“ORIGIN OF STATE”

FINAL DRAFT SUBMITTED IN THE PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE COURSE

TITLED-

INDIAN POLITY

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY

DR. SURESH PRASAD SINGH NAME: SANKET SHIVANSH

PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE COURSE: BBA.LLB (Hons.)

ROLL NO. 2036

SEMESTER- 1st

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

NYAYA NAGAR, MITHAPUR, PATNA-800001

1
DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE

I, SANKET SHIVANSH, student of Chanakya National Law University hereby declare that the
work reported in the B.B.A.LL.B.(HONS.) project report entitled: “ORIGIN OF STATE ”
submitted at Chanakya National Law University, Patna is an authentic record of my work carried
out under the supervision of Dr. Suresh Prasad Singh. I have not submitted this work elsewhere
for any other degree or diploma. I am responsible for the contents of my Project Report.

(Signature of the Candidate)

NAME: SANKET SHIVANSH

ROLL NO: 2036

COURSE: B.B.A., LL.B. (Hons.)

SEMESTER: 1ST

2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank my faculty Dr. Suresh Prasad Singh whose guidance helped me a lot with
structuring of my project. I take this opportunity to express my deep sense of gratitude for his
guidance and encouragement which sustained my efforts on all stages of this project.

I owe the present accomplishment of my project to my friends, who helped me immensely with
materials throughout the project and without whom I couldn’t have completed it in the present
way.

I would also like to extend my gratitude to my parents and all those unseen hands that helped me
out at every stage of my project.

THANK YOU

NAME: SANKET SHIVASH

ROLL NO: 2036

COURSE: B.B.A., LL.B. (Hons.)

SEMESTER: 1ST

3
 Contents
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 5
AIMS AND OBJECTIVE........................................................................................................... 6
HYPOTHESIS ............................................................................................................................ 6
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY................................................................................................ 6
RESEARCH QUESTION ........................................................................................................... 6
MODE OF CITATION ............................................................................................................... 7
SOURCES OF DATA ................................................................................................................ 7
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY.............................................................................................. 7
CHAPTER 2: THE THEORY OF DIVINE ORIGIN .................................................................... 8
HISTORY OF DIVINE THEORY ............................................................................................. 8
CAUSES OF THE DECLINE OF THE DIVINE THEORY: .................................................... 9
CRITICISM OF THE DIVINE THEORY: ................................................................................ 9
VALUE OF THE DIVINE THEORY: ..................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER: 3 THE FORCE THEORY OF ORIGIN OF STATE ................................................ 11
HISTORY OF THE THEORY: ................................................................................................ 11
CRITICISMS OF THE THEORY: ........................................................................................... 12
MERITS OF THE THEORY: ................................................................................................... 13
CHAPTER: 4 SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY ......................................................................... 15
BACKGROUND OF SOCIAL CONTRACT: ......................................................................... 16
NATURE OF SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY: .................................................................... 17
THOMAS HOBBES THEORY OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT: .......................................... 17
LOCKE’S THEORY OF SOCIAL CONTRACT: ................................................................... 18
ROUSSEAU’S THEORY OF SOCIAL CONTRACT............................................................. 20
ROUSSEAU’S GENERAL WILL: ...................................................................................... 20
HOBBES ON SOVEREIGNTY: .......................................................................................... 21
CRITICISM OF THEORY: ...................................................................................................... 22
CHAPTER: 5 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION ....................................................................... 24
CHAPTER: 6 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................. 25
PRIMARY SOURCE................................................................................................................ 25
SECONDARY SOURCES ....................................................................................................... 25

4
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

WHAT IS STATE?

As a community of persons, permanently occupying a definite territory, legally independent of

external control, and possessing an organized government which create & administrates law over
all persons and groups within its jurisdiction is ‘State”.

Elements of State

(1) Population

(2) Territory

(3) Government

(4) Sovereignty

Population: A considerable group of human beings;

Territory: A definite area of earth’s surface upon which the population permanently resides

Government: A political organization through which the will or law of the state is expressed
and administrated.

