Test Series 1 Optional Psir

PSIR Crash Course Test 01 Model Answers
Ques. (1a) ‘Plato is philosophy. Philosophy is Plato’ (Emerson) Comment.

• Plato has been regarded as the founder of philosophical idealism by virtue of his
attempts to conceptualize the disorders & crisis of the actual world and he presented a
vision of desirable political & social order. Thus, Plato has been credited with laying
the foundations of the philosophical perspectives and issues on which the western
political tradition rests. His contribution to western political thought is without any
parallel as he is credited with giving western philosophy a basis, a vision and a
direction.
• Plato is known as the father of political philosophy. He rightly deserves the title
because he has established that philosophy is superior to physics as the study of ideas
is superior to that of matter since world of matter changes and world of ideas is
permanent. In addition, he believed that philosophy has a solution for the problems of
politics.
• The major theme of Plato’s political thought, especially of the ‘Republic’, is that
philosophy alone offers true power and knowledge. Based on it, he gave the concept of
‘philosopher king’, which means that one, who is guided by reason & knowledge alone
is fit to rule. This conception is a part of Plato’s attempt to portray a perfect model of
ideal state.
• Therefore, Plato’s political philosophy, which emerges from his writings, has its
special importance in the history of western political thought. In this context Whitehead
has acknowledged that the ‘entire western political philosophy, is nothing but the foot
note of Plato & Aristotle’. Considering Plato’s contribution towards the discipline of
politics, Emerson goes to the extent of declaring that ‘Plato is philosophy and
philosophy is Plato.
• Plato’s place in the history of western philosophy can be understood from the
statement of Karl Popper who is considered to be the greatest critique of Plato. Popper
acknowledged that Plato’s legacy spreads with age and it is really difficult to find a
subsequent political philosopher who might not have Plato’s imprint, either
explicitly/implicitly. In this context, he argued that ‘one can either be Platonic or anti-
Platonic, but one can never be non-Platonic’.
(Q1)(b)Write short notes on negative & positive liberty.

• ‘Liberty is a concomitant value of liberalism and has been a concept of central
importance in the political theory. As a concept, it has been viewed variously by thinkers
in various stages of the history of political thought.
• However, despite being a debated concept, it carried three main connotations-
(i) Notion of ‘choice’.
(ii) ‘absence of constraints’ to make & exercise such a choice
(iii) ‘Existence of conditions’ that enable one to actuate the choice made.
• The concept of ‘liberty’ was classified in 1969 as ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ liberty by
Isaiah Berlin in his celebrated work- ‘Two concepts of liberty’.
Negative liberty
• A/Q to Berlin, negative liberty of individual consists in not being prevented from
attaining his goal by other human beings or institutions. It indicates the injustices that
prohibited acts that restrict freedom. Berlin, however, makes if clear that in capacity to
attain a goal is not un freedom and states that ‘only restrictions imposed by others affect
one’s freedom’.
• Therefore for Berlin, negative liberty as freedom is the opportunity to act not action
itself. It focuses only on availability rather than exercise of opportunity.
For e.g.: - It makes no distinction b/w liberty to pursue on occupation of one’s choice
a liberty to starve.
Positive liberty:
• The positive sense of the concept of ‘liberty’, a/q to Berlin, derives from the wish of
the individual to be his own master. Therefore, it not only refer to ‘non-interference’ or
‘absence of constraints’, but also the freedom to do. Therefore, unlike negative liberty,
it is called to be the ‘exercise concept of freedom’ as it involves exercising & availing
the opportunity.
• Rousseau is a votary of positive liberty as he states that true liberty is in obedience
to moral law and also refers to as the function of the will of the enlightened people.
• From neo-Marxist perspective, Herbert Marcuse also favours a positive conception

of liberty. The reason being working class is incapable of seeing its true end & needs
to be directed towards liberation by the revolutionary elite.
(1c) ‘Political theory is neither reductionist, behavioral science, nor opinionated
ideology. It is a critical study of principles of right order in human social existence’
(Germino) .Critically examine.
• Political theory implies an intellectual effort to attain a systematic knowledge about
the ends and means of political action. It is a set of specified concepts that focus to
describe explain & predict political processes, events & institutions.
• The uniqueness, that distinguishes political theory from other disciplines lies in the
fact that it doesn’t find itself confined within a defined framework and has been inter-
disciplinary in nature & scope. In this context, Andrew Hacker, in his work ‘Political
Theory: Philosophy, Ideology & science (1961), points to the dual nature of political
theory. A/Q to him, every political theorist has a dual role of a scientist as well as of a
philosopher.
• A/Q to Germino, political theory is a critical examination of the principles of desired
order of human social existence. He held that it is neither a science, where everything
is simply reduced to sense-experience, nor an ideology, which accepts some principles
to be true without required inquiry into their validity. A/Q to Germino, political theory
deals with the perennial problems confronting man in his social existence and any
theory separated from these perennial problems. Will prove to be irrelevant. It is in this
context that Germino distinguishes b/w political theorist and a publicist. A/q to him,
while the former has profound understanding of issues, the latter is concerned with the
immediate concerns. Such a conception leads to the inference that as a discipline
political theory seeks to describe, explain, predict or criticize the existing social
arrangements. In the same line, Berlin accepted the importance of the ‘critical
perspective ‘of political theory when he declared that political theory couldn’t survive
without its critical dimension. However, Berlin argues that such a critical analysis by
employing theories is possible only in plural societies.
(1d) Write a short note on ‘original position’ found in the Rawl’s theory of justice.
• Justice is one of the most important concerns of the field of political philosophy since
the time Plato. A/Q to Jan Campbell, justice is the central concept of current
mainstream normative political philosophy.
• Rawls book, ‘A Theory of Justice’, present a very strong defense of the idea of justice.
His work is associated with the revival of normative political philosophy and has been
considered as marking the end of death & decline of political philosophy. This is so
because his book has started what has been called as the ‘golden age in theorizing
about justice’.
• In an attempt to arrive at a ‘ground theory’ of justice, Rawls challenged the
conventional notions about justice. He was critical of utilitarian philosophy which
justify ‘greatest happiness of the greatest number’.
• Describing justice as the ‘first virtue of social institution; Rawls equated justice with
‘fairness’. Rawls presents a very strong defense of the idea of justice based on the basic
tenets of ‘procedural justice’. Following the tradition of ‘social contract’, Rawls has
envisaged a hypothetic situation of ‘original position’ by abstracting individuals from
their particular social context. These individuals are symbolically placed behind a ‘veil
of ignorance’, where they’re supposed to be deliberating as rational agents. A/Q to
Rawls, in such a state of uncertainty, rational individuals, being endowed with a ‘sense
of justice’, would choose those principles which would maximize the position of worst-
off and, thus, would be fair to all. It means that since people do not know that qualities
are going to be advantages and which are going to be disadvantageous, they would
consensually device such functional principles that would be fair to all.
