief andorientations is passed on from onegeneration to another is known aspolitical socialisation. It is study of“what, when and how people learnabout politics”. Inter-generationalcontinuity is the essence of politicalculture. The willingness of people toaccept new ideas and beliefs is a matterof learnt behaviour. Thus, the learningprocess to acquire existing politicalculture is known as politicalsocialisation. Every learning is not apart of socialisations. Learning that hassocial relevance is a part of the processof socialisation. Individuals acquirecertain social obligations throughordinary course of interactions. Processof political socialisations is notnecessarily a conscious process.

Political socialisation continuesthroughout one’s life. Various factorssuch as international developments,domestic transformations, historicalevents, and social stirrings shape theprocess of political socialisation.

There is a linkage between politicalculture and political socialisation.Political socialisation is the process bywhich political cultures are formed,maintained and changed. Through thisprocess individuals develop theirorientations. When the totalitarianpolitical elites try to revise the accountsof history, they are simply attemptingto shape and control the process ofcreation of political socialisation. Thus,it is important to study the process ofpolitical socialisation in order tounderstand political stability anddevelopment of political system.

Attitudes of an individual towardspolitical culture go on changingthroughout his lifetime. It is acontinuous process. A number of eventsthroughout one’s own life time shapeand guide one’s own orientations.

Often the process of politicalsocialisation takes the form of eithermanifest or latent transmission. The



process of manifest transmissionimplies explicit communication ofinformation, values or feelingsregarding political objectives andinstitutions. The teaching of civicssyllabus in the schools is an exampleof manifest political socialisation. Latentpolitical socialisation process impliestransmission of non-political attitudestowards prevalent institutions in apolitical system. It involves thefundamental aspects of culture in apolitical system. Attitudes andorientations towards culturalframework of a political system, ingeneral, might affect a child’s attitudeof accommodation or aggression in thesystemic interactions.

When an individual, in order toinfluence his friends, family, church,teachers or some other agencies, learnsexplicitly about an ideology or thefunctioning of a government or ofpolicies, the process is known as director manifest political socialisation. If, onthe other hand, an individual developsan attitude of mind towardsauthorities, in general, in the earlystage, which subsequently getstransformed into a political orientationor motivation, the process is known asthe process of latent or indirect politicalsocialisation. The process of directpolitical socialisation gets manifestedthrough imitation, anticipatorybehaviour, political education, orpolitical participation. The latent orindirect process of political socialisationgets manifested through interpersonalinteractions, which lead to transmissionof values, attitudes or ideas through thepersonal influence of individuals.

Political socialisation could beimparted through direct politicaltraining and education. In this process,the imparting institution or organisationtakes the initiative. Most of theorganisations and institutions havetheir own formal and informal channelsto impart their ideology andorientations. The techniques like annualpolitical gatherings by political parties,emphasis on civic courses in GreatBritain, political circuses in Guinea, aninitiation ceremony among the Masaiin East Africa and propaganda ralliesin the public places, are some of theexamples of direct political socialisation.Manifest political socialisation may takeplace through an individual’s ownexperience with political process,political elites, structures and events.Latent political socialisation generallytakes place through interpersonaltransference, for example, a child bornand brought up in an authoritarianclimate is most likely to learn anattitude of submission to authority.

FACTORS OF POLITICAL

SOCIALISATION

Political socialisation takes placethrough a variety of institutions andsituations. These are family, peergroups, educational institutions,secondary groups/such as work place,the mass media, government andpolitical party machineries.

Family

Family is the key factor of politicalsocialisation process. It is throughfamily that an individual’s political


67

character is formed and developed.Family helps in transmitting valuesfrom one generation to another. As thechild receives his material andemotional helps from the family, it is butnatural that the child gets deeplyinfluenced by the political beliefs andattitudes of the members of the family.Parents mostly become role models oftheir children.

One must not forget that politicalsocialisation at this level is generallyconservative in nature. A child is deeplyinfluenced to preserve and continue itsfamily’s traditional ideas and practices.Though family has a great role inshaping some of the basic traits ofchildren, particularly their attitudetowards authority, obedience to thedecision- making institutions, politicalideologies and parties, theseorientations get often substantiallychanged in the later stages. As the childgrows into adulthood, its attitudetowards society and political processgets substantially modified because ofimpacts of other agents of politicalsocialisation.

Peer Groups

Whereas family relationship ishierarchical, the relationship betweena growing child and the members of thepeer group is non-hierarchical innature. This may be the reason whypeer groups have a substantial role toplay in the process of politicalsocialisation. The peer groups consistof childhood playgroups, friendshiporganisations, work groups and thelike. Political socialisation at this stage

assumes new dimensions. Peer groupsprepare individuals to face emergingpolitical climate and if necessary, forspecific political roles. Peer groups helpin developing an intimate emotionalrelationship between an individual andpeer group members. It is oftenconsidered as an important agent ofpolitical socialisation. Their role vis-a-vis family as agents of politicalsocialisation varies from political systemto political system. In countries likeFrance, Belgium and Germany, thefamilies have control over adolescentsfor a longer period, whereas in Britainand the United States, the families havea lesser control over their children.

Educational Institutions

Educational institutions such asschools, colleges and universities areother important agents of politicalsocialisation. These institutionsparticipate in the political socialisationprocess both directly and indirectly.Direct political socialisation takes placethrough curriculum. The students aretaught about national movements,national traditions, and sometimesabout particular ideologies. The schooland university experiences help in theprocess of latent political socialisation.The modes of participation at this levelhelp in the formation of attitudes andvalues. The students’ movement inFrance in 1968, American students’opposition to the Vietnam War and thespectre of Naxalite movement in theIndian universities in the late 1960s aresome of the examples of politicalsocialisation.

POLITICAL SOCIALISATION, POLITICAL PARTICIPATION AND POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT



Secondary Groups

Secondary groups provideapprenticeship for political role in thesociety. In a developed political systemsecondary groups play more importantrole in the process of politicalsocialisation. There are three types ofsecondary groups. First, there aresecondary groups with distinct politicalmotivations. These are political partiesand political youth organisations. Thesegroups provide training in politicalideology, mobilisation of politicalactions and recruitment of politicalleaders. The second type of secondarygroups is instituted for non-politicalpurposes such as work place. However,these groups carry on politicaleducation along with their specificactivities. One could speak of variouslabour unions in this regard. Althougha labour union is basically involvedwith collective bargaining and welfareof its members, it also provides politicaleducation and training to its members.The third type of secondary groupsneither provides any political educationto its members nor do they have anypolitical character. But mereparticipation in their activities providespolitical orientations. This is an exampleof latent political socialisation. Clubs,sports association, cultural association,etc. can be cited as examples of thistype of secondary groups.

Mass Media

The communication and informationtechnology has enhanced the role ofmass media as agents of political

socialisation. The role of mass mediasuch as radio, television, newspapers,and magazines varies with the socialand political structure of politicalsystems. The mass media often help intransmitting values and ideas that helpin the continuation of the existingestablishments. Mass media have beenmostly used by ruling elites in thedeveloping countries to win masses intheir favour.

Government and Political Parties

An individual’s continuous interactionswith members of political parties andgovernmental personnel, andsometimes through his direct contactswith the government organisations, helpin reinforcing his orientation andattitudes towards political issues andpolicies acquired during his early years.Sometimes government directly helpsthe process of political socialisation.Through political parties, people havedirect involvement in the politicalprocess of the society. People getpolitically socialised and indoctrinatedby political parties. It is only throughpolitical parties that radical social andpolitical changes could be broughtabout in the civil society.

In conclusion, one might state thatthe stability of a political system isdeeply interlinked with the greatercohesion and complementarity amongthe agents of political socialisation. It isbecause the process of politicalsocialisation is a continuous one; someamount of disharmony among theagents of political socialisation is butnatural.


69

POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

Political participation is the area of focalimportance to the analysis andevaluation of every political system.Whatever may be the pattern of politicalsystem, political authorities wouldalways be keen to ensure politicalparticipation of masses in the processof governance. Even in modern non-democratic political systems,authoritarian rulers always highlightthe idea of political participation ofmasses. The idea of politicalparticipation is given greaterimportance in the democratic systemsof governance. Through this processof political participation a closerelationship is established between theauthorities and the people.

The study of political participationimplies the study of actual involvementof people in the decision-makingprocess rather than popular attitude ofbecoming involved. It studies allpolitical actions by groups andindividuals for influencing theformulation and implementation ofpublic policies. It deals with the level ofparticipation of citizens, who happen tobe the people most likely to participate.

One of the salient features of liberaldemocracies is that there are differentforms of participation. Voting in electionis only one of the forms in which amajority of the electorate participates.But there are other forms ofparticipation such as through interestgroups election campaigns, politicalparties and involvement ingovernmental activities in which only a

small number of individuals actuallyparticipate. Interestingly, the processof participation differs from society tosociety. In some societies, it also takesthe form of political activities such aspolitical protests, including even itsillegal and violent forms. Indeed,boycotts and strikes have emerged assome of the powerful devices toinfluence the system. However, in mostcountries violence to others or damageto public property is condemned asillegal, as such activities tend to erodethe very foundations of the frameworkon which the political system stands.That is why the terrorist violence iscondemned universally.

Some political scientists haveemphasised the concepts of “hierarchyof political involvement” such as“spectator activities” and “gladiatorialactivities”. ‘Spectator activities’ isconfined to voting. The ‘gladiatorialactivities’ involve soliciting of politicalfunds, holding public or party office. Itis clear that the population cannot bedivided into these two watertightcompartments. People participate in avariety of ways ranging from traditionalforms to such as voting to protest andmass demonstrations. Indeed, recentstudies in West European andScandinavian countries show that thetraditional forms of democraticexpression and political activity are onthe decline. People have become morecritical of politicians and politicalsystems, and are more interested innon-institutionalised forms of politicalaction to pursue their objectives andgoals.




The new developments ininformation and communicationtechnology have also transformed thenature of participation. The computer-mediated communication facilities havecreated new forms of politicalparticipation of citizens at both local andnational levels. Today, people votethrough electronic machines. Thecomputer technology enables people tocommunicate their views to thegovernment in a rapid manner.

The question however, arises, howdo we explain the different levels ofparticipation. Why are some peoplemore involved than others? Thedifferences in participation are generallyexplained in terms of economic andpolitical resources as well as interest ofthe participants. Whereas Economicresources remain confined to property,political resources would includefactors such as education and accessto information. They build capacities inthe individual concerned to express andpromote their own opinions andinterests forcefully to powers that be.Indeed, these sections of the peoplegenerally have greater involvement inthe political process in comparison tothe disadvantaged sections. The formeracquires greater vested interest in thesystem, as their education andresources help them to pursue theirinterests with a greater vigour. That iswhy; it is generally believed thatdemocracy is a middle class or uppermiddle class phenomenon. That is alsothe reason why political participationtends to reinforce existing inequalities.

Yet the patterns of participationaffect each one of us in a phenomenal

way. While the middle and upperclasses participate because they havea stake in the system, the lower classesare mobilized in the name of greatereconomic security; or to put it crudely,in the name of bread and butter or suchslogans as Indira Gandhi’s “GaribiHatao”. But ultimately the success ofa liberal democracy depends on thekind of stake each individual citizenacquires in the system as a whole. Asystem, in which public resources areeasily channelised for private use by themiddle and upper classes, will definitelyreinforce existing economic inequalitiesand hence the level of commitmentwhich ordinary citizens will have for thepolitical system will be much less, if notminimal. It is this characteristic whichdistinguishes political culture ofdeveloped countries such as the USAfrom that of ours. We have not yet beenable to develop a process ofparticipation in which each citizen mayfeel that he or she has a stake in thesurvival and the continuance of thesystem.

There is participation in theauthoritarian regimes too. But it isdifferent than that of the liberaldemocracies. In a state like China, itinvolves expressing support for thegovernment rather than an opportunityto vote it out of power. The system inthe states like China functions in sucha way that there is a massive massmobilisation in support of the poll.Although powers are confined in thecentral committees, in practice citizensare allowed participation in the wholerange of local bodies. In fact, there isan immediate involvement of workers


71

in matters that directly affect them.Some of these countries have, therefore,been able to develop highly successfulco-operative movements. Even at theparty level, there is direct involvementof the participants who are recruitedfrom peasants and workers on the onehand and bureaucratic, managerialclass on the other. In China,particularly, the earlier aginggeneration is giving way to newgeneration of well-educated andtechnically trained leadership. Theresult is that like liberal democracies,the scope of participation here is alsolinked to one’s education andresources.

POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT

The term ‘political development’ enteredthe domain of Political Science in 1950s.With the emergence of a vast numberof independent countries of thedeveloping world scholarly interestamong the political scientists emergedto study the development process of thedeveloping countries. A leadingpolitical scientist Gabriel A Almondobserved that the concept of politicaldevelopment should be analysed anddiscussed as a ‘moral’ ethical andpolitical ‘good’ among the developingcountries.’’

In fact, during late 1950s and early1960s there was an academic interestthroughout the world to put emphasison the cross-polity studies of the newlyindependent nations of Asia, Africa andLatin America. Huge amounts ofstatistical and quantitative data on thesocial, political, economic and

demographic aspects of these nationswere collected to analyse their attitudes,values and behaviour patterns. Therehas been no unanimity among thesocial scientists regarding theconceptual frameworks of politicaldevelopment. Sociologists, Economists,historians, political scientists andanthropologists have tried to analysethe concept of political developmentfrom their own respective angles. Mostof these political and social scientists,however, have emphasised on thepattern of development process of thedeveloped countries, particularlyAmerica, as the model to be followedby the developing countries for theirpolitical development process.

According to Rostow, the norms ofpolitical behaviour and institutionalapparatus of the developed countrieshave to be followed by the developingcountries for their own development. Hewas of the opinion that the industrialsocieties are the “pattern-setters ofpolitical development for othersocieties’’. Edward Shiller treated theconcept of political development withthe nation-state building process onequal footings.

Most of the authorities on politicaldevelopment have looked at the conceptof political development from the pointof view of the American developmentprocess. America’s development fromthe phase of incoherent homogeneity tocoherent heterogeneity has often beencited as a model of political developmentfor the developing countries. Lucian W.Pye who is considered an authority onthe subject has identified politicaldevelopment with three major themes.




These themes are: equality in politicallife, political capacity and governmentperformances, differentiation andspecialisation of structures. Accordingto Pye, increasing differentiation andspecialisation would lead to greatersecularisation of society.

Samuel P. Huntington has providedan improved version of Pye’sethnocratic model of development. Heobserved that the maintenance ofpolitical stability should be consideredas the ultimate goal of politicaldevelopment. He highlighted two areasas the basic elements of politicaldevelopment. These were: a high degreeof institutionalisation within apolitical system and an increasinglevel of popular participation.According to him, a high degree ofinstitutionalisation, within a polity iswell reflected by its high levels ofadaptability, complexity, autonomyand coherence. On the other hand,increasing levels of popularparticipation in the system would beguaranteed through their access to thedecision-making process at every levelof social structures. He is of the opinionthat the stability within a system couldbe understood as the product ofinteraction between levels ofinstitutionalisation and popularparticipation.

Economists like Ellis were of theopinion that political developmentcould be discussed as the pre-requisiteof economic development. Some haveidentified it as a synonym of politicalmodernisation. Others have seen it asa symbol of industrial society,

administrative and legal development,building of democracy, stability andorderly change, mobilisation of power,mass participation and so on.

The concept of political developmenthas undergone changes at differentperiods of societal transformations. Inthe 1980s, scholars like Organski laidemphasis on the process of systematicempirical validation of the concept ofpolitical development. He defined it asincreasing governmental efficiency inthe use of human and materialresources of the nation for the commongood and also highlighted the notion ofnational political capacity as the coreaspects of political development. Theconcept of political capacity referredonly to two basic areas of development:ability of a government to collectrevenues from its subjects to implementits preferred policies and its ability tomobilise human resources.

During 1990s, authorities likeRobert W. Jackman, in their discussionon political development of politicalsystems, emphasised on system’scapacity to create legitimate politicalinstitutions. Legitimacy is needed forthe structure to implement powerrelationship. This legitimacy could bereflected in system’s ability to resolveconflicts without resorting to use offorce against domestic politicalopposition.

While discussing the concept ofpolitical development, it could beunderstood that any talk on adoptionof universal strategies in the areas ofpolitical development might be bad forthe developing countries. As these


73

might create illusions in the minds ofpeople-illusions which might not haveany relationship with the socio-economicstructures and conditions of theircountries. This does not follow that theoutside models are always irrelevant.

Process of development cannot beseparated from the interests of people.The political development process ofIndia has failed to take note ofthese aspects. Marx’s emphasis onconquering the “kingdom of freedom”had tremendous influence on the policyprogrammes of a number of developingcountries. Mao declared as early as1940 that if Marxism was to be usefulthen “it must be combined with specificnational characteristics and acquire adefinite national form.”

The exponents of the uni-directionalmodels of development have to realisethat life grows in richness by diversity.The developing countries have to linkthe historical aspect and peculiarcharacteristics of their countries withthe process of the respective politicaldevelopment programmes.

In conclusion, we can say thatthere are three basic elements in thelight of which one can formulate amore satisfactory view of politicaldevelopment. First, any concept ofpolitical development has to relateitself with the problems of economicbackwardness and dependency.Every political system has to bejudged from the point of view of itsability to ensure justice, equality andproductivity. Second, any theoryshould reconcile between empiricaland normative behaviour of thesystem, to emphasise right conductwith good society. The classicaldatabase regarding an idealrelationship between the individualand society has to be reactivated. Andlastly, the concept of politicaldevelopment has to be judged in termsof total objective situations in theconcerned political system. Politicaldevelopment is not an isolatedphenomenon. All the western idealshave to be integrated with the socioeconomic realities of the developingcountries.


EXERCISES

1. What do you understand by Political Socialisation?2. Describe the factors that contribute to the process of Political Socialisation.3. Analyse the meaning and importance of political participation.4. Explain the term political development.5. Write short notes on:

(i) Peer group;(ii) Mass media;

(iii) Lucian W. Pye’s concept of political development.



Modes of Representation

CHAPTER 11

IN the contemporary political systems,democracy is identified with

liberalism. This was not so in theeighteenth and nineteenth centuries.The classical liberalism then wasconcerned with the principles ofcapitalist market economy. Itemphasised on individuals right tounlimited acquisition of property. In astate, property qualification wasconsidered as an essential condition toparticipate in the process of politicalrepresentation. Subsequently becauseof historical reasons classical liberalism,which was considered to be basicallyantithetical to democratic norms andprocesses in the formative phasebecame an essential partner ofdemocracy. Capitalism and marketeconomy gave birth to large scaleindustrialisation and urbanisationprocess. The demand of the workingclass movement to participate in thedecision-making process of the politicalsystem gave a new momentum to theconcept of democracy and widened itshorizon. The liberal state thus becamea combination of free market economyand the principles of universal adultfranchise. C.B. McPherson observed,

“until the nineteenth century liberaltheory, like the liberal state, was not atall democratic, much of it wasspecifically anti-democratic”. Todaythe term ‘democracy’ is widelyunderstood as the synonym of‘representative democracy’. Under thesystem of representative democracypeople have a right to choose theirrepresentatives through periodicelections based on the principles ofuniversal adult franchise. Under thissystem, discrimination based on caste,creed, religion, language and culture isgenerally prohibited. The prescribedage for participating in the periodicgeneral elections varies from country tocountry. In India the prescribed agefor participating in the general electionis eighteen whereas in Britain and someother countries it is twenty-one. Insome of the countries, the citizens werecompelled by law to participate invoting during the general elections,such as the Netherlands (1917) andBelgium (1893).

There are two alternative systems ofrepresentations: (a) territorialrepresentation and (b) functionalrepresentation. The territorial


75MODES OF REPRESENTATION

representation is also known asgeographical representation. Under thissystem, the whole country is divided intonearly equal population basedconstituencies. The functionalrepresentation highlights representationof occupation or functions. Peoplebelonging to different occupations andfunctions are allowed to have theirrepresentatives on this basis. Althoughthe territorial representation systemenables people to have a closerelationship with their representatives,sometimes, under this system,local issues are given preference overnational issues.

When one representative representsa constituency, it is called a single-member constituency. Constituenciesbeing represented by more than onerepresentative are called multi-memberconstituencies. In India, beforeindependence, we had separateconstituencies for minorities and specialinterest groups.

According to Professor Shephard,there are three theories of representation.These are primitive tribal theory, thefeudal theory and ethical theory. Thepolitical practice followed during theGreek city-state days is known as tribaltheory of representation. Under thissystem, the right to vote was consideredas the necessary condition for themembership of the state. The feudaltheory highlights the property conditionof voting rights in a state. The ethicaltheory considers voting rights as anatural and inherent right of everycitizen.

THEORIES OF REPRESENTATION

There have been different opinionsregarding the role of the representativesin the decision-making process. Somefavour a limited role for therepresentatives whereas othersadvocate their control over the entireprocess of policy-making. Differenttheories of representation try to analysethis from different angles.

Authoritarian Theory ofRepresentation

The main advocates of this theory wereThomas Hobbes and AlexanderHamilton. The theory highlights therole of order and authority representedby executive. The representatives of thepeople have a limited role to play. Thistheory emphasises on the superiorknowledge and wisdom of thepoliticians. There is no provision forpublic control. Hobbes wasparticularly in favour of the authorityof the monarch. In Hobbes’ theory ofhypothetical social contract, theindividuals in the state of naturecontract with each other that each oneof them agree to give all his powers ofgovernance to the particular person orgroup of persons (that is the monarch/parliament) so that by assuming thecombined power of all it would protectthe life and property of all its members.Thus, the monarch/parliament iscreated by a democratic method; thebasis is the consent of each individualwho have formed the state; but afterassuming power the monarch/parliament becomes all-powerful.



Radical Theory of Representation

The main supporters of this theory areRousseau and the proponents of theNew Left. This theory does not believein the system of representativegovernment. It strongly believes in thedirect participation of people in theprocess of governance. Directparticipation in the law-making processis known as direct democracy. In otherwords, in a direct democracy citizensthemselves participate in decision-making, and not through their chosenrepresentatives. But such directrepresentation is possible only in smallunits. In ancient times it was possiblein the City-State of Athens. Today, inSwitzerland there is provision forPlebiscite and Recall. These are factorsrelating to Direct Democracy.

Mirror Theory of Representation

Chief advocates of this theory were JohnLocke and Thomas Jefferson. Ithighlights the idea that legislaturesmust be the mirror image of the society.The representatives are considered asagents of people and are to translatedemands of their constituents intopolicy framework. The theory has astrong faith in the wisdom andcapability of the masses. It was basedon the principle of equality.

Elitist Theory of Representation

It believes that once elected, therepresentative has a specialresponsibility to provide leadership tothe masses. They are not mererecipients of the input provided by the

electorate but as agents of change whatthey think would be best for the society.It is alleged that the theory isundemocratic in the sense that itbelieves on the wisdom of an elitistgroup of politicians. It considers thisgroup as the custodian of publicinterest. The conservative theory ofrepresentation does not encouragepopular participation in the process ofgovernance. But in society in whichthere is illiteracy and poverty and wherepeople are not in a position to understandcomplicated issues, the representativeshould be able to rise above narrowsectarian interest and take a view of thenation as a whole. This view isparticularly significant in a country likeours, which is divided in terms oflanguage, religion, caste and class.

However, the representative shouldnot become a prisoner of vested orsectarian interest, it is necessary thatthe representation should be able to riseabove various particularisms and takea holistic view of things in the contextof the nation as a whole. Thecontemporary decision-making processand pattern of governance is socomplicated that it may not be possibleto involve people in general to follow theform of Direct Democracy. Today arepresentative has an extremelycomplicated task. On the one hand hemust voice the wishes of the people herepresents and on the other he has thespecial responsibility to shape thesewishes in conformity with the overallinterest of the society.

Proper representation is the centralpoint for the successful working of a


77

EXERCISES

1. What are the various theories of representations?2. Mention two alternative systems of representation.3. Describe the importance of representation in a democratic system.4. Write short notes on:

(i) Functional Representation;(ii) Direct Democracy;

(iii) Elitist theory of Representation.

MODES OF REPRESENTATION

democratic system. According to theclassical definition of democracy, it is aGovernment of the people, for the people,and by the people. If that is so, we thepeople have to be extra vigilant for itssuccessful working. This demands

proper and national representation ofthe people, which in turn involves anenlightened public opinion andeducated citizens. It is therefore said thatDemocracy is not only a type ofgovernment it is also a way of life.