Sovereignty: the supremacy of the state over all individuals and associations within it and the
independence of the state from external control.

THEORIES OF THE STATE

5
Various attempts to explain state; various philosophers explain different ways;

(1) The Divine Theory

(2) The Force Theory

(3) The Social-Contract Theory

AIMS AND OBJECTIVE

 The main objective of researcher here is to find out the emergence of state.
 The researcher here will also try to find out about the various theories related to state.

HYPOTHESIS

If there is no State then there will always be existence of chaotic situation.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The researcher will be relying on Doctrinal method of research to complete the project. These
involve various primary and secondary sources of literature and insights.

RESEARCH QUESTION

1. What is state?
2. How states emerged?
3. What are different theories of state?

6
4. What is social contract theory?
5. What were the views of different political philosophers on social contract?

MODE OF CITATION

The researcher has followed Bluebook Citation [19th edition].

SOURCES OF DATA

The researcher will be relying on both primary and secondary sources to complete the project

a) PRIMARY
i. Books and Article on Origin of State
b) SECONDARY
i. Websites and Blogs

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The researcher has time limitations in completing the project.

7
 CHAPTER 2: THE THEORY OF DIVINE ORIGIN

The oldest theory about the origin of the state is the divine origin theory. It is also known as the
theory of divine right of Kings.

The exponents of this theory believe that the state did not come into being by any effort of man.
It is created by God. The King who rules over the state is an agent of God on earth.

The King derives his authority from God and for all his actions he is responsible to God alone.
Obedience to the King is ordained to God and violation of it will be a sin. The King is above law
and no subject has any right to question his authority or his action. The King is responsible of
God alone.1

HISTORY OF DIVINE THEORY

The conception of the divine creation of the state may be traced back to remote antiquity. It was
universal belief with the ancient people that the King is the representative of God on earth and
the state is bliss of God. Thus the King had both political and religious entity. In the religious
books also the state is said to be created by God. In some religions this conception is explicit, but
in others it is implicit.

The divine origin of the state is gleaned first the Old Testament of the Bible. There we find St.
Paul saying- “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers; for there is no power but of
God; the powers that be, are ordained by God. Whosoever resists the power resisted the
ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.”

This theory prevailed in the old age when religion and politics were combined in the person of
the King. In ancient India the Kings ruled over the people according to the injunction of the
Dharma, which stood for both religion and politics. Laws fay deep in the profusion of the
Sastras. In the medieval period the Christians held the Pope in semi-God status. In the Muslim
world the Caliph was the Priest-King.
1
http://www.shareyouressays.com/essays/essay-on-the-theory-of-divine-origin-of-state/

8
Both the church and the state in their mutual rivalry used the theory of the divine origin in the
medieval age. The church asserted the supremacy of the church over the state. On the other hand,
the state because of its divine nature emphasised on its supremacy over the church.

In the twentieth century this, theory came under criticism being an incorrect explanation of the
origin of the state. With the growth of scientific outlook this theory faded into oblivion. Today’s
trend is that the state is a historical growth. We shall now discuss the causes of the decline of the
theory.

CAUSES OF THE DECLINE OF THE DIVINE THEORY:

In the first place, when a more acceptable theory like the social contract theory came out, the
divine theory was dashed to the ground. The new theory suggested that the state is a handiwork
of men, not a grace of God.

In the second place, the Reformation that separated the church from the state debased the coin of
the divine theory. The post-Reformation period is a period of non-religious politics. Thus the
secular outlook made the divine theory totally unacceptable.

In the third place, the emergence of democracy was a big blow for the autocratic dogma of
mixing religion with politics and thereby it blunted the edge of identifying God with the King.
Democracy not only glorified the individual but shattered the divine halo around the origin of the
state.