• The main focus of the communitarian critique of Rawls is based on the idea that
people in the ‘original position’ choose a set of principles of justice.
• Michael Sandel in his book ‘Liberalism and limits of justice’ argues that Rawls
theory rests on a flawed understanding of self or individual. A/Q to him, a ‘stripped-
down’ individual, abstracted from his social economic and cultural contexts, will be
unable to make choices, as proposed by Rawls. Sandel argues that this wrong
conception alters his understanding b/w individual and community by giving more
importance to individual.
• Since Rawlsian ‘Veil of ignorance’ keeps individuals out of their real social context,
communitarians doubt the relevance of their choices in an actual social context. A/Q to
Sandel, Rawls is only concerned with rights and freedom of choice provided to an
individual, overlooking its impact on society as a whole.
• Feminist scholars such as Carole Pateman questioned Rawls whether women are
active decision makers in original position.
(1e) ‘The basic principle on which the practice of non-violence rests is that what holds
good in respect of one self equally appeals to the whole universe’ (Gandhi). Explain.
• The concept of ‘non-violence’ is the central threat running throughout the
philosophical system of Gandhi. The entire gamut of strategies & ideals, employed by
Gandhi during Indian freedom struggle such as satyagraha, trusteeship etc., are based
on this foundation. Gandhian conception of non-violence is based on his commitment
to religion and ethics, even in the political context. While propagating the sanctity of
means of non-violence, he declared it to be the ‘weapon of strong, not weak’.
• Gandhi presented the concept of ‘non-violence’ as a multi-dimensional concept in
the following manner-
(i) For Gandhi, non-violence is both positive as well as negative. The negative sense, it
means refraining from inflicting injury and harm to others, either through action or
thought. Since God resides in soul, inflicting injury to others means violence against
God.
In positive sense, non-violence is based on the spirit of love, brother hood, charity and
compassion. A/Q to Gandhi, non-violence, in its positive connotation, is based on
highest moral values of ‘unselfish self’.
• A/Q to Bhikhu Parekh, Gandhi’s conception of non-violence as active love &
compassion leading to dedicated service represented a radical departure from Indian
traditions.
(ii) Gandhian conception of non-violence is compatible with the Gandhian
philosophy, which is three dimensional in the sense that it integrate individual, societal
and ecological dimensions. Thus, Gandhi advocates non-violence not only towards
human beings, but also towards animals and environment.
• A/Q to Gandhi, non-violence is the most pure means in the pursuit of truth. In the
context of confrontation with injustice, non-violence doesn’t imply showing weakness.
He argues that non-violence is not the resort of the weak, rather it is the greatest force
at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction
devised by human.
• In Gandhian conception, non-violence awakens the soul force or spiritual force in
man through self- purification & discipline which emerges from the firm adherence to
truth. A/Q to Gandhi, the principal implication of the spiritual force, emerged from non-
violence, is that it strikes a responsive chord in opponent’s heart, resulting into ‘change
of heart’. It is in this context, it has been argued that non-violence is the art of gaining
victory over physical brute force by spiritual force.
• The emphasis placed by Gandhi on truth & non-violence was evident when he
declared that ‘Swaraj was useless at the sacrifice of truth & non-violence’. He
conceived non-violence as a weapon of the strong and the brave. A/q to Gandhi, there’s
no such thing as defeat in non-violence. In the same line, martin Luther King Jr. argued
that ‘the choice is not b/w violence & non-violence ‘but b/w nonviolence and non-
existence. Thus, in the context Gandhian principle of non-violence, it is a force more
powerful than all the weapons of world combined.
2(a) Compare the ideas of Kautilya and Machiavelli on statecraft.
Kautilya and Machiavelli:
• There has been a tradition to compare Kautilya and Machiavelli. J.L. Nehru in his
book ‘Discovery of India’ has called Kautilya as the ‘Indian Machiavelli’. Scholars
such as G. Bottazi, Winternitz and Max Weber has compared Kautilya’s Arthashastra
with realist thinkers of west such as Thucydides and Machiavelli.
• Points of convergence (Similarity)
(i) They’re shifted the attention from political philosophy to political science and as
such both belongs to the realist tradition.
(ii) Both makes a distinction b/w politics and ethics as they’re not interested in
an ideal state or fullest moral development of citizens. On the contrary, they’re more
concerned with security of the state against external threats and internal conflicts.
(iii) Both placed great emphasis on conquest and expansion of territory and
sphere of influence by the ruler in addition to guarding the existing realm. For
Machiavelli, a prince should endeavor to not only secure his domain during his time
but even after him. In the same line, Kautilya advices that a king shouldn’t install on
the throne one who is unfit to rule, even if he has only one san.
(iv) In the context of defense and warfare, both stressed that despite the crucial
importance of force in politics, which is central to the well-being of the state, the war
should be used as the last resort. They argued that war causes loss of money & life and
thus to the material well-being of the state.
(v)Ideas of both Kautilya & Machiavelli have universal application Gilbert held that
Machiavelli’s ‘Prince’ & ‘Discourses’ reveal the laws that govern world politics. On
the other hand, L. N. Rangarajan regards Kautilya’s teachings of stat craft have
universal validity.
• Although there’s a striking similarity and convergence in the ideas of Kautilya &
Machiavelli, the different environments (time & space) in which these texts were written
permits only some lateral comparisons b/w them. Kautilya belongs to the east and
Machiavelli belongs to the western political tradition. This difference in their time &
space is reflected in their ideas too. While Machiavellian ‘prince’ is above morality,
Kautilya never kept his king above dharma.
• In addition while Machiavelli’s ideas remained as a theory, Kautilya got his ideas
implemented through Chandra Gupta Maurya.
• It is in this context, Max Weber, in his work ‘Politics as Vocation’, has argued that
despite these similarities in their perspective, Kautilya was more realist than
Machiavelli and truly radical Machiavellianism is classically expressed in Kautilya’s
‘Arthashastra’. In this context, Weber argued that Machiavelli’s ‘Prince’ appears
harmless in comparison to Kautilya’s Arthashastra.
(2b) Distinguish b/w the instrumentalist & the structuralist theories concerning the
nature of state within Marxism.
• Concept of state has been figured as the most defining theme of traditional political
science. R.G. Gettel defined political science as the ‘science of the state’, while J.W.
Garner claimed that ‘political science begins and ends with the state’.
• However, despite being the central theme, it has been one of the most contested and
debated concepts of political science. This is so because several political thinkers and
schools of thought have developed ideas about the nature of state according to different
points of view. One such consequence, arising out of different conception, is the
emergence of ‘instrumentalist- structuralist debate’ concerning the nature of state
within Marxism. One is the ‘instrumentalist/ functionalist’ model and, the other model
is ‘structuralist/relative autonomy’ model.