UNIT IV

MAJOR POLITICAL THEORIES


Liberalism

CHAPTER 12

EMERGENCE AND DEVELOPMENT

LIBERALISM is a doctrine thatemerged out of the Enlightenment,

the Glorious Revolution in England andthe French Revolution. Each of theseevents embodied one major premise ofliberalism. From the enlightenmentemerged the view that there are nomoral goals, which we know for certainto be absolutely right, and therefore toimpose any particular way of life on thecitizen of a state is wrong. From theGlorious Revolution emerged the viewthat the divine right of any kind of rulecould not be justified and from theFrench Revolution the claim that theindividual liberty is so sacred that noauthority can violate it. It was aresponse to monarchical power, whichclaimed absolute authority in the nameof the divine right of kings. In Englandit was a result of a reaction of thebourgeoisie against the power of theking to tax the subjects without theconsent of the Parliament. In France itwas a reaction against monarchy,which tried to prevent a discussion anddebate on political issues. The Frenchbourgeoisie expressed its aspirations inthe famous phrase “liberty, equality

and fraternity”. The bourgeoisieconsisted mainly of businessmen, shopowners, merchants, bankers,intellectuals and professionals.

These classes wanted an end to theperiod of feudal anarchy where thenobles were constantly at war with oneanother. The classes were moreinterested in capital accumulation.Anarchy in society was not conduciveto it. In the place of mercantalism theywanted economic system of free tradebased on the principle of laissez-faire.These classes also wanted an endto the outmoded economic controls ontrade, capital investment andbusiness growth. They pleaded for theabolition of inherited privilegesthat distinguished aristocracy fromthe bourgeoisie. They soughtthe supremacy of Parliament.Montesquieu’s The Spirit of Laws,Benthem’s Fragment on Governmentand Smith’s Wealth of Nations were aseries of landmarks in the evolution ofliberalism.

Liberals argued that each individualwas a rational citizen capable of takingones own decision. A good society wasone in which their satisfaction orinterests were maximised. Society was



merely conceived as a conglomerationof individuals who rationally calculatedtheir interests and sought power to thatend. There was no such thing as socialgood or common good or public welfareapart from the good of the individualscomposing society. All that the societyhad was a collection of individuals withtheir own private interests.

Such interests were sought to bemaximised through increasedproduction and market mechanism.These were based on twin concepts ofindividual enterprise and the unlimitedright to property. There was to be freecompetition. This competitiondetermined the nature of production,the prices of the goods produced andthe structure of human relationship asproducers, buyers and consumers.Market was the chief motivating forcefor the pursuit of all values. Theindividual took decisions on the basisof ones perception of its own individualinterest. Liberals argued that if theindividuals were allowed to pursuetheir rationally calculated interests,there would be equilibrium in society,and prices would then tend ‘to be justwhat would induce buyers to buy whatwas produced, and producers toproduce what would be bought’. Thiswas expressed in Adam Smith’s conceptof “invisible hand.” It meant that thegeneral welfare was a function of theirown acquisitive instinct. The statebecame rich in proportion to everymember becoming rich individually.The divergent and conflicting interestswere automatically harmonised as aresult of it. Human beings were

considered free in proportion to whathas been, called “proprietor of their ownperson”. Politics was conceived asautonomous, capable of rising abovenarrow vested interests. It was believedthat some central organisation wasrequired to regulate humanrelationships in society. The staterepresents this organisation. It wasbrought into existence to hold the ringfor the pursuit of their interests by theindividuals. The functions of the statewere minimised. The task of thegovernment was merely to reconcileconflicting interests. It was ‘a necessaryevil’. And, therefore, as Benthemargued, best government was the onewhich governed the least. The basicfunction of the government was toensure our natural right to privateproperty. Locke gave expression to thisidea. Government had no right to existif it failed to do so. The private interestssought to promote themselves throughthe institutional mechanism ofcompetitive democracy.

The doctrine of liberty was tied todoctrine of equality. The words ‘Liberty,Equality and Fraternity’ were embodiedin the French Revolution. The AmericanDeclaration of Independence alsoembodied the same ideas. But theseliberals were conscious of thesubstantial differences amongindividuals. What they meant was anequal opportunity to prove their worth.They rejected the aristocratic claim onthe basis of birth or heredity. It mustbe noted that their claim to equality wasonly a political claim. They did notbelieve in economic equality. Certain


83

sections indeed believed that economicinequality was not only inevitable butalso positively good for all concerned.

In the second phase, this doctrinewas modified in the later half of thenineteenth century by thinkers like J.S.Mill and T.H. Green. They believed thatthe interests of the individuals were tiedto social interests. They linked up theidea of the individual good to thecommon good. Green recognised theexistence of people who enjoyed lessliberty than was enjoyed by slaves inthe ancient world. It was noticed thatthe rich were becoming richer and thepoor proportionately poorer. As a resultof Industrial Revolution, monopolistictendencies began to emerge. Controlover economic life appeared to bepassing into the hands of a feweconomically powerful persons.

Both Mill and Green, and Ranadein our own country, realised that eachindividual was entitled to equalopportunity. All of them moved to andfro between the individual and thecommunity. Green insisted thatindividual freedom and fulfilment wereattainable only through society. “Thereis a work of moral liberation”, pleadedGreen, “which society, through itsvarious agencies is constantly carryingon for the individual”. These liberalspleaded that the problem ofdistribution demanded an activeinterference of the state in the economiclife of society. The state was acommunity of communities. It wasexpected to enforce standards ofcleanliness and health. It was expectedto ensure that large masses of

humanity did not have to live inconditions of poverty and squalor. Statewas required to bring about conditionsin which there were chances of equaldevelopment of all. Ranade favoured theidea that the state must redistributewealth in society by providing equalityof opportunity and prospects of fullemployment to all.

This new version of liberalism rightlyemphasised that whenever theindividual found social experiencefrustrating, one had a right to expectthat the state would come to its rescue.Society must provide opportunities notmerely for increase of wealth but alsofor development of total humanpersonality. The concept of welfare stateis a product of this line of thinking. In1930s, Roosevelt initiated ‘New DealProgrammes’ on similar lines. Thegovernments were expected to ensurethe end of domination by a propertyowning bourgeoisie and maximiseindividual opportunity. They discardedthe concept of free market as aguarantee of economic efficiency. The“invisible hand” may have importancein a system of equal competition but itdid not have much relevance to aneconomic system in which there wasgrave inequality. The decisions of a verysmall number of business housesaffected the life pattern of allindividuals.

The welfare state thus tried to makeeducation widely available. It regulatedhours and work, wages and workingconditions of labour, tried to curbemployment of children in factories andmonopolistic tendencies in economy. It

LIBERALISM



was accepted that enlargement ofeconomic liberty was necessary for aproper enjoyment of political or civilliberty by all. There was a change inliberal concept of justice. Rawls hasexpressed the idea thus: the state mustso arrange the scheme of benefits andburdens so that the least advantagedmay share the resources of thefortunate. The revolution in theeconomic thought was brought aboutby John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946)and the report of Lord Beveridge onsocial insurance. The social insurancewas treated as a part of a comprehensivepolicy of social progress. It was anattack on want. The state in organisingsecurity, argued Beveridge, should notstifle incentive and opportunity. Whilethe state should try to secure notionalminimum for all, it should leave enoughroom for voluntary action. In India theMahalonobis approach followed muchthe same policy. Tentative, piecemealand adhoc attempts to change economylost their appeal. People began to favourmore comprehensive plans. They beganto expect the state to work for fullemployment and planned economicgrowth, what Roosevelt described asfreedom from want and Indira Gandhias “Garibi Hatao”. The state tried tocorrect social and culturaldisadvantages. The ideal of the welfarestate is thus the climax of thedevelopment of the ideals of humanequality, liberty and justice.

TENSIONS IN LIBERALISM

There is a basic tension in liberalism.On the one hand, it is wedded to the

market concept of society, to theunlimited right of man to theacquisition of property and ultimatelyto inequality. On the other hand, itseeks to curb the right to property forthe common good and to provide equalopportunities to all. The claim that amarket society maximises utilities hasbeen challenged by variouscontemporary thinkers. McPhersonhas instead argued that truedevelopment for man consists in thedevelopment of his powers. Accordingto him the earlier liberal view iscontradictory in two ways. There is atension between the view of man as“desirer of utilities” and man as “enjoyerand developer” of his powers. This hasled to the confusion between unlimitedright to property, to capitalist economyand ultimately to inequality and anegalitarian view on the other hand. Sofar it has not been possible to combinethe two. The tragedy of the welfare stateis that despite its faith in the ideas thatthe state must provide opportunities fornot merely an increase in wealth butalso for development of total humanpersonality, in practice, it still tends totreat the maximisation of utilities andprofit as final. The major drawback ofthe welfare state is that it could notchange the social structure in anyfundamental way. The state providessubsidies, controls competition,monopoly, land use and labour use.But the prices are still a response tocalculated decisions of the few whocontrol economic power in society.Prices still control production of goods.They also determine their allocation.


85

This enables big corporations not onlyto determine prices but also control ourtastes and life-styles.

Social living is an organic processin which life of the concrete individualhas to be enriched by an increase inones power to enjoy the out-side world.A liberal society maximises utilities, butdoes very little to maximise our powersor make us into a better human being.We are constantly controlled anddominated by market forces. Moreover,public ownership and nationalisationhave led to bureaucratisation andcorruption in public life.

EMPIRICAL LIBERALISM

A word must be said about empiricalliberalism. Mill and Green emphasisedthe moral dimension of democracy.They valued it because they thoughtthat it was the most effective instrumentfor the improvement of mankind. Butthe empirical liberals like Schumpeterand Dahl treat democracy as amechanism to bring about equilibriumin society. They are not concerned withmoral issues. They regard the ideas ofMill and others as utopian. For themdemocracy is essentially a competitionbetween two or more elite groups forpower to govern society. Some Americanpolitical scientists even regard a lowlevel of citizen participation as essentialfor the maintenance of equilibrium. Forthe nineteenth century theoristsdemocracy was a humanist aspiration.For their counterparts in the mid-

twentieth century America, it isessentially a market-equilibriumsystem. This view has a built inconservative bias. For it, whateverworks is right, the existing system hassomehow to be worked out. Theconcept of the market swallows up theconcept of justice and equality. Therehas been some resurgence of libertariandoctrines in the name of human dignityand autonomy recently. This is leadingliberalism on the one hand to thenineteenth century individualism andon the other to a concept of justice. Thelater trend has become significant. Thenineteenth century liberalismemphasised liberty. The early twentiethcentury replaced liberty by equality.Now both are being synthesised andtransformed by a concept of justice interms of the Aristotelian ideal ofcharacter, self-knowledge, virtue andgood-life. Society is being viewed as acommunity of individuals. Theseindividuals too have autonomy of theirown. It is being argued that thecommunity ought to be based on astrong sense of a shared self-understanding of citizens about virtueand good life. This self-understandingmust be embodied in the institutionalarrangements of a pluralist society inwhich there are a variety of associationsto satisfy our different needs. It mustlead to a politics which enables us to,“know a good in common that wecannot know alone” in the manner offriendship.

LIBERALISM



EXERCISES

1. What do you understand by Liberalism?2. Trace the modification of the doctrine of liberalism in the later half of the 19th

century.3. Discuss the basic tension in Liberalism.4. Explain Empirical Liberalism.


87

Socialism

CHAPTER 13

GENESIS AND DEVELOPMENT

IT is not easy to define socialism. Itsdefinitions are numerous. As an

ideology it includes a variety ofdoctrines such as anarchism,syndicalism, and democratic socialism.There are many types of socialism interms of their political orientations.Some of them have been authoritarian,others democratic. There have also beenmany types of socialism in terms ofeconomic organisation. Someeconomies have been highlycentralised, while some otherscompletely decentralised. They allstand for equality but differ on themeaning attached to it.

Before defining socialism, it isnecessary to see how did it emerge inmodem times. It emerged as a reactionto the rise and development ofcapitalism. Laissez-faire doctrine led togreat difficulties in society. By themiddle of the nineteenth century, thedoctrine had gathered a great following.By then, England had become the firstindustrial nation of the world. Theprosperity of the Victorian England wasthere. People were convinced thatcompetition increase efficiency and

wealth. They regarded the ‘survival ofthe fittest’ as the unquestionable law ofnature. But by the end of the nineteenthcentury, the fallacies of the doctrinebecame evident. The economic powergot concentrated into the hands of a few.The majority lived in conditions of direpoverty. They had no freedom of choicebecause they were completelydependent on their wages even for baresurvival. They were not even in aposition to decide what they wantedbecause they lacked education. It wasalso realised that there was not muchtruth in the doctrine of ‘harmony ofinterests’. The industrialist was busyserving his own interest; he did not caremuch for the interest of the communityas a whole. In the medieval world, therewas a certain consensus about fairprice. But now there could be no suchthing as fair price. Prices were regulatedby economic and not by moral laws.People began to realise that if everyonewas allowed to conduct his business inhis own way, the law of the junglewould prevail.