Last but not the least was the growth of scientific enquiry and materialistic view of the political
mechanism. The result was that the erstwhile blind faith and superstition was no longer
acceptable. The people began to accept only those things that stood the test of logic and
reasoning.2

CRITICISM OF THE DIVINE THEORY:

There are few lines of argument in the hands of R. N. Gilchrist leveled against the divine theory:

2
http://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/

9
The first line of argument of Gilchrist is that the state is a human institution organised in an
association through human agency. Modern political thinkers cannot accept the view that God
has anything to do with the creation of the state. It does not stand the commonsense of the
moderns that God selects anybody to rule over the state.

The second line of argument is that the divine theory is fraught with dangerous consequences,
because a semi-divine King is bound to rule arbitrarily as he is responsible only to God and not
bound to heed public opinion. Such a theory will make the ruler despotic and autocratic.

The third line of argument is that the divine theory is unscientific. The anthropologists and
sociologists after careful scientific analysis have discarded the theory as totally untenable as an
explanation of the origin of the state.

The fourth line of argument is that the divine theory runs counter to the universally accepted
conception that the state is the result of a historical evolution. The generally accepted theory of
the origin of the state is that various factors like religion, family, force and political
consciousness were behind the growth of the state.

The fifth line of argument is that the divine theory is undemocratic. The inevitable implication of
the theory in content and tone will make the King absolute and his government never democratic.
So the theme of the theory is against the spirit of democracy.

VALUE OF THE DIVINE THEORY:

Although the divine theory is totally discredited as an origin of the state, there are some good
things in it. The summum bonum of the theory is that it stimulated discipline and law-
abidingness among the subjects at a time when these were the needs of the hour in those
anarchical conditions. This theory also created the moral responsibility of the rulers, because
they were cast with a divine injunction to rule to the perfect satisfaction of the heaven.

10
 CHAPTER: 3 THE FORCE THEORY OF ORIGIN OF STATE

Another early theory of the origin of the state is the theory of force.

The exponents of this theory hold that wars and aggressions by some powerful tribe were the
principal factors in the creation of the state.

They rely on the oft-quoted saying “war begot the King” as the historical explanation of the
origin of the state.3

The force or might prevailed over the right in the primitive society. A man physically stronger
established his authority over the less strong persons. The strongest person in a tribe is, therefore,
made the chief or leader of that tribe.

After establishing the state by subjugating the other people in that place the chief used his
authority in maintaining law and order and defending the state from the aggression from outside.
Thus force was responsible not only for the origin of the state but for development of the state
also.

“Historically speaking, there is not the slightest difficulty in proving that all political
communities of the modern type owe their existence to successful warfare.” – Edward Jenkins

“The beginnings of the state are to be sought in the capture and enslavement of man-by-man, in
the conquest and subjugation acquired by superior physical force. The progressive growth from
tribe to kingdom and from kingdom to empire is but a continuation from the same process.”
– Edward Jenkins

HISTORY OF THE THEORY:

This theory is based on the well-accepted maxim of survival of the fittest. There is always a
natural struggle for existence by fighting all adversaries among the animal world. This analogy
may be stretched to cover the human beings.

3
http://www.brainkart.com/article/the-origin-of-the-state---force-theory_1722/

11
Secondly, by emphasising the spiritual aspect of the church the clergymen condemned the
authority of the state as one of brute force. This indirectly lends credence to the theory of force
as the original factor in the creation of the state.

Thirdly, the socialists also, by condemning the coercive power of the state as one bent upon
curbing and exploiting the workers, admit of force as the basis of the state.

Lastly, the theory of force is supported by the German philosophers like Friedrich Hegel,
Immanuel Kant, John Bernhardi and Triestchki. They maintain that war and force are the
deciding factors in the creation of the state. Today in the words of Triestchki – “State is power; it
is a sin for a state to be weak. That state is the public power of offence and defence. The
grandeur of history lies in the perpetual conflict of nations and the appeal to arms will be valid
until the end of history.”