• Instrumentalist school derives its origins from ‘Communist manifesto’ of Marx. It
states that state is an instrument of bourgeoisie and neutrality of the state is false
consciousness. On the other hand, Structuralists believe that in some situations state
gains some autonomy and appears as neutral. However, they say that in case of crisis,
state ultimately comes for the protection of the rich.
• Ralph Miliband (on instrumentalist) and Poulantzas (structuralist) have analyzed
the nature of the state in ‘post-capitalist’ societies. The term ‘post-capitalist’ denotes
the transition in the nature of capitalism, from inhumane to humane, thus ‘leissuze faire
state’ giving way to ‘welfare state’.
• A/Q to liberals, nature of the state has changed with the introduction of the ‘Right to
vote’ for the workers. State takes up many welfare functions in favour of poor. Thus,
state doesn’t act as an instrument of the rich against the poor. In the same line, James
Burnham has given the concept of ‘managerial revolution’, to show the changed nature
of capitalism. A/Q to him, the nexus/connection b/w the owners of the capital and
decision makers have broken. These has been a shift in the decision-making power from
the capitalist class to the managerial class, which is an ‘open-class’ and anyone,
including workers can be a part/member of it.
• In this context, Ralph Miliband, in his work ‘The state in the capitalist society (1969)’
has shown that the nature of state has not changed, despite the fact that workers have
been given the right to vote. He rejected the concept of ‘managerial revolution’ as a
myth, claiming that despite being an open-class, it is very rare that sons & daughters
of working class join the managerial class. Therefore, he asserted that there still
remains no real gap b/w the ruling class of society & the dominant class. Economic
power remains concentrated in the hands of the capitalist class, which in turn allows it
to continue its dominance on the political power. Thus, the instrumentalist model
represented by Ralph miliband, reject the autonomous role of the state as it has no
freedom of action.
• On the other hand, Nicos Poulantzas, in his work ‘political power & social classes’
didn’t agree with the instrumentalist view. A/Q to him, state in western liberal societies
cannot be considered to be instrument of a particular class. Being a structural Marxist,
he awarded more importance to the elements of super structure (including state). He
disagreed with the simplistic understanding of the state in instrumentalist model and
argues that the capitalist class, being too focused on its short term profit rather than on
maintaining the class power as a whole, doesn’t exercise the whole state power in its
own interest. For Poulantzas the relative autonomy character of the state develops due
to a spatial separation b/w the juridico-political level and the economic level. Another
reason is that in a pluralist society, there’re different social groups in a constant
situation of conflict. The state wants to cohere all the factions together which couldn’t
be achieved without the neutral stand of the state.
• Moreover, the introduction of adult franchise has changed the nature of the state.
In such situation, in order to achieve power political parties require the support from
the large section of the society. Hence, their policies can’t be exclusive to a particular
class. This makes state neutral.
• However, Poulantzas agrees that the state is only relatively autonomous & not
completely autonomous as, during crisis situations the state will come to the rescue of
the capitalist class.
(2c) ‘Dworkin recommends a way to distribute resources, that while not everyone has
exactly the same amount, nevertheless, it leaves each person satisfied with his lot &
able to take responsibility for how his welfare is secured’. Elucidate.
• A/Q to Dworkin, equality is a ‘sovereign virtue’. It means equality precedes all other
virtues. However, equality is a relative concept. The demand for equality has always
been against the prevailing inequalities in the society. Inequality is a universal feature
of all societies and its opposition has been fundamental to all social relations.
• As against equality of welfare, represented by utilitarian who argue in favour of
achievement of equality of welfare (pleasure/ happiness)’ Dworkin suggests to give
equal resources. A/Q to Dworkin, ‘just society is where initial distribution of resources
is just.
• Equality of resources approach, expressed by scholars like Dworkin & Rawls, is the
resourcist view of equality or ‘resource egalitarianism’. It lays emphasis on the state’s
responsibility towards remedying unequal circumstances among people.
• Ronald Dworkin has suggested 2-stage process to achieve equality of resources—
(i) Ambition sensitive auction- It involves ‘auction’ or distribution of resources
subjected to the ‘envy’ test. The test implies that no division of resources is equal if
anyone would prefer someone else’s resources to his own resources.
(ii) Insurance scheme- It involves a distributional plan that offset the brute luck
of the disadvantaged before the distribution of resources.
• A rough parallel of this approach is the practice of ‘progressive’ taxation to secure
the welfare of the disadvantaged.
However, even with equal distribution of resources, Individuals can differ greatly in
their abilities to convert the same resources into valuable functioning. Thus, such
approach that focuses only on means, without considering people’s different
capabilities is insufficient
(3a) ‘Human beings are moral because they’re rational’ (MN Roy). Critically
examine.
• M.N. Roy is considered to be one of the most vibrant political thinkers in the annals
of modern Indian political thought. In the course of development of his political
philosophy, he voyaged from nationalism to Marxism and from Marxism to Radical
Humanism.
• In the post-Marxist phase of his ideational journey, Roy experienced that the two
dominant political philosophies of liberalism and communism have fulfilled only the
partial needs of man. This led him to formulate primarily concerned with human life,
which he referred to as ‘radical humanism’.
• Radical humanism is based on the concept of ‘sovereignty’ of man. It is humanism
since it aims at preserving integrity of individual in its radical/original form i.e.,
divorced from all forms of human identity such as caste, class etc.
• A/Q to MN Roy, there are three components of radical humanism-
(i) Reason:
Given the diversity in nature & characteristics of people, Roy takes rationality as the
unifying element in every human being. It is the presence of reason in every man which
can become the basis for human solidarity. A/Q to Roy, reason is materialistic, and not
spiritualistic, in origin because it developed as a result of human struggle for survival
or existence.
(ii) Freedom
Freedom of man is the ultimate objective of radical humanism. A/Q to Roy, freedom
emerges from man’s struggle for self-protection, survival & reproduction. Freedom
means freedom from all source of fear & insecurities.
(iii) Ethics/ morality
When reason is applied in social life, it becomes ethics. Thus, ethics have materialistic
origin & thus materialism is not unethical in nature.
(3b) ‘The Social contract theory is a bad history, bad logic and bad philosophy’.
Critically Examine.
• The above statement, criticizing the theory of social contract, has been given by
John Locke, owing to the differences in his conception of human nature and state of
nature, the two core aspect of social contract theory, from other political
philosopher.
• Locke’s life coincided with the one of the most significant epochs of British history
which saw the transformation of absolute monarchy into parliamentary democracy
(Glorious revolution). As a result of which, he developed an optimistic view of
human nature. He takes a balanced view of human nature. According to Locke, if
man is self-centered, man also has reason, which governs him to take care of the
interest of others in his own self-interest. Thus, he gives an enlightened view of self-
interest. To quote Locke, reason teaches man that being all equal and independent,
no one ought to harm others in his life, health, liberty or possession. Contrary to it,
in Hobbesian conception, man is dominated by passion and his reason is limited to
the extent that man can satisfy his appetite.