Even the competition did not yieldresults as expected. It defeated its ownpurpose. It did increase the efficiencyof economic enterprise during the early



stages. But very soon as biggerorganisations began to monopoliseeconomic power, the smallerorganisations were crushed out. We cansee the impact of capitalism even inIndia where most of the economy is inthe hands of a few leading industrialhouses. Thus, capitalism itself limitedthe freedom of the entrepreneur.

Capitalism indeed increased thewealth of the nation. It led tounprecedented prosperity in Europe.Real wages went up. But very soonmarkets were flooded with goods. Asthe competition increased, the systembegan to face crises. Production reacheda saturation point. People began toapprehend that there might be asituation in which there were all sellers’and no buyers. Cycles of boom anddepression, known as trade cycles,became frequent. Unemployment wasa common phenomenon. People beganto realise why there was so much ofpoverty in the midst of plenty. Some ofthese reasons led Karl Marx toprophesy that capitalism containedwithin itself seeds of its own destruction.Socialism believed that capitalism is anegation of egalitarianism, it isinefficient and disregards — justice andhappiness.

CHARACTERISTICS

Socialism means the following inter-connected things:(a) an egalitarian society,(b) satisfaction of basic needs,(c) common ownership of vital

instruments of production, and(d) ideal of service.

(a) Egalitarian society

Socialism insists on what G.D.H. Colecalled human fellowship, which deniesor expels distinction of class, caste orcolour. It aims at reasonable equalityin society so that all are able to face eachother on equal terms. It holds that therecan be no genuine liberty withoutequality. Freedom cannot survivewithout security.

(b) Satisfaction of basic needs

It flows from the first. Socialists arguethat the motive of profit ought to bereplaced by the motive of service. Valueshould be decided by use and not byterms of exchange. What must bedistributed depends not on where it willfetch the highest price but where it ismost needed. The wealth of the stateought to be so distributed that even thepoorest can afford to satisfy his basicneeds. We must ensure sufficiency toall before surplus is available to.

(c) Common ownership

Socialism believes in commonownership and control of means ofproduction, e.g. land, power andbanks. These should be administeredin the interest of the whole rather thanof the parts. Happiness of all is to bepreferred to the happiness of the few.Socialists believe that from economicpoint of view an industry which iscollectively owned will be more efficientand from the moral point of view moresatisfying. It believes that inequality ofwealth leads to inequality ofopportunity. The system of recruitment


89

does not ensure the selection of the best.The children of the rich haveopportunities which are often denied tothose of the poor who thus start lifewith initial disadvantage. Such acondition of inequality is dangerous tothe stability of the state. Such inequalitydestroys initiative and is thereforeinhuman.

(d) Ideal of Service

Socialism emphasises the responsibilityof all citizens to the common good orgeneral welfare. It protests against theharsh materialism and individualism ofclassical liberals. A capitalist societyproduces ugly conditions. It insists ontoo much specialisation. It deprives theartisan of his pride in his work. In thefeudal period the craftsman used tomake a complete thing all by himself. Itused to be a matter of joy for him tofind a reflection of his creativeendeavours in it. But now man has beenreduced to the status of a cog in themachine. Instead of producing acomplete thing, he only produces asmall pan of it. He may not even knowwhere the part he has produced wouldfit in. He becomes no more than a linkin chain of production. But he is furthercondemned to live in slums or to becondemned to stand in the market forweeks or months with the hope that hislabour will be needed. He feelsdisgusted under these conditions ofmodern industry. The worker ceases tobe a human being. It is this feature ofthe capitalist society against whichMarx, Ruskin, Morris, Laski andGandhi spoke. Gandhi denounced

capitalism as immoral because itcondones and even glorifies greed andavarice.

The terms Socialism andCommunism are often usedinterchangeably. That is largelybecause of the powerful influence ofKarl Marx and yet one must distinguishbetween the two because communismhas become distinct ideology with acertain set of mixed doctrines, whereassocialism still remains largely atendency, a label for a wide variety ofdoctoring. Communism in a sense isalso a variety of socialism. We willdiscuss it in detail in the next chapter.Suffice is to say that communism, asarticulated by Marx, is based on acertain view of what human history willbe, whereas socialism is more a moralimperative; it deals with, what it oughtto be. Socialists are also aware of thepotential within capitalistarrangements towards the greaterequality. They all reject the dictum ofthe ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. Forthem, the revolution is not inevitable ornecessary. Gradualism is thewatchword of democratic socialism.Necessary and relevant reforms can bemade within the existing democraticframework.

Further, Marxism pinned its faith ina violent revolution. Marx did concedethe possibility of a peaceful change incountries like Great Britain. But, on thewhole, he thought that overthrow of thecapitalist system would not be possiblewithout violence because no rulingclass gives-up power on its own.Democratic socialism, on the other

SOCIALISM



hand, emphasises peaceful changesthrough the instrumentality ofparliamentary democracy. Thisnaturally implies that both have adifferent view of the nature and role ofstate. For Marx the state was aninstrument of domination in the handsof the capitalists. The capitalist classused it to exploit and oppress themasses. On the contrary, socialistsregarded it as autonomous of economicforces. They thought that it had enoughpotential to bring about redistributionof economic and political power insociety. The Chartist movement in themid-nineteenth century Britain and theGuild and Fabian socialists of the earlytwentieth century, all rejectedrevolutionary tactics. They optedinstead extension of Suffrage(Chartists); protective state (DemocraticSocialists); state as an instrument ofreform (Fabian Socialism); producerstate in which industries governedthemselves (Syndicalism); andgovernance through Trade UnionOrganisations (Guild Socialism).

In India, we were appreciative ofsocialism soon after we gainedIndependence. Most of our Nationalleaders like Nehru, Jai PrakashNarayan and Lohia championed thecause of socialism. It was in this contextthat socialistic pattern of society wasdeclared as one of the goals of plannedeconomy. At that time India tried tocombine democracy with Fabian kindof collective controls leading toregulations of imports and exports,Curbs on production of consumergoods and licensing of industrial set-

up. Removal of poverty and attainmentof economic self-reliance were acceptedas the two major task before the Indianstate. Nehru tried to promote collectivesector by greater state interference ineconomic life to mobilise resources andenhance employment opportunities.However, now India is following thegoals of globalisation, liberalisation andprivatisation.

Steps were also taken to nationalisebasic industries like Coal, Steel, Banksand Power. India has also undertakenprogrammes for public housing,medical care, adult education, landreforms, etc. but this socialism wassocialistic to the extent that the stateredistributed some resources; it is notsocialistic in the classical sense definedabove.

There is a growing realisation thatsome kind of socialism is necessary.But, we have also learnt that mereprovision of welfare services andgovernment regulations do not lead tosocialism. Indeed in certain quarters ithas led to centralisation andbureaucratisation. Socialists like JaiPrakash Narayan, Ram Manohar Lohiaor Roger Garaudy vehementaly pleadedfor diffusion of political power anddecentralisation of economy.Centralised planning creates a uniformsystem of economic development, whichdoes not fully take into account localvariations of individual aspirations. Ina good society duties ought to berelated to personal capacities,aptitudes, and rewards, and to thecontribution one makes to general life.A realisation of complexities of social life


91

EXERCISES

1. Describe the main characteristics of Socialism.2. Distinguish between Socialism and Communism.3. What socialistic steps have been taken in India?4. Write short notes on :

(i) Egalitarian Society;(ii) Democratic Socialism;(iii) Guild Socialism.

and importance of different groups areexpected to save socialism from theerrors of over–centralisation,bureaucratisation and uniformism. Wemust identify human needs and createa large number of centres of decision-making, capable of promoting economicand political initiatives at different levels.How such a principle can be put intopractice is the single most importantchallenge to socialism of our times.

It has also been realised that publicownership and economic subsidiesonly help big corporations in increasingtheir profits. They reduce the risks ofbusiness competition. Even the system

of progressive taxation is alleged tofavour the super-rich over the wageearner. It has contributed very little toredistribution of the wealth of thesuper-rich among the masses. It hasmostly meant redistribution of wealthamong middle classes themselves.

Socialism will have to transformitself before it achieves its goals inpractice. May be, it will be required toachieve some sort of a balance withliberalism on the one hand andMarxism on the other, individualinitiative and justice on the one handand supervening class conflict on theother.

SOCIALISM



Marxism

CHAPTER 14

GENESIS

BY the end of the sixteenth centurythe factory system was well-

established in England. The hand-worker struggled in vain againstmachine made goods. He was forced togive up his work and enter a factory asa worker. The new system created a lotof hardships for the workers. Theyoften worked for sixteen to eighteenhours a day. The textile mills did nothave proper conditions of sanitationand health. Outside the factory, theseworkmen lived in slums and crowdedlocalities. Since most of them hadmigrated to cities from small ruralcommunities they had lost their roots.The factories separated them apart fromtheir families and a communityreducing them to almost cogs in themachine which remaining beyond theircontrol.

The early socialists like Saint Simon,Robert Owen were horrified at theseconditions. Marx was one of the mostpowerful thinkers who understood thehavoc which early industrialisation hadbrought about. This is clearly evidentin the Communist Manifesto he wrotewith Fredrick Engels. He was also keen

to transform society on human lines.His search was essentially for a humansocial order. He brought into light thedilemmas of society working on theprinciples of profits, competition andlaissez-faire. He pointed out that thesource of misery and alienation lay inthe capitalist system working on theseprinciples.

TENETS OF MARXISM

The main tenets of Marxism are:(i) Dialectical Materialism,(ii) Historical Materialism,(iii) Class Struggle,(iv) Critique of Capitalism,(v) Revolution and Dictatorship of the

proletariat,(vi) Emergence of Classless Society.

(i) Dialectical Materialism

Marx agreed with Hegel that history isa process but disagreed about thenature of the process. While Hegelinterpreted human history in terms ofthe primacy of ideas and consciousness,Marx did so in terms of the primacy ofthe material forces. According to him,the agents of change are means ofproduction and the mode of production.


93

Mode of production is the way in whichmeans of production are used. Themeans are the tools or techniques bywhich economic production takesplace. Human labour and organisationare also examples of means. The modeis the way in which the ruling classesuse their means for their own interest.The mode of production, therefore,includes both relations of productionand means of production. The rulingclasses use their control over means ofproduction to exercise control over theentire social system. In A Contributionto the Critique of Political EconomyMarx declared that the history of societyis the history of material productionand of the contradiction between thematerial productive forces and therelations of production which arise ontheir basis. This contradiction isresolved through class struggle.

Marx shared with Hegel the ideathat history is the working out of thedialectical relationship. Hegel’s theoryof dialectics remained confined to therealm of ideas only, Karl Marx stressedthe role of economic factors in theprocess of dialectics. To Marx, it is theworking out of the tension betweennature and man, successive socialformations and competing socialclasses. Dialectics is a process whichcharacterises historical change in whichat any point of time one set of forcescan be identified as thesis, another asanti-thesis and the third one as thesynthesis. A thesis (such as feudalism)is confronted by antithesis (such ascapitalism), which is transferred to thenext phase of development, through

class action, to socialism (synthesis).The synthesis combines the bestcharacteristic of both thesis andantithesis. Each stage in the process istransitional and its emergence pre-supposes that in due course it will giveplace to another.

(ii) Historical Materialism

It is the application of dialecticalmaterialism to society. Like Hegel, Marxalso made history all embracing contextof human activity. But followingFeuerbach, Marx argued that man isconstituted by his desires, his work andthe economic system of which he is apart. For him economic activitydetermines the basis of all otheractivities. The political system, juridicalideas and moral concepts are all derivedfrom the way in which economic activityis structured. Social existence isessentially a series of productionrelations corresponding to definitemode of production. In Critique ofPolitical Economy Marx distinguishedbetween economic base (productionrelation) and the super-structure(culture, politics, philosophy,literature).

History, according to Marx, is arecord of the self-development ofproductive forces. Each state ischaracterized by social formation whichhas its own distinct mode of production.When one social framework is replacedby another, one definite mode ofproduction is replaced by another. Inthe sequence of these socialframeworks, there are the primitivesociety, the slave society, the feudal

MARXISM



society, the bourgeoisie. and finally theclassless society of the future. This willbe the culmination of human progressand lead to man’s completeemancipation from exploitation of manby man. Thus, with change in mode ofproduction, social framework itselfchanged in the process and a new socialformation comes into existence. It isobjectively rated to be superior to theearlier social formation because itbrings relations of production in linewith change in forces of production.