According to Bernhardi-“Might is the supreme right, and the dispute as to what is right is
decided by the arbitrement of war. War gives a biologically just decision since its decision rest
on the very nature of things.”4

CRITICISMS OF THE THEORY:

Following criticisms are levelled against the theory of force. In the first place, the element of
force is not the only factor in the origin of the state; religion, politics, family and process of
evolution are behind the foundation of the state. Thus to say that force is the origin of the state is
to commit the same fallacy that one of the causes is responsible for a thing while all the causes
were at work for it.

This has been rightly pointed out by Stephen Butler Leacock- “The theory errs in magnifying
what has been only one factor in the evolution of society into the sole controlling force.” A state
may be created by force temporarily. But to perpetuate it something more is essential.

In the second place, the theory of force runs counters to the universally accepted maxim of
Thomas Hill Green- “Will, not force, is the basis of the state.” No state can be permanent by
bayonets and daggers. It must have the general voluntary acceptance by the people.
4
http://www.macollege.in

12
In the third place, the theory of force is inconsistent with individual liberty. The moment one
accepts that the basis of a state is force, how can one expect liberty there? The theory of force
may be temporarily the order of the day in despotism as against democracy.

In the fourth place, the doctrine of survival of the fittest which is relied upon by the champions
of the force theory has erroneously applied a system that is applicable to the animal world to
human world. If force was the determining factor, how could Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violence
triumph over the brute force of the British Imperialists?

Lastly, the force theory is to be discarded because political consciousness rather than force is the
origin of the state. Without political consciousness of the people the state cannot be created. This
is so because man is by nature a political animal. It is that political conscience that lay deep in
the foundation of the state.

We may conclude with the words of R. N. Gilchrist- “The state, government and indeed all
institutions are the result of man’s consciousness, the creation of which have arisen from his
appreciation of a moral end.”

MERITS OF THE THEORY:

The theory of force, though untenable as an explanation of the origin of the state, has some
redeeming features:

First, the theory contains the truth that some states at certain points of time were definitely
created by force or brought to existence by the show of force. When the Aryans came to India
they carried with them weapons of all kinds and horses to use in the war against the non-Aryans
and by defeating the non-Aryans they carved out a kingdom in India.

Later on, the Aryans sprawled their kingdoms and broad-based their government and ruled with
the backing of the people.

Secondly, the other silver lining of the theory is that it made the slates conscious of building
adequate defence and army to protect the territorial integrity of the state. That is why we find
commanders of war or Senapati as an important post in the ancient kingdoms.

13
In the modern state, we find a substantial amount of money used on defence budget. Every state
in the modern world has got a defence minister which unmistakably recognises the use of force
in modern statecraft too.

14
 CHAPTER: 4 SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY

The most famous theory with regard to the origin of the state is the social contract theory. The
theory goes to tell that the stale came into existence out of a contract between the people and the
sovereign at some point of time.

According to this theory, there were two divisions in human history – one period is prior to the
establishment of the state called the “state of nature” and the other period is one subsequent to
the foundation of the state called the “civil society”. The state of nature was bereft of society,
government and political authority. There was no law to regulate the relations of the people in
the state of nature.

There were three exponents of this theory. They were Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-
Jacques Rousseau who differed about the life in the slate of nature, reason for converting the
state of nature to civil society and the terms of the contract. They all, however, agreed that a
stage came in the history of man when the state of nature was exchanged with civil society to
lead a regulated life under a political authority.

The net result of this changeover was that the people gained security of life and property and
social security, but lost the natural liberty which they had been enjoying in the state of nature.

The crux of the social contract theory is that men create government for the purpose of securing
their pre-existing natural rights – that the right comes first, that the government is created to
protect these rights. These ideas were based on the concepts of a state of nature, natural law and
natural rights.

According to John Locke, prior to the establishment of society, men lived in a “state of nature”.
Thomas Hobbes, an anti-democratic philosopher, emphasized, that in the state of nature there
was no government to make and enforce laws, men made war on each other and life was
“solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”.