• Similarly, for Locke, state of nature is pre-political and not pre-social as men are
social by nature. Thus the state of nature, in Locke’s conception, is a state of peace,
goodwill, mutual assistance and self-preservation. This conception is in conflict
with Hobbesian conception who considers state of nature to be a state of war. In
addition, in Lockeian view, people’s life in state of nature is governed by natural
law, which allowed man to enjoy natural rights to life, liberty and property.
• Owing to this optimistic conception of human nature, Locke emphasized that as man
was able to lead a social life on its own in the state of nature, creation of state is not
a necessity but a matter of convenience. This led Locke to envisage a state with only
those powers which are necessary to remove inconveniences faced in state of nature
such as absence of common authority etc. This conception of limited state is in
conflict/contradiction with the absolute state envisaged by Hobbes in his work
‘Laviathon’.
(3c) Do you agree that structural-functional analysis is ideologically inclined

towards conservatism. Give arguments in support of your view.
• Structural-functional approach is a form of system analysis, which looks at political
system as a coherent whole which influences and, in turn, influenced by their
environment. It seeks to study political system as a set of functions performed by several
structures.
• As the structural-functional approach designates universal components of political
system, without dictating specific functions of each structures this mode of analysis
allows investigation of different types of systems, such as democracy & monarchy.
• However, a critical examination of the structural-functional approach shows that it

is an attempt to justify & defend the status-quo. Critics have found that this approach
is based on deterministic, conservative & restrictive ideology. Critics argue that this
approach tends to focus primarily on static relationships rather than dynamics. This
approach is concerned with the systematic survival, the requirements of stability &
various functions and structures oriented towards maintenance of the system.
Therefore, this approach is accused of being anti-change or having a conservative-bias.
Thus, stability, and not change is the sheet anchor of structural functionalists.
• A/Q to Susser, structural functionalists has the serious flaw of being ‘concerned
with the present’ and having ‘no perspective of the future’. It is for the same reason that
critics like Gouldner accuses structural-functionalists of constituting the ‘sociological
conservation corps’.
(4a) ‘Deliberative theory of democracy is a normative theory, which emphasizes on
civic virtue’. Elucidate.
• Democracy has been described as one of the ‘characteristic institutions of
modernity’ and was the result of a complex and inter wined processes of ideological,
social & politico-economic evolutions. The core theme of democracy as a concept of
political theory is ‘rule of the people by the people and for the people’.
• However, in spite of being a central concept, the democratic tradition doesn’t
advance a single and unanimous model of ‘popular rule’. On the contrary, there’s a
number of models, each offering its own version of ‘popular rule’. One such important
model of democratic theory is ‘deliberative democracy’.
• Joshua Cohen has outlined 5 main features of deliberative democracy—
(a) An ongoing independent association with expected continuation.
(b) People accept that deliberation is the deciding factor in creation of
institutions & formulation of laws and policies.
(c)Commitment to the respect of pluralism of values.
(d) Each member recognizes & respect other member’s deliberative capacity.
(e) Citizens consider deliberative procedure as the source of legitimacy.
Thus, deliberative or discursive democracy is a form of democracy that is concerned

with improving collective decision making through deliberation. The general aim of
deliberative democracy is to provide the most justiciable conception for dealing with
moral disagreement in politics. In pursuing thus aim, deliberative democracy serves
four related purposes—
(i) Provide legitimacy to the collective decisions.
(ii) Encourage public spirited perspectives on public issues.
(iii) Promote mutually respectful processes of decision making.
(iv) Help correct mistakes during collective actions.
• However, many theorists consider the following possible problems with the
deliberative democracy –
(i) If only certain modes of expression & forms of argument are publicly accepted, the
voices of certain citizens will be excluded, which would diminish the quality &
legitimacy of outcomes of deliberation.
(ii) Deliberative assumes capacity of citizens to be reasonable & cooperative.
This neglects already existing social inequalities & biases, which can affect the process
of deliberation.
(4b) ‘Equality for Rawls is an operational concept tied to the procedural theory of
justice’. Elaborate.
• A/Q to Tom Campbell, Justice is the central & commanding concept of current
mainstream normative political philosophy. Rawls book ‘Theory of Justice’ has started
what has been rightly called ‘golden age in theorizing about justice’.
• Rawls propounded the ‘liberal-equalitarian’ theory of social justice as he, being
inspired by Kantian moral idea of freedom & equality, gave centrality to the moral
principle of freedom & equality of every person.
• The distinction b/w procedural and substantive justice forms the core of the modern
debate on the nature of justice. Procedural justice emphasizes that it is necessary to
determine a just procedure for the allocation of social goods. It is based on the idea of
formal equality of individual as human beings and, thus, repudiates all forms of
differences b/w them. On the other hand, substantive justice is based on the idea of
justness of the content or outcome of laws or social policies. It demands that the
opportunities for self- development should be progressively extended to the
disadvantaged sections of society. In concrete terms, rights-based justice is seen as
procedural justice, whereas needs-based justice as substantive justice.
• John Rawls, in his book ‘Theory of justice’ presents a very strong defense of the idea
of justice based on the basic tenets of procedural theory i.e., justice requires following
of just rules. He places men behind the ‘Veil of ignorance’ in a hypothetical original
position, where individuals are deprived of the basic knowledge of their social context,
abilities, skills etc., but they will have what Rawls calls a ‘sense of justice’.
• However, given the uncertainty about the actual position in the society, the
contractors would choose those principles which would maximize the position of worst-
off, assuming that when the ‘Veil of ignorance’ is removed, they themselves would turn
out to be the worst-off.
• However, Rawls theory, in order to respond to the critics of procedural justice,
Rawls suggests that under controlled conditions rational human beings would choose
principles that would uphold principles consistent with the basic idea of substantive
justice or distributive justice.
• A/Q to Rawls, under the condition of original position, people will agree to accept
two principles of justice in the lexical order. Firstly, Equality principle where each
person is to have an equal right to liberty compatible with a similar liberty to others.
Secondly, Principle of fair equality of opportunity and difference principle ensures that
any departure from the principle of equality brings maximum benefit to the least
advantaged. In other words, inequalities should be arranged that they benefit the worst-
off section of the society.
• It is in this context it has been argued that Rawls has sought to accommodate the
requirements of substantive or social justice in his well-drawn scheme of procedural
scheme. It is his this attempt to synthesize these different conceptions of justice that
marked the inauguration of a ‘golden ago in theorizing about justice’.
(4c) ‘Nationalism is not a mere political programme; nationalism is a religion that has
come from God’. (Aurobindo). Critically examine Aurobindo’s theory of nationalism in
the light of above statement.
• The idea of ‘India as a nation’ has remained contested. Colonial administrators and
historians have always challenged the legitimacy of Indian national movement. A/Q to
them, India is nothing but a geographical expression. The response of moderates to the
British claim was too mild. They accepted that India is not a nation rather as S.N.