(iii) Class Struggle

Marx emphasises the existence of apermanent condition of social conflictbetween economic classes (haves andhave-nots). The changes in technologyand specialisation of functions lead todifferences in status, wealth andpolitical power. New economic classesemerge. Some own means ofproduction, others live by them. Verysoon there is an inevitable conflictbetween these two antagonistic classes.Marx and Engels wrote in theCommunist Manifesto “All hithertohistory is the history of class struggles.”The conflict is there because those, whoown the means of production, exploitthe workers poor economic conditionsto their own advantage. They giveminimum possible wages to theworkers and extract maximumpossible labour. In the capitalist society,the society comes to be divided into twoantagonistic classes, viz. ‘bourgeoisie’or those who own property and the‘proletariat’ or those who do not own

any property but are much larger innumber and yet, are perpetuallyexploited by the bourgeoisie. In courseof time, the conflict becomes intensebecause the workers live below thesubsistence level. They are unable tobuy goods, which the industrial systemproduces.

The state at a particular time is inthe hands of the economically dominantclass. Political power is the function ofeconomic power. As economic powershuffles from feudal class to thebourgeoisie, the system of kingshipgives way to the representativedemocracy which is controlled byentrepreneurs. The ideology of divineright of kings gives place to modernliberalism. The ideology is used toconsolidate the domination of thedominant class on the structure ofpower, specially law, police and judicialapparatus. The state becomes aninstrument in the hands of theeconomically dominant class to exploitthe working class.

(iv) Critique of Capitalism

The most enduring part of what Marxwrote, specially in Das Capital was hiscritique of capitalism. Any other writerin its moral fervour and systematicanalysis has not surpassed it. Heargued that the basic contradiction inthe capitalist system is that while, onthe one hand, it increasesinterdependence of works as a result ofthe development of factory system, onthe other, it leads to concentration ofeconomic power in the hands of private


95

Feudalism Capitalism Socialism(thesis) (anti-thesis) (synthesis)

Organisation of Production Private Social Social

Principle of Distribution Private Private social

interests. Thus, while the organizationof production is social, the distributionis private. Marx was convinced that thedecline of capitalism is inevitable. Whatdistinguishes his thought from hispredecessors’ is precisely the belief inthe dialectical process of history.

Another drawback of the capitalistsociety is that it generates a pattern ofimmense inequality. An overwhelmingmajority of people suffer from povertyand want. The capitalist system is basedon the toil of the workers. And yet, theyare the worst victims. They are alsothose, who receive much less of whatthey produce. Some live in luxury bymaking others live in poverty. The onlyway of determining value of a thing wasby calculating the labour necessary toproduce it. The worker, and not thecapitalist, produces the value and yethe is deprived of his share and is paidminimal wages. The capitalist takes thesurplus away from the worker.Therefore, the difference between theproduction value and the exchangevalue becomes ‘surplus value’ whichaccording to Marx becomes a vehicle ofexploitation of workers by thecapitalists. The capitalists, too, competewith each other in a headlong pursuitof profit.

One feature of capitalism is thatit brings workers together andcreates a sense of community inthem. In the feudal period theworkers l ived in isolatedcircumstances. Goods were producedprivately. A modern factory bringsthem together and creates classconsciousness in them, finally pavingway for class action leading torevolution. Initially, Marx thoughtthat the revolution would be violent.But later, specially, after 1848, hemodified his views to incorporate thepossibil ity of other roads torevolution. Transition to socialismwould vary according to socio-economic conditions of a particularcountry. Marx cited the example ofEngland where transition tosocialism might be more peaceful.

The fundamental contradiction ofcapitalism is that while it has led toworker interdependency through thefactory system, it has failed todistribute wealth in the interest of all.The socialisation of the means ofproduction cannot be combined witha system of private profit. Thiscontradiction is best understood inthe context of the characteristics ofboth feudalism and socialism.

MARXISM



(v) Revolution and Dictatorshipof the Proletariat

Once the socialist revolution takesplace, the power passes into the handsof the proletariat and bourgeoisie.democracy is replaced by thedictatorship of the proletariat. It isunder this dictatorship that a truedemocracy is established for it isessentially a government of an over-whelming majority of the working classagainst the minority of exploiters. Theproletariat would seize power toliquidate the last remnants of thebourgeoisie order by establishing statecontrol of all means of production andby making all citizens equalparticipants in the new socialframework.

(vi) Emergence of ClasslessSociety

Once, the bourgeoisie is completelyliquidated, the state would wither awayand a new society will be ushered in, inwhich there will be no state, no classes.In such a society each wouldcontribute according to his capacityand receive according to his needs. Marxbelieved that the new man wouldnaturally and spontaneously identifyhis own interests with the generalinterest in society. It must be mentionedhere that beyond these utopian ideas,Marx says very little about the futuresociety. His main concern was toproduce a powerful critique of thecapitalist system. He focussed ourattention on the idea that the source ofservitude and alienation lay in the

capitalist system. Man is both an objectexploited by the system and a subjectwho becomes conscious of his plightand servitude, and revolts against thesystem as it leads to monopolycapitalism, inequality, class struggleand pauperisation of the masses.

LIMITATIONS OF MARXISM

Marx, however, did not adequatelygrasp the significance of nationalist andpatriotic sentiments. His doctrine, inthis sense, was ethnocentric. Heunderstood some of the deeper moralissues of capitalist society. Heunderstood classes and their conflictbut had no adequate idea of othersocieties and their peculiar institutionsand practices. These institutions andpractices often cut across classsolidarity. He also underestimated thecapacity of capitalism to change itself.Most of the industrialised nations in thewest have tended to domesticate conflictrather than develop on the lines Marxprophesied. In some of thesedemocracies, the state itself has tendedto intervene in favour of the leastadvantaged. In another sense, hisprophecy has not come true. Marxbelieved that revolutions will come inthe most advanced capitalist countries,whereas, in fact, they have been causedin the backward, under-developedcapitalist societies.

In characterising the state as aninstrument of class domination, Marxalso ignored that no state can survivefor long unless it rises above theparticular interests and works for wider


97

interests of society. The state aloneprovides a framework for better andorganised living. It alone reconciles ourclaims and counter-claims. In anyefficiently functioning system, theparticular interest must be limited bysome consideration of public good.Without it the system woulddisintegrate. The regulation of specialinterest is one of the most importantfunctions of the state activity. In fact,Marxism did not have a theory of state.Lenin had to invent one in order tocreate a framework of order in Russia.Indeed, capitalist system was badenough. And it was only with the helpof political power that it could bechanged, modified or replaced. It is thestate, alone which can stand for thegeneral good. A capitalist state mightbe replaced by a proletarian one, butall the same we do require a state in thesense of machinery entrusted with thetask of coordination in society.

LENIN AND MAO

The country where the first Marxistrevolution took place was Russia andthe ideological leader was V.I. Lenin(1870-1924). In a pamphlet what is tobe done? (1902), Lenin repudiated thedoctrine of the inevitable decline ofcapitalism. Marx had believed thatchanges in economic system wouldautomatically lead to changes in thesuper-structure of society and politics.He had declared that while handmillgives us a feudal society, the steel millgives us a capitalist one. Lenin did notaccept this doctrine. According to him,

while workers were capable of tradeunion consciousness, they did not havethe urge to develop a revolutionaryagency helping them to have it. In theabsence of the agency all that theworkers wanted was an increase inwages through the mechanism oftradeunion activity. The revolutionaryconsciousness could only be broughtabout by a class of professionalrevolutionaries, the avant garde whooperate from without. The class ofprofessional revolutionaries would findits expression in the party. He, therefore,substituted active intervention of ahighly disciplined party for objectiveforces of Marxian history.

Lenin also tried to explain whysocialist revolution, as Marx hadpredicted, had failed to materialise inthe West. In 1916 Lenin publishedImperialism: The Highest Stage ofCapitalism in which he argued thatmonopoly capitalism inevitably leads tonational and international cartels oftrusts and monopolies. He wasconvinced that the basic tendency of thecapitalist system was the same. Whathad happened to obscure this was thefact of acquisition of colonies by the richcountries. These countries brought rawmaterials from their colonies and soldfinished products to them. This had ledto internationalisation of “surplusvalue” and increasing prosperity of thecapitalists. The capitalists tried to sharetheir spoils with workers of theirrespective countries by giving themincreasing concessions in workingconditions and more wages. This wasan outcome of their concern for their

MARXISM



own safety. These concessions hadproduced a “petty bourgeoisie” illusionamong workers. It had created a falseconsciousness among labour leaderswho had turned themselves into ‘labouraristocracy,’ corrupted by high wagespaid to them from the outcome of theexploitation of colonies. They developedvested interests in the maintenance ofthe status quo.

Lenin prophesied that revolutionwas most likely to occur in Russia,which was the weakest link in thecapitalist chain.

In China Mao Ze Dong was largelyresponsible for the revolution. Hecreated peasant-based armies. Once inpower, he tried to bring about basicindustrialisation and increase inagricultural production throughcollectivisation. Marx had seencommunism coming in the wake ofadvanced capitalism. Mao sawcommunism essentially ascommunisation of productive processand elimination of private property. Hetried to combine Marxism with specific,natural characteristics of China. Hisemphasis was on politicisation ratherthan professionalisation.

TENSION IN CONTEMPORARY

MARXISM

Marxism in Russia was able to create aframework necessary for theachievement of a modern state of adifferent nature. It was able to bringabout necessary changes in the age-oldpattern of society and create anindustrial system leading to national

growth of 8 per cent. But the state ofrevolutionary idea did not last long.Both Russia and China like all societieswhich preceded them, developed theirown ruling classes obsessed with powertowards greater bureaucratisation andparty control. Both bureaucracy andparty tried to secure to themselvescertain privileges and since there is afusion of party and the state, the formerhas complete control over society. Stalinabolished even intra party discussionsand reserved the final right ofinterpretation to himself. Once theideology was institutionalised it wasritualised and tended to be identifiedwith status quo.

People have begun to realise thatwhile the goals of communism had anelement of nobility about them, thesystem as a whole failed to create aninstitutional mechanism against themisuse of power. Power in itself is notbad. In fact, in certain situations it canbe a source of positive good. Problemsof poverty sometimes require activestate intervention. But in the absenceof proper safeguards in the form of aproper system of accountability, theleaders or the party and bureaucracyassume the sole right of decision-making, settling all problems in thename of the people, and in some cases,even in opposition to them. Every attackon freedom is baptised in the name ofideology or class.

As a result, the CommunistMovement drifted towards a decline,which was discernible for the first timewhen a rift between the Russian andChinese communists came on surface.


99

EXERCISES

1. Define Marxism.2. Explain the theory of Historical Materialism.3. Is Marxism relevant today?4. Discuss Lenin’s contribution to Marxism.5. Write short notes on:

(i) Dialectical Materialism;(ii) Theory of class struggle;

(iii) Classless society.

Soon after 1960, problems began toemanate and unpopular situationsarose in the communist socialistcountries of Eastern and CentralEurope. On the other hand, during theseventies, trend towards Euro-communism led by the CommunistParty of Italy adopted a reconciliatoryattitude supporting parliamentaryinstitutions and reforms rather thanrevolution. Rapid changes took placein Eastern Europe, as well as in Chinaand Russia.

In China, movements for a largerdemocracy were launched in 1979 and1986. In June 1989 several agitatorswere shot dead at the TiananmenSquare during a students’ rally. In theSoviet Union reform movement initiatedby Mikhail Gorbachev marked thebeginning of the end of the communistmovement not only in Europe butalmost the world over. Ultimately inDecember 1991, the Soviet Union wasdisintegrated. The disintegration of theSoviet Union did not mean thedisintegration of the Marxist ideology

itself. With the decline of the SovietUnion the communist/socialist systemcollapsed in the European countriesone after another. The economy of allthese countries was in a shatteredcondition. In Russia, the prices ofconsumer goods registered a 350 foldshoot up and ninety per cent of thepeople were thrown below the povertyline. Therefore, a change in the politicalsystem brought in its train a quicktransformation in economy. Changingtrends in the forces of marketism,openness in economies and shiftingemphasis on privatisation wereincreasingly visible. Even in theCommunist/Socialist China, there areclear indications of liberalism andopenness in economy. Thesedevelopments have compelled theMarxists to give a deeper thought onthe organisation of social relations. Nowa question is being raised whetherMarxism has been a dogma for theliberation of mankind. Its relevance asan alternative ideology before the worldis no more unquestioned.