But Locke argued that even in a state of nature there was a law governing conduct-there was the
“natural law”, comprising universal unvarying principle of right and wrong and known to men
through the use of reason. Thus Locke would have us believe that if an Englishman was to meet

15
a Frenchman on an uninhabited and ungoverned island, he would not be free to deprive the
Frenchman of his life, liberty or property. Otherwise, he would violate the natural law and hence
was liable to punishment.

Thus according to Locke, the state of nature was not a lawless condition, but was an
inconvenient condition. Each man had to protect his own right and there was no agreed-upon
judge to settle disputes about the application of the natural law to particular controversies.
Realizing this, men decided to make a “compact” with one another in which each would give to
the community the right to create a government equipped to enforce the natural law.

In this way, every man agreed to abide by the decisions made by the majority and to comply with
the laws enacted by the people’s representative, provided they did not encroach upon his
fundamental rights. In this way, the power of the ruler was curtailed.5

BACKGROUND OF SOCIAL CONTRACT:

The doctrine of social contract is faintly mentioned in the ancient period by both the western and
Indian philosophers. Plato was the first among the western thinkers to use the term. It is also
referred to in the Arthasastra of Kautilya.6

In the sixteenth century the supporters of social contract theory multiplied and there was more or
less universal acceptance of doctrine. Hooker was the first scientific writer who gave a logical
exposition of the theory of social contract.7

It is admitted at all hands that the two English political thinkers, namely Thomas Hobbes and
John Locke as well as the French political thinker Jean-Jacques Rousseau, gave the concrete
shape to this theory. This trio is considered as the godfathers of the social contract theory

The theories of foundation of the state were laid down in the great works on social contract,
particularly those of the English philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke in the
seventeenth century and the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the eighteenth
century. The back ground of their theories ‘was the aftermath of the Protestant Reformation

5
https://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/
6
Dr.Anup Chandra Kapur, Principles Of Political Science,p.107
7
Refer to Hooker’s Law of Ecclesiastical Polity.

16
which had shaken the fundamental constitution of European Christendom and had broken up the
divinely sanctioned contractual relation. Another significant thing was that the Holy Roman
Empire was torn apart by the wars of the Reformation.

NATURE OF SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY:

According to the social contract theory the state was the creation of the people living in a state of
nature which was a lawless and order-less system. The slate of nature was controlled by
unwritten laws prescribed not by men but by nature. The exponents of the theory gave
conflicting views about the nature of the state of nature. Some considered it gloomy, while others
painted it as bright like paradise.

For some reasons the people did not like the system and terminated it by an agreement to save
one man from the rapacity of the other. The nature-made laws were replaced by man-made laws.
The originally independent people subordinated themselves to the will of either the whole
community or a particular person or a group of persons. The three proponents of the theory
interpreted the theory in their own way.

THOMAS HOBBES THEORY OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT:

Thomas Hobbes in his book Leviathan delineates very precisely and straightforwardly the
creation of the state by an agreement. To begin with, before the state was created, there was a
state of nature in which a war was raging. There was no law or justice. Human life was marked
by force and deceit. Might was right in that situation. Hobbes gave a gloomy picture of the state
of nature in his oft-quoted words “Solitary, poor-nasty, brutish, short”.

The people became fed up with the state of nature. In order to get rid of the unbearable condition
they entered into an agreement by which they established a government or authority to which
they surrendered all their rights. The surrender was unconditional and irrevocable. The authority
was a single person or a group of persons endowed with unlimited power. The authority to rule
was the result of the contract.

Since he was not a party to the contract, he was not bound by the terms of the agreement. The
people had no right to depose the ruler or to agitate against the ruler. If the people revolted

17
against the authority they would be guilty of violation of the contract and would face the
consequence of going back to die state of nature. This theory of Hobbes supported the despotism
of the Stuarts in England.8

In Hobbes’ view there was one single contract in the creation of the state and the establishment
of the government. From that it would follow that if the state was gone, with it would go the
government. It is apparent that Hobbes was supporting legal sovereignty and had no quarter for
political sovereignty. Disgusted with the useless dispute between the monarchy and parliament in
England, he supported despotism, keeping chaos as its only alternative. So he gave all powers to
the sovereign.