Banerjee called, India is a ‘nation-in-the-making’. The moderates believed that under
the influence of modernization India will emerge as a nation.
• On the other hand Aurobindo saw India as a nation from the beginning. Aurobindo’s
idea of nationalism is based on the conception that India was a spiritual entity that was
destined to lead the entire world to human unity. He held that considering nationalism
as a mere political programme is a mistake committed by the moderates as it can only
lead to certain political outcomes. But, as India is destined to be the leader of the
spiritual world and humanity, nationalism must be considered as a way of life like
religion. Therefore, Aurobindo equated nationalism with religion so that people get
connected to it with the same spirit as they’re connected to their religion. However, he
held that nationalism is not a religion in the sense of an inactive contemplative life,
rather it is a religion as an active type.
• Aurobindo’s interpretation of nationalism is very much important in the context of
Indian national movement because the cultural element energized the masses to rise
above the British ‘chauvinism’ as propagated by the moderates. Therefore, Aurobindo
by rejecting the liberal nationalism & attaching a cultural sanctity to the concept of
nationalism, provided the much needed boost to the freedom struggle at a time when
different confused notion of nationalism was prevailing in the country.
• On the other hand, Aurobindo Ghosh, being influenced by the ideas of Herder’s
‘cultural nationalism’, along with the idea of ‘Bharat Mata’ by B.C. Chatterjee and
‘Neo-vedantism’ of Vivekananda give a romantic touch to the idea of Indian
nationalism. It was a part of his endeavor to provide a bold theory of nationalism.
• Aurobindo’s idea of nationalism with a cultural touch was mainly articulated to
reject the prevailing conception of nationalism as propagated by colonial
administrators and mildly modified by moderates. He believed that India is not just a
piece of land or a mass of human being, rather a ‘spiritual entity’. Aurobindo opposed
the moderates’ conception of Indian nation and held that ‘Bharat mata’ is a concrete
manifestation of India being a natural and living/existing entity and thus Indian
nationalism is in-built.
(5a) ‘Action, as distinguished from fabrication, is never possible in isolation; to be
isolated is to be deprived of all the capacity to act’. (Hannah Arendt) Comment.
• Hannah Arendt’s political thought is heterodox and unconventional in the sense that
she has given her own meaning to different political concepts. Though she can’t be
linked with any specific school of thought, yet the common idea connecting her work is
the concern for participation in the civic affairs. Hence, she has been, sometimes,
categorized as belonging to the school of ‘civic republicanism’.
• The question with which Arendt engages most frequently is the nature of ‘politics’
and human existence in public life. Arendt argues that western philosophical tradition
has devalued the world of human action (Vita-activa), subordinating it to the life of
contemplation (vita-contemplation). On the contrary, Arendt, in her work ‘The Human
condition’, reasserted that politics is a valuable realm of human action & world of
appearances. For her, to be human is to be among others in the public realm.
Action: Humanity as ‘ZOOM POLITIKON’.
• For Arendt, the quality of freedom in the world of appearances, which is the ‘sine
qua non’ of politics, is to be found with the activity of action. A/Q to Arendt, since man
is ‘political animal’, the most important action of all human activity is the ‘political
action’. She considers that to be ‘political’ means participation in civic affairs and
everything to be decided through words and persuasion and not through force &
violence. This is the only action that human performs and is, thus, the ‘human
condition’. She stresses that only when human participates in political life, the act as
human.
• Therefore, for Arendt, ‘action’ is a political activity, a worldly practice that is
experienced in one’s public engagement with others. Arendt’s theory holds that as
actions cannot be justified for their own sake, but only in light of their public
recognition, it becomes the most important part of human existence.
• Thus, while in conventional sense, political belongs to the state, Arendt, on the
other hand, stresses that it belongs to the civil society. In conventional sense, power is
exercised by elite, but in Arendt’s conception, it is with people resting in concert it
results into mutual empowerment.
(5b) Write a short note on pluralistic theory of sovereignty, with special reference to
Laski’s view.
• Sovereignty, an essential element of the modern nation state, is the exclusive right to
exercise supreme authority over a geographical region, group of people etc. The key
element of sovereignty, in the legalistic sense, is that of exclusively of jurisdiction.
• Despite being a central concept of political theory, the conception of sovereignty has
been diverse depending upon the different schools of thought. This diversify, is evident
from the debate b/w monistic and pluralistic theory of sovereignty.
• Monistic theory of sovereignty
Monistic theory suggests that in a particular territory there is only one sovereign. A/Q
to this theory, sovereignty, a permanent characteristic of state, is inalienable and
indivisible.
However, the monistic theory of sovereignty has been criticized as being a ‘legal fiction
as no state can exercise sovereignty in an ideal sense. This is because, externally, state’s
choice is limited by other actors & its relation with them and internally, sovereignty is
limited by various organizations.
• Pluralist Theory of sovereignty (Harold Laski)
• The pluralist theory of sovereignty is based on the idea of political pluralism, which
is the recognition of diversity of interests & beliefs of the citizenry. A/Q to Pluralists,
there’re multiple centres of authority rather than a single centre of authority in the form
of state. They argue that needs of man are multi-dimensional so a single association
such as state cannot fulfill all needs of man and cannot claim monopoly over obligation
of man.
• In the words of Laski, since, the society is federal, authority must also be federal.
A/Q to him, in order to fulfil his multifarious aspirations and needs men join various
associations which cater to the satisfaction of these wants. State is also one such
association which can satisfy only the political needs of the people and therefore
exercises only a partial control over people’s lives. He argues that allegiance to various
associations are partial and proportional to their contribution.
Therefore, a/q to Laski, as society is essentially federal in nature, it is impossible and
unwise to attempt to confine sovereignty in the state alone. On the contrary, all
authority is federal.
• However, one of the major drawbacks of the pluralist theory is the inconsistency in
their approach. While they criticize any attempt to give excessive powers to the state,
they also claim that state is the most important association in the society as it plays the
role equilibrium maker among the conflicting interests of various associations.
• Despite its drawbacks the pluralist theory of sovereignty is preferred over the
monistic theory as it is considered to be more realistic view of the concept of
sovereignty. Its desirability and relevance increases world based on multi-level
governance is emerging.
(5c) Write short note on Bhikhu Parekh’s view on multiculturalism.
• Multiculturalism is more an arena of ideological debate than an ideology in its own
right. As an arena of debate, it encompasses a range of views about the implications of
growing cultural diversify. Multiculturalism deals with the question of reconciliation of
the aspirations of political equality with the fact of socio-cultural diversities in the
society. Hence, the key theme of multiculturalism is ‘diversity within unity’.
• However, multiculturalism is not a single doctrine in the sense that there’s no settled
view of how multicultural society should operate and hence, encompasses a variety of
ideological stances such as liberal multiculturalism (represented by Will Kymlicka) and
Pluralist multiculturalism (represented by Bhikhu Parekh).