MARXISM



Fascism

CHAPTER 15

GENESIS

UNLIKE communism, fascism wasnot a well-knit doctrine. It was

more of an attitude. It had to be allthings to all men to increase its appealto masses. Fascist leaders oftendefended their lack of a well-defineddoctrine on the ground that it was more‘a policy of action’. Mussolini said, “wedo not believe in dogmaticprogrammes, in that kind of rigid framewhich is supposed to contain andsacrifice the changeable, changing andcomplex reality... Doctrine, beautifullydefined and carefully elucidated withheadlines and paragraphs, might belacking; but there was to take its placesomething more decisive….faith”.

Fascism was essentially a productof the forces released as a result ofWorld War. Italy was denied itsprincipal territorial claims at the ParisConference after the World War I. It feltthat it had been betrayed by theallies. After World War I, theeconomic situation also deteriorated.Unemployment increased. Successiveparliaments were unrepresentative,corrupt and inefficient. People hadgrown sceptic. Strikes were frequent. A

general feeling of crisis prevailedthroughout the country. TheGovernment of the day failed. Thesocialists could replace it but did notmuster enough courage. In themeanwhile fascists under the leadershipof Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) beganto take advantage of this situation. Hethought that nationalism was far morepotent than communism. In October,1922, he decided to march on Rome.The march ended with Mussolini’sappointment as Premier. Without caringmuch for political institutions, he beganto transform the entire system intopersonal dictatorship.

The post-war situation in Germanywas even worse. Germany had beendefeated. The war guilt clause severelyindicted Germany. It put soleresponsibility for the war on Germany.The allied powers refused to permit theGerman Republic to make any drasticchanges in the economic structure ofthe state. German territories were cededto France, Poland, Denmark andBelgium. Rhineland was occupied toensure German payment of reparationsto allies specially France. The countrywas politically divided. It was smartingunder international humiliation.


101

Nationalist Socialist German worker’sParty (NSDAP or NAZI) under theleadership of Adolf Hitler (1889-1945)exploited this situation. As theeconomic situation deteriorated and the’number of unemployed increased, therank of the party swelled. In the electionof July, 1932, the Nazi poll leapt to 37per cent of the total. PresidentHidenburg appointed Hitler ReichChancellor in January, 1933. Hecalculated that induction into officewould curb his radical activities, tocounter this calculation; he ordered aplebiscite in March 1933. TheGovernment secured 52 per cent of thevotes cast; and this established himfirmly. Then he successfully engineeredparliamentary and electoral support byintimidating his rivals.

Both Hitler and Mussolini tried toorganise a new regime and restore orderin their respective countries. Both wereconvinced of the weaknesses of liberaldemocracies. They hated intensefactionalism of competing parties. Theywere alike in their hatred of foreigngovernments as well as of communismat home. Both tried to transcend class-conflict in the name of greater andhigher ideal of nationalism.

Fascists argued that the state is thenation. It is identified with society. It hasits own life. Nothing has any value orsignificance outside the state. It alonehas the capacity to synthesise value,interpret, develop and give expressionto every aspect of life. Liberals start withthe individuals, and view the state fromtheir perspectives. Fascist theory startsfrom the opposite point of view. It

argues that man is a social animal. Hecannot live apart from larger organismcalled the Nation State. If he is selfish,he is anti-social. The state has everyright to correct him. The individual isjust a cell in this organism. It is only byremaining as such that he can find histrue freedom. He is free only when heidentifies himself with the state.

Once it is recognised that the stateis the organism and individual is merelya cell, it is easy to conclude that the cellis expendable for the sake of the whole.The state becomes something morethan the individuals who compose it.The state, as conceived by them, is aspiritual and moral fact in itself.Mussolini declared, “The Italian Nation,is an organism with purposes, a life andmeans of action transcending in powerand duration, those individuals singlyor grouped, which compose it. It is amoral, political and economic unitywhich realises itself in the Fascist State”.Thus, in the name of the nation-statefascists were able to deny individuality,natural rights and judicialindependence that characterisepolitical institutions in Western Europe.

Fascism is also authoritarian. Itaccepts rigid hierarchy in socialorganisation. If the state is society, theleader is its brain. He assesses the needsof the body and decides how best tosatisfy them. He, in a sense, interpretsthe general will of society. He has thesole authority to decide for society.

The individual is merely a cell. Hemust accept the dictates of the leader.He has duties to perform but no rightsto enjoy. The judgment of the leader is

FASCISM



infallible. It cannot be disputed. Hence,representative democracy has no placein a Fascist system. It must be replacedby the government of the leader andothers appointed by the leader. Theleader alone can provide correctivemeasures to what is happening insociety. Fascists called their leaderDuce and the Nazis Fuhrer.

THE DOCTRINE

It is a doctrine, which believes that thestate is not subject to any moral laws.The state is the supreme custodian ofmorality itself. It is the supremecommunity. “Mussolini is always right”was one of the maxims of the party,whose motto was “To Believe, To Obey,To Fight”. In this, slogan, Fascismvirtually identified itself with animportant element of Christianity. Itconsidered religion as the manifestationof the deepest in man. It sought todefend and protect it. This view largelyexplains the cordial relations Mussolinihad with the Pope. Extreme Nazism triedto create a state church but did notsucceed much.

Fascism rejected democracy basedon the rule of the majority. It denied thatnumbers alone can govern by meansof periodical consultation. Thereceptivity of the masses is very limited,their intelligence is small. The principleof equality is replaced by the principleof one man leadership or theNietzschean doctrine of the superman.The pattern of democracy is that of apyramid balanced on its apex.

This principle is supposed to applyto all branches of life. In industry, for

example, the employer was the leaderof the factory and the workers hisfollowers. It is for this reason thatcommunists hated fascists. Theythought the equation of the employerto the leader and workers to thefollowers in the German Labour Codewas nothing but a smoke screen to hidethe totalitarian designs of thecapitalists. For them fascism was thelast desperate attempt of capitalism tosave itself, it was not so muchcapitalism in decay as capitalismfighting for life. Fascism adopted a cleverposture. It dissolved all working classorganisations. It also limited theinitiative of the employers. It acceptedcapitalism and yet stressed itssubordination to the ideal of welfarestate. Hitler declared that it was theduty of the state to see that “capitalremains the servant of the nation”. Bothtried to advance their own idea ofcorporate state. Based on Hegel’sconcept of three classes — theagricultural, the industrial and theuniversal or governing, Mussoliniargued that these classes were notantagonistic in the Marxian sense butwere complementary to each other. Eachclass was accepted by the state ashaving the right to pursue its ownwelfare. Labour must do its job, theemployers theirs. The third element,that is party, must govern both. Bothworkers and capitalists are subservientto it. It was hoped that such a statewould abolish class conflict and createharmony.

The doctrine of political and moralsupremacy of the state meant the rise


103

of militant nationalism in both thesecountries. Both denied the possibilityor even the utility of perpetual peace.War brings up to its highest tension allhuman energy and brings out the bestin all. “In internal warfare, mankindhas become great”, declared Hitler, “inexternal peace mankind would beruined”. Both Hitler and Mussolinidreamt of new empires.

Most reprehensible feature ofGerman fascism was the Aryan racetheory. Hitler declared that Aryans aresuperior to every other race in the worldand hence most fit to govern. Thefundamental aim of his regime was toensure the purity of the Aryan race. Inthe name of this doctrine, he unleasheda war against the Jews. They were sentto gas chambers and mercilessly killed.By defending himself against the jews,Hitler thought he was doing God’swork. The whole character andeducation of the Nazi regime wassupposed to find its apex in racialinstruction. “It must brand the senseof race and feeling of race”, said Hitler,“on the instincts and the understandingof the hearts and brains of the youthentrusted to it”. Naturally, Mussolinidid not share this view of the existenceof pure races.

DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS

It would be proper here to analyse fourviewpoints regarding Fascism. First, anumber of exponents have depictedFascism as a danger to liberaleconomy. They opine that liberalpolitical values as well as institutions

have failed to deliver goods. As a resultof this failure, Fascism has been ableto take the place of capitalism. Second,some critics have equated it with atotalitarian system. They regard it as afore-runner of totalitarianism. Fascismlays stress on total restraint on citizenswhere privatisation finds no place. AsMussolini has said: “Everything iswritten in the state. There is nothingoutside it. There is nothing against it”.Such commentators were quite popularduring the Cold War period whenFascism – Communism co-relationshipwas justified. Nazi-Soviet Pact wasgiven a wide acclaim. Points ofsimilarities were drawn between Hitler’sattempt for improving the race andStalin’s ‘purification’ drive. In a systemlike this fear and suppression were ofprime importance. Efforts were madeto bring closer the perceptions ofFascism and Communism. However,the ideologies as well as their premiseshave been fundamentally different.Fascism safeguards the interests of themiddle class people and supportstraditional institutions like Church andarmy, where as communism has beenopposing these values. Third, in thesixth decade of the 20th century,Fascism was described as radicalism ofthe rightists. Traditional views were putforward and encouraged. In a bid topresent Fascism as rightist, it wasprojected as a continuum from the past.The political ideology assumedsignificance in such an explanation.Fourth, Fascists often quoted writingsof Rousseau, Hegel, Nietzsche tolegitimise their beliefs and action. It was

FASCISM



only opportunism which made them doit. Otherwise it is doubtful whether theyreally appreciated the profundity ofHegel or Rousseau or Nietzsche.

In any case, once they capturedpower, they destroyed socialists,communists, recalcitrant members ofbureaucracy, trade unions, Jews andall those who opposed paramilitaryforces. They centralised the powers ofthe state, eliminated rights, in the nameof the supremacy of the common good.Their economic policy was indeed asuccess to some extent. Both in Italyand Germany, the aim was self-sufficiency and much progress wasmade in that direction. The economiccrisis had hit both the countries andthere were signs of some recovery. Bothwere able to unite their respectivecountries. They restored their nationsto the status of first class powers. Bothinstilled new hopes into masses. Onehas to see the war movies to appreciatehow great their impact was on thepsychology of all.

Various political writings haveexplained Fascism in different ways. Ofthese, the following four view pointsstand out prominently.

(i) Fascism as a menace to the liberalstates,

(ii) Fascism as a protagonist ofradical totalitarian state,

(iii) Fascism as a radical rightistideology,

(iv) Fascism as a revolt againstmodernism.

Fascism can be evaluated fromthree points of view — as an ideology,as a movement and as a system of

government. Ideologically, it wasagainst humanism. It was anti-humanitarian and sought to destroysome of the most cherished humanvalues–rights and interests, freedomand equality in the name of thesupremacy of the nation-state.

Looking at from the ideologicalpoint of view, it can be said that whileliberalism destroys unity in the nameof the individual interest, Fascismdestroys the individual in the name ofthe state. The individual becomesexpendable for the sake of the state andcan be sacrificed at its alter. The ‘nationstate’ is important but it cannot beidentified with the government becausefor all practical purposes thegovernment merely consists of a groupof people who speak in the name of thestate. The more we glorify the state, themore we glorify the persons who claimto speak in its name and hence, themore we pave the way for the emergenceof dictatorship. Society is composed ofvarious wholes. The interest of the stateis not always superior to the interest ofthe individual. That is why theMahabharata declared that for the sakeof the village an individual may besacrificed, for the interest of the provincethe village may be sacrificed, for the sakeof the country the province may besacrificed, but for the sake of theindividual soul even the whole worldmay be abandoned. Moreover, the stateas a whole is not alone. There are otherstates which have an identity of theirown. No whole has a right to trampleon the freedom of other wholes. No statehas a right to destroy other states.


105

EXERCISES

1. Explain the meaning of Fascism.2. Mention any four weaknesses of the Fascist doctrine.3. Fascism and democracy do not see eye to eye with each other. Comment.4. Describe the main characteristics of Fascism.5. Write short notes on:

(i) Fascism and Capitalism;(ii) Fascism from ideological point of view;

(iii) Aryan race theory in German Fascism.

Again, while evaluating it from thestandpoint of a system of Government,it may be observed that a Governmentbased on a denial of human rights andinterests cannot last long. Dictators areforced to keep up nations to highemotional pitch. In order to do so theydevise various methods of rewards andpunishment to perpetuate themselvesin power. Hitler did so by irrationalpropaganda and the use of myths andsymbols and the repetition of slogans.Such a policy leads inevitably toviolence at home and wars abroad. Thestory of the rise and fall of fascismdemonstrates the truth of thestatement.