Thomas Hobbes called his state Leviathan which came into existence when its individual
members renounced their power to exercise the laws of nature which was one of “each for
himself” and at the same time promised to turn these powers over to the sovereign who was
created as a result of his promise and also to obey thenceforth the laws made by this sovereign.

These laws stood on a better footing since they enjoyed authority because the individual
members of the society were, as a matter of fact, the co-authors of these laws.

LOCKE’S THEORY OF SOCIAL CONTRACT:

In his book Treatise on Civil Government John Locke, justifying the limited monarchy of
English type, drew his own state of nature. He did not agree that the state of nature was a gloomy
and dismal one as painted by Thomas Hobbes. In contrast, Locke’s state of nature was one of
peace, reason and goodwill. Yet this semi-paradise could not satisfy the people because they
were pining for law and impartial authority.

So they abandoned the state of nature though for a different reason. So in replacing the state of
nature the people created the civil society by a contract. That done, they made another contract
by which the government in the person of the King was set up. Here the ruler was a party to the
contract. The people would obey him so long he would protect their life and property. So in

8
Sabine,G.H.,A History, Political Theory, p. 456

18
Locke’s theory there were two contracts, one for the creation of the civil society and the other for
establishment of the government.

The people’s surrender of rights was partial and conditional. If the people would violate the
contract, the people would be entitled to depose the worthless King. Thus Locke supported the
Glorious Revolution of 1688. His sovereign was political rather than legal as propounded by
Hobbes. He was clear in distinguishing the government from the state, which Hobbes failed to
do. While Hobbes destroyed individual liberty, Locke destroyed the authority of the state.

When Hobbes took brief for royal absolutism, England was getting disgusted with the
meaningless fights between the King and the parliament during the Stuart period. Lock’s timing
was related to the period when the King was maintaining a low profile and the parliament was in
the ascendance. This would culminate in the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

John Locke’s view was that the individuals promised to accept the judgements of a common
judge (i.e., the legislature) when they agreed to the accord, which established civil society.
According to Locke, another set of promises was made between the members of the civil society
on the one hand and the government on the other.

The government, in its turn, promised to execute its trust faithfully. It was agreed that in case the
government broke the terms of the pact or in other words if it violated the constitution, the
people would have the right to rebel.

The subsequent generations by acceding to the terms of the compact accepted the inheritance of
private property which was created and guaranteed by the compact. If any individual would
disobey the constitution, he must leave the territory of political unit and go in vacuis locis, i.e.,
empty places.

The indication was that the disloyal people might take shelter in America which was an empty
place at that time. In his book Letters on Toleration, Locke excluded the atheists from religious
toleration since they were not likely to be bound by the original contractual oath or to abide by
the divine sanctions invoked for its violation.9

9
http://www.studylecturenotes.com/social-sciences/law/392-john-locke-social-contract-theory

19
ROUSSEAU’S THEORY OF SOCIAL CONTRACT:

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the third player of the game of social contract theory, struck a middle
course between the two English counterparts. His book Social Contract published in 1762
reconciles the authority of the state and liberty of the individual. His state of nature had an
overflow of idyllic felicity.

There human lives were free, healthy, honest and happy. But there was debasement and
degradation with the increase of population and with the progress of civilization particularly with
the emergence of private property in land which destroyed the natural equality among men.

To get out of this menacing position, men entered into an agreement with the pledges- “Each of
us puts his own person and all his powers in common under the supreme direction of the General
Will, and in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the
whole.” Unlike Hobbes and Locke, the authority created was not given to the ruler, but was
retained by the whole community.

As a matter of fact, the whole community expressed the General Will in a public meeting.
Subsequently, the government was created by a legislative measure. The people delegated power
to the government. Rousseau’s theory’s hallmark is the General Will.