Pluralist multiculturalism (Bhikhu Parekh)
• Pluralism provides a firmer foundations for a politics of difference than does
liberalism because, for liberals, diversify is endorsed but only when it is construed
within a framework of toleration & personal autonomy.
• A/Q to plural multiculturalists like Bhikhu Parekh cultural diversity is a reflection
of the interplay b/w human nature & culture. Although human beings are natural
creates they’re also culturally constituted in the sense that their attitudes, behavior etc.,
are shaped by the groups to which they belong.
• Pluralist multiculturalism goes beyond liberal multiculturalism in that it stresses
that western liberalism gives expression only certain aspects of human nature. In this
sense, Parekh rejected Universalist liberalism and argue that what is moral is defined
by different cultures.
• Though Bhikhu Parekh shares same basic assumptions with will Kymlicka about the
importance of culture and the need to give special rights, he opposes Will Kymlicka on
two grounds—
(i) These cannot be any justification to make a difference b/w national minorities,
immigrants and refugees.
(ii) He doesn’t agree with the view that multiculturalism is the feature of liberal
society only. He believes that liberals have inherent sense of superiority. Bhikhu Parekh
suggests ‘dialogue b/w civilizations’, so that there can be consensus on some minimum
value which will be acceptable to all. He believes that human dignify is one such
principle around which we can develop common values.
• On the issue of reconciliation b/w autonomy and cultural rights Bhikhu Parekh
proposes the application of ‘Harm Principle’. A/Q to it if there’s no concrete harm to
anyone with respect to any specific cultural practice, such practices need not to be
restricted.
(5d) ‘Sex and gender represent natural & conventional inequality’. Comment.
• Until the 1960s, question of ‘gender divisions’ was rarely considered to be politically
relevant. The different social, economic and political roles of man & women were
attributed to be natural & inevitable, owing to the biological division of sex. In concrete
terms, the social subordination of women was biologically defined.
• However, with the emergence of radical feminism (IInd wave of feminism during
1960s), feminists have challenged the idea that biology is destiny, by drawing a sharp
distinction b/w ‘sex’ and ‘gender’. They argue that the social subordination of women
is ‘cultural’ rather than ‘biological’. Gender differences in society were regarded for
the first time as important in themselves while liberal & socialist feminism threw light
on the position of women in society. But neither acknowledged that ‘gender’ is the most
fundamental of all social divisions.
• The central argument of radical feminists is that sexual oppression is the most
fundamental feature of society & that other forms of injustice –class exploitation, racial
hatred etc., are merely secondary. Gender is thought to be the ‘deepest social cleavage’
and most politically significant. Radical feminists have, therefore, insisted that society
be understood as ‘patriarchal’ to highlight the central role of ‘sex oppression’.
• Radical feminists make a distinction b/w ‘sex’ (a biological term to highlight
difference b/w males & females) and ‘gender’ (a cultural term). Gender differences are
typically imposed through contrasting notions of ‘masculinity’ & ‘femininity’. In this
context, Simone de Beauvoir, in his book ‘The second sex’, pointed out that ‘women are
not born but made’. Because women as a gender is an identity imposed by the society.
Society doesn’t give opportunity to the person to determine his/her gender.
• Therefore, for radical feminists, gender is the basis on which the system of patriarchy
is built, which is system of Politico-cultural oppression. Thus, female liberation
requires a sexual revolution in which these structures are over-thrown & replaced.
Simone de Beauvoir suggests women to come out of the comfort of patriarchy and to
work with men together to end patriarchy’.
(5e) ‘The cause of sedition is always to be found in inequality’ (Aristotle).
• The given statement explains Aristotle’s theory of justice in his work ‘politics’. A/Q
to Dr. Zeller, ‘politics’ is the greatest contribution to political philosophy that we
possess. In this book, one of the most important issues that Aristotle had dealt with is
the concept of ‘justice’, which has been the core concern of the subject of political
philosophy from Plato to Marx. Justice, for Aristotle, is a complete virtue, though not
absolute. It is a relative concept understood in relation to others in the society.
• Aristotle’s theory of justice is linked to his idea of equality. A/Q to him, justice
demands distribution of offices, rewards etc. according to the contributions based on
merit of the citizens. He held that persons who are equal and possess equal merit ought
to be treated equally. In other words, those who contribute more to the performance of
good actions in service of the state and thus show greater civic excellence deserve more
from the state than those who contribute less.
• Therefore, Aristotle’s theory of justice is based on ‘proportional equality’, which

means that people should receive from the state, in the way of just rewards,
proportionately to their merits. In this way, Aristotle doesn’t support absolute equality,
as being injustice with the person who is more talented & meritorious. He held that if
a state will give equal treatment to those who are unequal in their merits & talents, it
will give rise to the feeling of injustice, which ultimately results into resolutions and
seditions.
• Therefore, injustice for Aristotle, arise when equals are treated unequally and
unequal equally. He held that it was necessary to distinguish b/w the deserving and the
undeserving. In this way, Aristotle regarded equality as crucial to social justice and
stability.
• However, merit can be one of the criteria of justice but it cannot be the sole criterion
of justice. A/q to John Rawls, as authority on idea of justice, fairness is the most
important characteristic of a just society. The constitution of India reflects the idea of
justice based on the principle of fairness. In Indian context, as a level-playing field
doesn’t exist, merit alone cannot ensure justice in the true sense.
(6a) ‘What has been passed as a Fascist philosophy is neither original nor creative,
set of ideas put together to meet the exigencies’. (Sabine). Critically evaluate.
• Fascism, a/q to Payne, is the vaguest of contemporary political terms as the word
itself has no implicit political references. It is not regarded as an ideology, rather a
propaganda or a movement.
• Fascism is considered to be an ‘ill-assorted Hodge-podge of ideas’ because there is
no single unifying idea that guided the fascist movement. It lacks a rational and
coherent core idea to be described or categorized as an ideology. Hitler preferred to
describe his ideas as ‘weltanschauung’ (world view) rather than a systematic ideology.
Fascists were drawn less to ideas & theories because they had the capacity to stimulate
political activism. Thus, fascism is a complex incoherent doctrine or a political
movement that emerged from heterogeneous sources and socio-political traditions, only
to evolve an instrument of mass appeal & mass mobilization for the attainment of
specific political goals. It is in this context, Sabine referred to fascism as neither
original nor creative set ideas put together to meet the exigencies.
• However, despite being an incoherent philosophy or a resolutely shapeless doctrine,

it is possible to identify a collection of themes that, when taken together, constitute
fascism’s structural core—
(i) Anti-rationalism
It constitute the fundamental idea of the fascist world view Fascism suggests to abandon
reason and rational thinking by proclaiming that human beings are motivated by their
powerful emotions & will rather than the rational mind. It facilitated the indiscriminate
use of myths as mass propaganda by the proponents of fascism.