As a movement, Fascism appearedin Italy after the First World War. Withthe advent of Mussolini in 1922, themovement got momentum. Aftersometime Hitler came upon the stagein Germany and Fascism set its foot inmany countries. The Fascist movement

swiftly spread to Austria, Hungary,Romania and Spain. But after thesecond World War, Fascism wastotally repudiated. It was realisedthat Fascism, specially militaryexpansionism and violation of humanrights, was an outcome of Hitler’spolicy. That is why, the Fascist blockwas not only completely annihilated,but also totally rejected, condemnedand criticised.

If we evaluate Fascism as a politicalsystem, we find that it is based on theconcept of one party, one man andpolice domination. It is a system wherepolitical and social activities arecontrolled by the state. In theinternational sphere, the Fascistadministrative formations have beenexpansionist and aggressive,consequently posing danger to HumanRights, administrative systems andnational existence. The Second WorldWar was an outcome of this policy.

FASCISM



Gandhism

CHAPTER 16

GANDHI was the supreme leader ofthe nationalist movement. He was

also a thinker who challenged most ofthe assumptions and beliefs of his time.The national movement before him wasconfined to a few sections of society. Heturned it into a mass movement. Hisstrategy of political action largelydetermined the form of national protestand struggle against the British. Theidea of Swadeshi and boycott had beenformulated earlier. But he gave them aunique meaning by integrating themwith the idea of a non-violentsatyagraha. His political strategyattempted to bring all sections of Indiansociety into the nationalist struggle.

His views are known as Gandhismbut he himself denied that there wasanything as “Gandhism”. But there area set of ideas in him which are originaland which have exercised enormousinfluence on different people in thesame way as other ideologies have. Hiswritings are diffuse and repetitive,except in Hind Swaraj which he wrotebefore he plunged into the nationalmovement. But, despite this, hiswritings have a coherent: vision of manand society.

Some of his important ideas can besummarised under five heads:(i) critique of western civilisation,(ii) Gandhi’s views on Democracy(iii) freedom and the state, (iv) freedomand economic organisation, (v) methodsof conflict resolution.

CRITIQUE OF WESTERN

CIVILISATION

Gandhi like Vivekananda and otherleaders of the Indian Renaissancecriticised the western civilisation.According to him it was based oncalculated rational self-interest, whichwas totally disruptive of humanrelationships. He admired Indiancivilisation, which according to him hada more satisfactory view of man’s placein the cosmos. It had given dueimportance to spiritualism and man’ssearch for the soul. He was convincedthat the pursuit of self-interest in theform of material interest would increaseconflict in society. He believed in theancient ideas of simple, moral, piouslife. This does not mean that he admiredeverything Indian. He revolted againstthe exploitation of the scheduled castes


107

and did more than anyone else for theimprovement of their status.

Gandhi also did not like thepolitical democracy as it prevailed inthe West. He dismissed liberaldemocracy as ‘a fish market’ in whichpeople compete for their self-interest.He of course believed that thegovernment ought to be based on theconsent of the people but he, hated tosee the state as the rule of the selfishindividuals. According to him,democracy, as practised in Britain,was bad because it believed incounting heads. Those who used51per cent votes ruled. He wanted thatin a democracy the weakest shouldhave the same opportunity as thestrongest. He complained thatdemocracy had come to mean partyrule, or to be more exact, rule in thehands of the Prime Minister who oftenlacks honesty of purpose. In it, he heldthat each party thrives on bargainsregardless of their consequencesfor all.

His reaction against the industrialcivilisation, which he detested asimmoral, had also a pragmaticreason. Ours is a predominantly ruralsociety. Most people depend onagriculture. He thought that theintroduction of labour-saving devicesin such a society would play havocwith life of the people. However, withadvancing age his opposition totechnology decreased. He began towelcome any technology which didnot increase unemployment anddestroy village craft and the simplicityof village life.

VIEWS ON DEMOCRACY

In Hind Swaraj (1909), Gandhi hadtaken an extremely negative view of thevalue or role of the institutions ofmodern civilisation, namely, theparliament, law-courts, the police, themilitary, machinery, hospitals,railways, etc. These institutions ofmodern civilisation, he said, weredivorced from morality, whereas, bycontrast, “the tendency of Indiancivilisation is to elevate the moralbeing”. Accordingly, in place of theinstitutions of modern, westerncivilisation, he put forward analternative ideal of “real homerule…viz, self-rule and self-control” bythe individuals in accordance with thespiritual values of truth and non-violence.

However, within a year of his activeinvolvement in mobilising the Indianmasses into the freedom struggle,Gandhi made a partial revision of hisearlier views on the institutions ofmodern civilisation. That revision wasdue not only to his active involvementin the freedom struggle but also to thecriticisms which many politicalthinkers and political leaders hadmade of Gandhi’s booklet. At any rate,within about a year of his final returnto India from South Africa in 1915,Gandhi came to adopt a rather positiveattitude toward the institutions ofmodern life, including the parliament,law-courts, machinery, railways andhospitals. Rather than dismissingthem outright as he had done in hisHind Swaraj, he now reluctantly

GANDHISM



included them in what he called his“pardonable programme for theattainment of parliamentary swaraj ”.

As to the organisational features of“parliamentary swaraj”, Gandhipreferred it to be a village-based,decentralised set-up, in which all butthe lowest level of government was tobe indirectly elected by the immediatelylower level. This decentralised, village-based model of parliamentary/democratic swaraj was not the modelthat was favoured by the Congress andadopted by the Indian Constitution.The Constitution, however, doesincorporate some so-called Gandhianinstitutions such as the villagepanchayats. Moreover, the personal andcivil liberties as well as the democraticrights components of the liberal-democratic political philosophy of theConstitution are basic to Gandhi’s ownmoral-political philosophy.

FREEDOM AND THE STATE

Gandhi looked upon an increase in thepower of the state with the greatest fear.All increase in the power of the state,according to him, was detrimental toindividuality. For him the staterepresented “violence in a concentratedform”. He said: “The individual has asoul, but the state is a soulless machine,it can never be weaned from violence towhich it owes its existence”. He toobelieved in Swaraj as a condition inwhich the individual would be completemaster of himself. He often contrastedspiritual dominance of Indian societywith political dominance of the West. For

him, while the west prized “brute force”,the ancient Indian society glorified kingswho considered their own swords as“inferior to the sword of ethic”.

He postulated a non-violent statebased on the willing consent of thepeople and representing the nearunanimity in society. He was convincedthat if India was to evolve along non-violent lines, it would have todecentralise power because“centralisation as a system isinconsistent with a non-violentstructure of society”. He was not onlyagainst centralisation of political powerbut was also against the centralizationof economic power. He was againstindustries based on large-scaleproduction and later large-scalecontrol. In a centralised state, Gandhithought, there was bound to be aconflict between the rich and the poor.Decentralisation, on the other hand,would make people responsible andnon-violent. It would foster feelings ofco-operation.

Gandhi’s ideal state would becompletely self-regulated. In such astate, he thought, everyone would behis own ruler. He will rule himself insuch a manner that he will never be ahindrance to his neighbour. It is for thisreason that he admired Ramrajyawhich personified the idea of self-help,sacrifice, and discipline. He evenregarded Abu Baker and Hazrat Umanlike Rama. But he was quite aware thatit was not possible to create such a statein the immediate future. One of theobstacles were inequalities “in whichfew roll in riches and the masses do not


109

get even enough to eat”. Therefore, heconceded that in the presentcircumstances coercion could be usedin extreme cases. But he was convincedthat a state is good in which people aregoverned the least.

He thought the village Republicsworking in terms of panchayats woulddevelop the spontaneous energies of thepeople while training them in co-operative action. He, therefore, pleadedthat panchayats should be given fullpowers. Every village had to be self-sustained and capable of managing itsown affairs. Gandhi praised this systembecause in it everyone knows his wantsand also realises that “no one shouldwant anything that others cannot havewith equal labour”. He summed up hissociety thus: “1n this structurecomposed of innumerable villages, therewill be ever widening, never ascendingcircles. Life will not be a pyramid withthe apex sustained by the bottom… Butit will be an oceanic circle whose centrewill be the individual always ready toperish for the circle of villages, till at lastthe whole becomes one life composedof individuals”. He further said that theoutermost circumference will, not wieldpower to crush the inner circle but willgive strength to all within and derive itsown strength from it.

FREEDOM AND ECONOMIC

ORGANISATION

Like Marx he put emphasis on labour.He believed it to be the real wealthwhich gives rise to money. He thought,“The real owner of wealth is one who

puts in certain amount of labour witha conscious productive aim”. Hebelieved that one should not eat even asingle meal without doing some labour.He thought that such an attitude wouldfoster economic independence, which inturn will make us fearless and increasethe national character.

He totally, repudiated property. Healways thought that property was anobstacle in the realisation of God. Aftera theft he quoted a verse of Premchandto Gangabehari: “It is a blessing thatchains have broken, it will be easier forme to find Shri Gopal”. Gandhi was,however, conscious that such a positionwas impractical. He, therefore, declaredthat if property is “lawfully acquired”,it is entitled to protection.

It is in this context that he calledupon the Capitalists and Zamindars tobecome trustees. He argued that theyshould regard tenants and workers asco-proprietors. The zamindar shouldhold his Zamindari or industry in trustfor them. He admitted that absolutetrusteeship was unattainable. But hewas convinced that if we strive for it wewould go a long way in realizing a betterstate of equality on earth than by anyother method. For him change of heartwas the answer.

How about state ownership? Isn’tit better than private ownership?Gandhi admitted that it was better buthe rejected it on the grounds ofviolence. He was convinced that “if thestate suppressed capitalism byviolence, it will be caught in the coils ofviolence itself, and will fail to developnon-violence at any time. But if the

GANDHISM



Zamindar or Capitalist refused tobecome trustees, and the stateownership became unavoidable, hewould support a minimum of stateownership”.

METHODS OF CONFLICT

RESOLUTION

Gandhi emphasised the need toharness the forces of love as againsthatred. He insisted on non-violence andSatyagraha over the concepts ofboycott and passive resistance. Hewrote that means to be means mustalways be clean. For him ahimsa is oursupreme duty. If we take care of themeans, we shall definitely reach the endsooner or later. He had derived his ideasfrom Thoreau, Emerson, Tolstoy andthe Jain tradition. He was alsoinfluenced by the Sermon on the Mount.He was convinced that what wasrequired was to educate a man in truthand non-violence, and by truth, manwill transform material conditions forthe good of all. Material conditions andindividual character are two sides of thesame coin in which, according toGandhi, the individual character had agreater precedence because it alone hasthe capacity to transform materialconditions on a permanent basis. Achange of material conditions withoutcorresponding change of heart will notyield results. Both trusteeship andsatyagraha were such methods.

Satyagraha consists of two words,i.e. Satya, which means ‘truth’ andAgraha, which means ‘force’, ‘request’or ‘strength’. All practitioners of

Satyagraha should oppose violence bynon-violence as well as by the strengthof his moral convictions. According toGandhi, it was not merely a way ofresisting authority but also a way of usinglove and moral strength to vindicate truthin society. Gandhi was convinced thatviolence inflicts injury on others. On theother hand, use of Satyagraha mayinvolve suffering of the Satyagrahihimself. The Satyagrahi does not merelytry to win but seeks the larger good ortruth which Gandhi thought was Godhimself. However, if there was a choicebetween violence and cowardice, Gandhialways favoured the former.

Satagraha is the name of Gandhiannon-violent way of political action toresist and transform untruthful andviolent systems of social or politicalpower. According to Gandhi, thedistinctive features of Satagraha, incomparison with “passive resistance”,are as follows:

(i) While the passive resistersharbour hatred toward theiradversaries, the satyagrahis viewtheir opponents with love.

(ii) The passive resisters, unlike thesatyagrahis, may harass andinjure their opponents.

(iii) Satyagraha, unlike passiveresistance, can be offered even toone’s nearest and dearest ones.

(iv) Passive resistance is a resistanceby the weak and helpless, and itdoes not exclude the use ofviolence, whereas satyagraha isa moral-political action by thestrong, and it excludes the use ofviolence.


111

The various methods of satyagrahaare: (1) purificatory actions by theSatyagrahis, such as pledges, prayersand fasts; (2) acts of non-cooperation,such as boycott, strikes, hartal, fastingand hijrat (i.e. voluntary emigration); (3)acts of civil disobedience, such aspicketing , non-payment of taxes anddefiance of specific laws; and (4) aconstructive programme of socialreform and social service, such as thepromotion of inter-communal unity,the removal of untouchability, adulteducation, and the removal of economicand social inequalities.