ROUSSEAU’S GENERAL WILL:

Jean-Jacques Rousseau stood for the Popular Sovereignty as against Legal Sovereignty of
Thomas Hobbes and Political Sovereignty of John Locke. In his concept, political authority,
arrived at after the Social Contract, was not the King, absolute or delegated, but the people
themselves. Rousseau called his sovereign General Will. What was that General Will? It is as
monstrous a concept as Leviathan of Hobbes.

The kingpin of the General Will is the people. Does it mean the whole population of the state?
The answer must be an emphatic “No”, because Rousseau himself used two terms General Will
and Will of All. The general will is the best in the will of all. So the general will must be the
filtered cream of the will of all.

20
Thus common interest or welfare interest of the people is the general will. We may say with
certainty that the enlightened public opinion of a state is the general will of Rousseau. He called
it “will for the general good”. In practice, however, it may mean the majority opinion of the
people.

As we read Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau we find three interpretations of the social contract
theory. Hobbes’ contract is one in which the people unconditionally surrender their rights to the
monarch who is bound to become a despot. In Locke’s case, the people conditionally delegate
their power to the King and make the ruler accountable to them. Thus Locke supports the limited
monarchy in England. Rousseau is most radical in enthroning the people and making the people
themselves the rulers. Hobbes stands for legal sovereignty, Locke supports political sovereignty
and Roussean, popular sovereignty.

According to Rousseau also, the essential ingredient of social contract was the “general will”, to
which the individuals agreed to subject themselves. The popular sovereign was the embodiment
of the general will. The experience of his native place Geneva in Switzerland might have
influenced Rousseau in taking this position. In Germany the Swiss confederation is still officially
referred to as Eidgenossenscaft which means “fellowship of the oath”.

HOBBES ON SOVEREIGNTY:

Thomas Hobbes’ radical rationalism was his main contribution to constitutionalism. Hobbes took
the position that individuals came close to each other out of the evils of the state of nature which
was plagued by disorder and war. In such a condition their reason convinced them that they
could best ensure their self-preservation by giving all powers to a sovereign. That sovereign
might be a single person or an assembly of the whole body of citizens.

Whatever may be their forms and variations, the authority to be called sovereign must have all
powers concentrated and combined in it. Hobbes called the state the commonwealth. Any
decision of that power would destroy the sovereignty and put back the members of the
commonwealth to the state of nature where life was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”.

For Hobbes, a sovereign in the form of an individual, i.e., the King was preferable to sovereignty
in the form of an assembly or the whole body of citizenry, because a singular sovereign was less

21
likely to be internally or functionally divided. All powers of war and peace, taxation and the
judiciary would be concentrated on the sovereign.

The individuals would retain their natural rights which they cannot surrender to the common
pool of sovereign powers. These natural rights are comprised of the rights against self-
incrimination, right to purchase a substitute for compulsory military service and the right to act
freely in all cases where the law is silent.

CRITICISM OF THEORY:

The social contract theory is strongly denounced on the following grounds. In the first place, the
theory is not borne out by any historical record. It is not known to history that any such contract
was made. The only historical instance of contractual obligation is said to be the foundation of a
state by the early settlers in America by the May Flower Contract of 11 November 1620 and the
deposition of King Philip II in 1581 by the Netherlander where the people said- “The King has
broken his contract and the King therefore is dismissed like any other unfaithful servant.”

But in both the cases the state existed there before it was said to be created or at least the people
had some knowledge of the state and the government before these were created, or the contract
was made. These examples do not establish that the primitive people who had no knowledge of
the state could establish a state by a contract. Similarly, a state of nature antedating a real state is
a fiction and has no historical basis.

In the second place, Sir Henry Maine attacked the theory as one of putting the cart before the
horse, because contract is not the beginning of the society, but the end of it. The universally
accepted view is that the society has moved from status to contract and not vice versa. With the
growth of age, status lost its rigour of fixity and its place was taken by contractual obligations.