(ii) Totalitarianism
Fascism is characterized by a totalitarian organization of government and society by a
single party dictatorship. A fascist state seeks ‘total power through politicization of
every aspect of social and personal existence. The totalitarian element of fascist state
is based on the belief that human existence is only meaningful if determined by
community and thus, state is recognized as ‘universal ethical will’. In this context,
Mussolini proclaimed ‘everything for the state, nothing against or outside the state.
Thus, fascist state can make any demand, give any outer and require absolute and all-
encompassing individuals’ obligation without any opposition.
(iii) Elitism
Fascism, unlike conventional political philosophy, radically rejects ‘equality’ and is
deeply elitist and patriarchal. It is based on the idea that people are essentially different
in their mental make-up, physical strength & spiritual or natural endowments. Fascist
notion of elitist is based on Nietsche’s idea of ‘over-man’ or ‘super man’ which refers
to a supremely gifted individual.
(iv) Militarism
The mass mobilization of fascism is based on the pattern of militarization of politics. As
military-organizations are based on unity of command, order and perfect subordination
of rank to higher command, a party militia in fascism is used to reinforce the sense of
nationalism & wipe out opposition. The extreme stress on male-dominance & exaltation
of youth in a fascist state is also related to its military component.
(v)Ultra nationalism & Imperialism
• Fascism embraces an extreme version of a tradition of chauvinistic and expansionist

nationalism. This tradition regarded nations not as equal & interdependent entities, but
as natural rivals in struggle for dominance Fascist nationalism didn’t preach respect
for distinctive culture or national traditions, but asserted the superiority of one nation
over all others.
• Influenced by social Darwinism (survival of the fittest) and national superiority,
fascist nationalism became inextricably linked to imperialism & militarism, because
fascism asserted that national superiority over other can be established only through
expansionism, war & conquest.
(6b) ‘The only freedom that deserves the name is that of pursuing our good in our
own way’. (J.S. Mill).
• Mill, considered to be the greatest exponent of liberty has provided the most
systematic view of liberal concept of liberty. He re-emphasized the centrality of liberty
of thought, expression and action at a time when utilitarians like Bentham have
subordinated liberty to utility and regarded it merely as a means to the materialistic
interests of the individual/ society.
• A/Q to Mill liberty is transcendent utility. It is a pre-condition of progress as it is
essential to develop, enrich and expand individual personality. He defended liberty
because he realized that there could be no self-development in its absence.
• However, mill defended absolute freedom of thought and expression because he was
convinced that it is only man’s mind that changes society. But he argued that freedom
of action is limited by the condition that no one should make himself a harm to others.
• Mill suggested that individual should enjoy as much liberty as possible. He places
only single restraint that one’s liberty should not impinge on other’s liberty. Further
Mill devised harm principle. Mill categorized actions of every individual as either ‘self-
regarding’ or ‘other-regarding’ based upon the consequences of the actions done. A/Q
to mill, the first category constitutes the region of absolute freedom and the second as
the region of limited and restricted freedom.
• A/Q to mill, the individual is sovereign over his own mind and the body and,
therefore, must be left free in all concerns himself alone. In this sphere, society has no
right to impose any restraint on the individual because, a/q to Mill, all restraint qua
restraint is an evil because it obstructs the development of human personality in the
atmosphere of external restraints.
• A/Q to mill, in regard to the ‘other-regarding’ actions, in which the consequences of
an individual action go beyond him and harm others, the society has the right and duty
to prevent and put restrictions on freedom.
• Thus, by defining the ‘appropriate region of human liberty’, he determined that real
and absolute freedom is only in context of self-regarding actions of individual in which
an individual pursue its own good in its own way. In the broader context, Mill argued
that the worth of the state is the worth of the individual composing it, thus, there should
be restricted intervention by the state.
• However, in an attempt to define regions of liberty, mill projects himself as, what
Barker call, prophet of empty liberty. A/Q to Barker, Mill goes for artificial separation
b/w ‘self-regarding’ actions and ‘other-regarding’ actions and thus, leaves very limited
space for liberty.
(6c) Distinguish among the three generation of rights. Elaborate on cultural
relativistic criticism of human rights.
• A right is an entitlement to act or to be treated in a particular way. As such, rights
are social claims given to individuals, as members of the society, necessary for the
development of human personality.
• Human rights, most basically, are rights to which people are entitled by virtue of
being human. They’re therefore, ‘universal’ rights, in the sense that they belong to all
human beings irrespective to their race, nationality etc.
• However, there’ve been deep divisions about what human rights should enjoy. As a
result of significant academic debates, content of human rights has developed
significantly over time, enabling three generations of human rights to be indentified—
(i) First Generation Rights (civil and political Rights)
These were the earliest form of rights which deal essentially with liberty & participation
in political life. The core civil and political rights are right to life, liberty & property,
freedom from discrimination etc. They’re typically seen as ‘negative rights’ as they can
be enjoyed only if constraints are placed on others.
(ii) Second Generation Rights (Social, economic & Cultural rights)
The struggle for these rights gained prominence during the 29th century especially in
the post-1945 period. By contrast with traditional ‘liberal’ rights, these rights drew on
‘socialist’ ideas towards social justice. These rights include-right to work, right to
healthcare, right to education etc. These rights are ‘positive’ rights in that they imply a
significant level of state intervention.
(iii) Third Generation Rights (Solidarity rights/ Green Rights)
These encompass a broad spectrum of rights, whose main characteristic is that they’re
attached to social groups or whole societies, as opposed to separate individuals.
They’re, therefore, seen as collective rights/people’s rights. Such rights include-right
to self-determination, right to peace, right to environmental protection & multicultural
rights. Cultural relativist perspective on rights.
• The relationship b/w individual and the state has been an important question of
interest of political theory. In its modern sense, rights are considered as entitlements to
act or to be treated in a particular way.
• Human rights are rights to which people are entitled by virtue of being human being.
In this sense, human rights as entitlements are ‘universal’ as they belong to human
beings everywhere, regardless of race, religion, gender & other differences.
• However, despite its growing prominences, the doctrine of human rights has been
subjected to debate about the Universalist assumption that underpins them, creating a
battle b/w universalism and relativism.
• Human rights may be defined as universal rights of moral and political significance
that belongs to all human beings by virtue of their humanity. It is a non-negotiable
ingredient of human rights that they apply to human beings universally, irrespective of
their race, culture, religion or their nationality. This is known as the universal doctrine
of human rights.
• While the universal human rights doctrine aims to protect all human beings without
any form of discrimination, cultural relativism emphasizes on cultural diversity as the
element of importance. The individualism of human rights presents a host of

complexities in non-individualistic cultural context. As such, cultural relativists, who
support each culture’s right to variation, poses a challenge to universal application of
human rights. The idea of cultural diversity and relativism leads to the idea of moral
relativism in the sense that what may be a violation of morality in one culture mayn’t
be considered as violation of human rights in other cultural context. This point of
difference b/w cultural relativism and universalism of human rights is apparent in
efforts to introduce gender-based equality to traditional societies that practice sharia
law.