Gandhi provided a severeindictment of the state, property andindustrialisation. He also provided analternative set of values and institutions.The whole basis of society with itsinequalities, coercive state andcompetitive capitalist is vicious. Hedeclared, “If plain life is worth living,then the attempt is worth making”. Hisnumerous ideas are vague, his realismas a political strategist is amplycontrasted with idealism in histhoughts. But there is no doubt thatGandhi raised almost all the importantquestions which confront moderncivilisation, namely, the question ofincrease in state power, bureaucraticoppression, increasing use of violence,the unfortunate consequences of bigtechnology, etc. His critique of themodern civilisation is full of greatinsights. His ideas on the relationshipbetween means and ends areparticularly thoughtful. No one has abetter case on these points thanGandhi. His greatest contribution was

his emphasis on decentralisation ofeconomic and political power. OurDirective Principles of State Policy insiston the introduction of this idea.Moreover, social scientists world overare keen to articulate and explain theGandhian alternatives to the current illsof development. These efforts amplyjustify the relevance of Gandhi to thecontemporary world.

Gandhi, however, did notadequately develop an alternativeinstitutional strategy, which couldlink up his ideas with practice inmodem times. For example, inadvancing the idea of trusteeship, hedid not realise the appallingselfishness of the capitalists. That isone reason why when India becamefree people found it difficult totranslate his ideas into concretestructures. While he convinced thepeople about the merits of the politicalstruggle he waged, he did notsufficiently develop his idea to makeit clear to them the linkages his ideascould have with the creation of a newpolitical and economic order. It is forthis reason that while some of hisfollowers turned to Europeansocialism for inspiration, the others tothe Sarvodaya philosophy ofcommunitarian life based on non-violence. However, it was his greatachievement that he highlighted theproblems of the twentieth century byinsisting that politics, industry andtechnology should be subordinated tothe ideals of life. It is for this reasonthat while some of us can disagreewith Gandhi, none can ignore him.

GANDHISM



EXERCISES

1. On what grounds has Gandhi criticised the Western Civilisation.2. Describe Gandhi’s view on democracy and state.3. Explain conflict resolution. Describe Gandhian method of resolving the conflict

resolution.4. Describe Gandhi’s concept of political and economic decentralisation.5. Write short notes on:

(i) Parliamentary Swaraj;(ii) Satyagraha and Passive Resistance;

(iii) Techniques of Satyagraha.


113

Humanism

CHAPTER 17

THE concept of Humanism refersprimarily to a system of thought,

which focusses on the autonomy of theindividual. The term Humanism hasseveral meanings. But generallyspeaking, it is a doctrine according towhich, to quote Tzvetan Todorov, “manis point of departure and point ofreference of human action”. The word“humanist” figures perhaps first timein the writings of the French thinkerMontaigne when he contrasts his ownthought with that of theologians.Humanism was a product ofRenaissance and Enlightenment inEurope and finds its fullest expressionin the American and FrenchRevolutions.

The concise Oxford Dictionarydefines Humanism as follows: “Anoutlook or system of thoughtconcerned with human rather thandivine or super natural matters. A beliefor outlook emphasising commonhuman needs and seeking solelyrational ways of solving humanproblems, and concerned with mankindas responsible and progressiveintellectual beings.”

Humanists believe in thepotentiality of human beings. They

suggest that human being has greatpotentiality and if developed fully onecan reach to the greatest height,provided, of course, one gets properopportunities to develop. Humanistsalso have faith in the good nature ofhuman being. Gandhi, Russell andTolstoy were great humanists of thetwentieth century. In his early writingsMarx was also a humanist. Earlywritings of Marx include Economic andPhilosophical Manuscripts (1842),written much before the publication ofCommunist Manifesto (1848). M.N. Roywas a humanist: we’ll learn about hishumanism a few pages ahead. Hisideational journey was long. He beganhis journey from Marxism and ended itwith Radical Humanism.

In the Middle Ages human beingswere subordinated to God. They hadaccess to secrets of nature but inultimate analysis their submission toGod was total. Renaissance andEnlightenment brought about a changein this perspective. Man became thecentre of the universe. He now wouldhave the possibility to will freely and tobe his own masters. He would have thefreedom to choose a life for himself andhis fellow human beings rather than



being dictated either by traditions or byGod. This meant that henceforth hewould have freedom to choose his home,profession and also to deviate fromtraditions or canons of religious texts.Religion did continue to play animportant role. But the significantchange that occurred was that man hadthe right to make a distinction betweentrue and false, right and wrong, justand unjust, and good and bad.

In humanist thought, man becomesfree in his private life. He was not onlyunique but also different and could notbe reduced to the other. He alsoacquired inherent natural right todecide the rules of moral living. Lateranother component was added to thiswhen man claimed freedom in thepublic domain also and asserted theright to choose his political regime.Thus, democracy became the onlylegitimate form of Government. Themovement reached its zenith towardsthe end of the eighteenth century, in theAmerican and French Revolutions.Both the revolutions were inspired bythe idea that no authority, be it tradition,family or the state, is superior to thewill of man.

As a result of these changes, threemajor orientations emerged.

I. MATERIALISM

Since God’s existence is doubtful andhuman beings are in complete chargeof themselves, they will decide their ownvalues. They will be materialists.Modern science emphasises the role ofreason and its capacity to penetrate all

the secrets of nature and history.Science leads to technology, to the ideathat we cannot only understand naturebut also transform it according toour will.

II. INDIVIDUALISM

Since the weight of tradition and familyties circumscribes ones freedom, theindividual must assert its individualautonomy and make choices accordingto ones own interest. Freedom is themost precious gift of Renaissance andwe must preserve it at any cost. It isnot that every one has accepted thisposition in totality. For instance,conservatives would still cling to thevalue of the family and the tradition.There are others who would like toabandon the values of shared life. Buthumanists insist that while objectivelyman shares the same condition, in theinter subjective relations, to quoteTodorov, “everyone occupies a uniqueposition; in communion with oneself,everyone is alone, and responsible forhis actions”. The final decision in allmatters now rests with the individual.One must affirm life, assert ones powerand relentlessly pursue ones owninterest in relation to others.

III. DEMOCRATISM

Since man has the capacity to decidetrue and false as he is endowed withreason, he has a right to choose hispolitical regime. Democracy is the onlylegitimate form of government as it isbased on the idea of willing subjects.


115

Humanist thought tells us a little abouteconomic policies of the way in whichthe state institutions should beorganised. Humanism is content toprovide a guiding perspective aroundthe principles of toleration andpluralism. According to them there isno paradise; the world is imperfect andhuman beings have to make the bestof it.

In India, M.N.Roy gave a clearexpression to the idea of humanism. Heregarded man as central, he wrote“freedom is the supreme value becausethe urge for freedom is the essence ofhuman existence.” Roy acceptedhumanism because humanists hadalways approached life from theassumption of the sovereignty of man.It is man’s unique capacity of knowing,as distinct from the common biologicalactivity of being aware, which endowshim with powers, not to rule over others,but to create freedom for the benefit ofhumanity.

It is to the credit of the humanistthought that we have moved away fromthe aristocratic to the democratic agein which all man are treated as free andequal. It has made us aware of need tomake an individual autonomous notonly of God but of all larger aggregatesas well as ideologies which tend tosubordinate the individual to either ahypothetical vision of history or vagueuniversal concepts such as race ornationalism. The emphasis on history

as a determining principle finally led tocommunism and atrocities associatedwith some of the communist regimes inthe name of class war. The emphasison race and nationalism culminated inthe fascist regimes, which completelysacrificed the individual at the altar ofthe state. Humanism also rejectstechnological domination. Machines aremade to serve human beings and notvice-versa.

The importance of humanism liesin the fact that it asserts the autonomyof the individual. It is true that thisindividual does not live in isolation, butonly in relation to others. What isvaluable in humanism is its insistencethat in the ultimate analysis, it isindividual’s own uniqueness andresultant moral worth, which isimportant. All citizens are equalmembers of the society. What counts isnot their resemblance but uniquenessand diversity. Humanism believes thatsociety consists of individuals, goodand bad; those who can co-operate andthose who cannot and those who caninflict injury and those who cannot. Allof them can co-exist in a framework ofplurality. The state should protect themall and should be so organised that theindividual becomes an end in itself. Thestate, science, technology, etc. are allmeans to an end namely to enableindividuals to flourish; they are notends in themselves; they cannot beallowed to dominate human life.

HUMANISM



EXERCISES

1. What is ‘Humanism’?2. Explain M.N.Roy’s idea on ‘Humanism’.3. Explain the following in relation to ‘Humanism’:

(i) Materialism;(ii) Individualism;

(iii) Democratism.


117

Glossary

Bourgeoisie: A French term signifying ‘citizen class’. The term is frequently used byMarxist socialists to denote the class of proprietors (other thanagricultural), capitalists, manufacturers, merchants, persons with a business oftheir own and members of liberal professions as opposed to the ‘proletariat’ wholive only by selling their labour.

Capitalism: A type of economic system which precedes socialism or communism. Itis based on private ownership of the means of production and on the exploitationof the wage labour.

Chartist Movement: A British working–class radical movement during 1838-50.The movement brought about a “people’s charter” which proposed among otherthings; universal manhood suffrage, equal electoral districts, votes by ballot,annualparliament, abolition of the property qualification for M.Ps and paid M.Ps. O’ Connerwas the most influential figure of the chartist movement.

Democratic Socialism: A mixed ideology aiming at bringing about socialism throughdemocratic means. The ideology was consciously articulated by Nehru and endorsedby the Indian Parliament from time to time.

Ethnocratic: Evaluating other races and cultures by criteria specific to one’s own.

Elite: Denotes a group of persons who hold positions of eminence in society. Theterm is also used to refer to leaders in different fields, e.g. political elite.

Fabian Socialism: Originated in 1887 under the auspices of the Fabian Society. Itproposed the use of existing party and parliamentary machinery for accomplishingpractical reforms gradually leading to the elimination of poverty and establishmentof community ownership of means of production and land.

Guild Socialism: A co-operative form of socialism combining large scale stateownership of the means of production with their administration by guilds (unionstrade). It originated in England around 1900 A.D. and its chief exponent was G.D.H.Cole.

Humanism: An outlook or system of thought concerned with human rather thandivine or supernatural matters.



Human Rights: Human rights are modern and secular version of natural rights.Human beings are entitled to these rights by virtue of being human. These rightsare ‘universal’ in the sense that they belong to all humans and not only to membersof any particular state, race, religion, gender or other group.

Laissez-faire: Denotes non–intervention by the state in the economic activities ofindividuals.

Liberalism: An ideology based on a commitment to individualism, consent andtoleration: modern liberalism differs from classical liberalism.

Political Development: The concept of political development became popular afterthe emergence of the 3rd world countires. This concept is analysed and discussed asa ‘moral’ ethical and political, ‘good’ among the developing countries.

Political Participation: Through this process of political participation a closerelationship is established between the authorities and the people. Politicalauthorities here are always keen to ensure participation of masses in the process ofgovernance.

Political Socilisation: The process by which a particular set of attitudes, beliefsand orientations is passed on from one generation to another is known as politicalsocialisation. In other words, it is a study of “what, when and how people learnabout politics”.

Proletariat: In ancient Rome the property–less class which served the state byproducing children proles. However, the most prevalent usage refers to the onedeveloped by Marx. In this sense proletariat includes those in industry, agricultureand intellectual posts who live by the sale of their labour, as opposed to the capitalistbourgeoisie.

State of Nature: State of nature suggests a pre–civil and pre–political state ofhuman existence in which human relations were governed by the law of nature. Tosome such a state was pre-social also. The state of nature was either too idyllic ortoo inconvenient to last long. Hence, men soon abandoned the state of nature andset up a political society.

Syndicalism: A movement of labour unions which favoured “direct action”culminating in a revolutionary general strike to secure workers’ ownership andcontrol of industry. It originated under the influence of Robert Owen and acquiredits more violent aspects in France besides getting its name from the word ‘Syndicate’(union trade).

Trade Union: An association of wage earners of workers for the purpose of improvingtheir conditions and protecting their interests.

Utopia: It is associated with the ideal state of condition with no imperfection. Itmeans an ideal which is difficult to achieve in reality. The term became famousafter Thomas More’s description in 1516 of an island with this name.