The other serious fault with the theory is that it presupposes political consciousness in the state
of nature even prior to the establishment of the state. How can one have the idea of the good of a
state when he has no experience of the state?

In the third place, there cannot be any right even if it is a natural right without the state. Right
follows from the womb of the state. Without an established civil society there cannot be any

22
right. It does not follow from logic that the people had a bundle of rights even before the creation
of the state.

In the fourth place, it is a fact in history that the state came into existence as a result of a long
process of growth and development. The sociologists have established that the state is created by
a long term process of social development. Kinship, force, divine sanction, family and various
other known and unknown factors are there behind the growth of the state.

Modern social scientists and historians are of the view that men are by nature social animals and
they never lived in a pre-social and pre-governmental state of nature. The state is never a
consciously created institution but is a development like the family.

So Edmund Burke rightly observed- “The state should not be reduced to the position of a
partnership agreement in a trade of pepper and coffee, calico or tobacco or some such low
concern, to be taken up for a little temporary interest, and to be dissolved by the fancy of the
parties. It is to be looked upon with reverence. It is a partnership in all science; a partnership in
all art; a partnership between those who are living and those who are yet to be born.”

In the fifth place, the theory is dangerously wrong by certifying the state to be a handiwork of
human beings. The error is that the state is never a creation of man but it is an independent social
institution. The theory carries with it the portent of revolution by giving too much importance to
men as even the creators of the state. The truth is that the government, not the state, is the
creation of man.

Modern political scientists have rejected the contract theory as unacceptable. J. K. Bluntschli
condemned it as highly dangerous, Jeremy Bentham called it a rattle. Fredrick Pollock discarded
it as “fatal of political impostures”. According to Sir Henry Maine, there was nothing more
worthless than the social contract theory as an explanation of the origin of the state.

23
 CHAPTER: 5 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

We know of the mental evolution by which man evolved, but we do not consider that society has
a mental evolution too. In theory, not only man and society but every act, event, organisation,
institution, form of life does undergo the different stages of evolution of which the mental
evolution is the culmination. This is the hour when the process of Social Development has
reached its point of mental evolution. Social Development which has been going on so far under
the direction of vital energy and physical experience has now come under the direction of mental
comprehension. What man has been doing so far without thinking must hereafter be done by
conscious thought. Social Development is entering the conscious phase from its unconscious
past. In that sense it is a historical moment or even an evolutionary juncture.

A theory, especially one that is comprehensive, will not only embrace all areas of the subject, but
will be capable of explaining every phenomenon in the field. If that is so, our theory must
satisfactorily explain every stage of development society has so far passed through and every
project that succeeded. In fact, a theory must be able to explain every failure so far. In that case,
it will be a tool in the hands of every government, particularly governments of the developing
world, for national planning. That may be considered the greatest contribution of the theory.

In this research we saw that how Divine Theory was overcome by the Force Theory and how
Social Contract Theory overcame the Force The Theory, it is a process of evolution, as better
theory comes in existence it overshadows the pre existing one.

The hypothesis that the researcher took in the beginning stands true, as we have seen that all the
theories came in existence just because there was a need to establish a proper order and
discipline let it be with God’s Fear(Divine Theory) or by force (Force Theory) or by a
contract(social contract theory) all the theories are different in their own way but the basic idea
remains same.

The evolution or shift in theories has taken place because people strive to achieve the very same
objective in more efficient manner.

24
 CHAPTER: 6 BIBLIOGRAPHY

The researcher has consulted following sources to complete the final proposal:

PRIMARY SOURCE

BOOKS

a) Dr.Anup Chandra Kapur, Principles Of Political Science

SECONDARY SOURCES

a) http://www.shareyouressays.com/essays/essay-on-the-theory-of-divine-origin-of-state/
b) http://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/
c) http://www.brainkart.com/article/the-origin-of-the-state---force-theory_1722/
d) http://www.macollege.in
e) https://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/
f) http://www.studylecturenotes.com/social-sciences/law/392-john-locke-social-contract-
theory

25