(7a) ‘Economic base determines the operation of an ideological & cultural
superstructure is too simplistic understanding of a relationship which is reflexive &
dynamic’. (Gramsci) Elaborate.
• Classical Marxist theory, propounded by Karl Marx, has been created around the
relationship b/w two parts of human society i.e., base & superstructure. For Marx, the
economic order of society (forces of production) constituted the base and socio-political
institutions such as family, church etc., constituted the superstructure. Marx held that
it is the forces of production which is the sole relevant component of human society and
the superstructure have no autonomous existence/role. It is in this context, orthodox
Marxism has been criticized of ‘economic determinism’, which emphasizes only on the
economic structure as having sole relevance.
• Thus, a/q to critics, Marxism is prone to commit the dual mistakes of explaining all
historical movement exclusively in economic terms and over-rating the importance of
economic conditions at the same time.
• However, Gramsci, with a Zeal to discover the missing link b/w Marxist theory and
the reality of continued exploitation of working class, observed that principle of the
causal primacy of the economic factors was a misconception of Marxism. He held that
Marx has put over-emphasis on economic factors (base) and neglected the importance
of culture & values (part of superstructure) in determining the highly complex social
phenomena.
• Influenced by Benedetto Croce, Gramsci emphasized on the role of cultural factors
in shaping history.
• A/Q to Gramsci, the institutions of civil society such as family, church, school etc.
exerts power through social norms and culture and restrict the possibilities of actions
against domination. Gramsci called this the function of hegemony which the dominant
class exercises through the society. On the other hand, the political society (state)
represented the coercive power which becomes operative only when ideological
domination (hegemony) fails to maintain the stability of capitalist order.
• In this way, by validating the importance of state, culture and values prevailing in
the super structure, Gramsci rescued Marxism from being crude economic
reductionism. It is in this context of attempt made by Gramsci, N.Bobbio called him as
the ‘theoretician of the superstructure’.
(7b) ‘Dialectical materialism represents the philosophical basis whereas historical
materialism represents the empirical basis of Marxism’. Elucidate & comment.
• Karl Marx has been the most influential political philosopher and his work,’
communist’ Manifesto’, has been described by Laski as ‘one of the most outstanding
political document of all times’. Among, others, the Marxist doctrine of ‘dialectical
materialism’ and ‘historical materialism’ forms the core tenets of Marxism and its
theory of social change.
Dialectical Materialism
Dialectical materialism constitutes the foundation on which the entire Marxism thought
rests. It is applied in the form of materialist interpretation of history and the theory of
class struggle in the Marxism.
• Idea of dialectics was first given by Socrates as a means to achieve or understand
the truth. ‘Dialectics’ indicate ‘contradictions’ that exist at any stage of a development
process i.e., thesis, antithesis & synthesis.
• Marx was greatly inspired by the Hegelian conception of ‘dialectical idealism’
which regards ideas as the moving force behind the historical processes. A/Q to Hegel,
history moves in the form of dialectics of ideas to reach a stage of absolute idea in
which all contradictions are resolved.
• Marx adopted the method of dialectics as the true account of process of development,
but applied it in a very different way than that of Hegel. Marx abandoned the Hegelian
idealism and adopted the materialistic view.
• Marx conceived of history as moving under the pressure of economic (material)
rather than ideal forces. A/Q to Marx, the thesis, antithesis and synthesis of dialectics
are economic classes and not ideas. It is based on Marxist conception that ideas are
nothing but false consciousness and matter is the ultimate reality.
• A/Q to Marx, his dialectical method was not only different from the Hegelian but
was its direct opposite. By asserting that ideas, instead of being basis of history, are a
part of superstructure reared on material base, Marx turned Hegel’s dialectic ‘upside
down’.
• Since the dialectical method regards conflict and contrast as the moving force behind
all the development process, Marxism proposes the contradictions contained in
capitalism such as alienation. A/Q to Marxism, capitalism carries with itself the seeds
of its own decay. Out of conflict b/w the capitalist class & proletariat class, there would
be a change in mode of production from one to another (i.e., revolution) leading to a
communist society where there shall be no classes. Thus, Marx’s faith in the final
triumph of the proletariat and the liquidation of capitalist order was rooted in his
dialectical materialism.
• However, Marx’s dialectical materialism has been criticize on the ground that the
notion of self-development through conflict of contradiction is applicable only to ideas,
and not to a non-ideal entity like matter.
Historical Materialism
The most seminal contribution of Marx is his theory of ‘historical materialism’, which
is a theory which holds that the ultimate cause which determines the whole course of
human history is the economic development of society. The whole course of human
history is explained in terms of changes occurring in the modes of production &
exchange.
• To quote Marx, ‘The history of all hitherto existing societies has been the history of
class struggle. Starting with primitive communism the mode of production has passed
through three stages- slavery, feudalism & capitalism and the consequent division of
society into three classes and the struggle of these classes against each another.
• Thus, Marx’s materialist interpretation of history explains the general course of
human history in terms of growth of productive forces. In concrete terms, it is the
economic base which is the sole relevant component of human society and the
superstructure (comprising of socio-political institutions such as family, church etc.)
have no independent & significant existence/role without economic structure. Further
any change in economic structure will lead to change in the superstructure.
• Karl Marx calls his analysis of history (i.e., ‘historical materialism’) as scientific as
he used this approach to understand history scientifically. He further says that in order
to think one has to eat and in order to eat man has to produce. Thus production is the
first historical act of man rather than thinking.
• With his emphasis on dialectics of matter and historical materialism, Marx has
ignored the role of cultural factors in the process of history. For this Marxism is seen
as a monocasual explanation of history rather than a comprehensive explanation.
However, through his historical materialism, Marx has demonstrated that manual labor
is superior to mental labor since production comes prior to thinking. He was the first
thinker to speak for the working class.
(7c) Compare and contrast liberal feminism with radical feminism.
• Feminism, as an ideology is linked to the women’s movement and the attempt to
advance the social role of women. Feminist ideology is defined by two basic beliefs-
(a) Women are disadvantaged because of their sex.
(b) This disadvantage can and should be over thrown.
• However, feminism, being a meta-ideology, has been characterized by the diversity
of ideas, views and political positions and is, thus, divided into different schools such
as liberal, socialist, radical etc., Although united by a common desire to advance the
role of women, feminists disagree about how this is to be achieved.
Liberal feminism Vs Radical Feminism
• The philosophical basis of liberal feminism lies in the principle of ‘individualism’

i.e., all individuals are entitled to equal treatment, regardless of their sex, race, culture
etc. A/Q to Mary Wollstonecraft’s ‘Vindication of rights of women’, women should be
entitled to the same rights & privileges as men on the ground that they’re all human
beings. She claimed that the distinction of sex would become unimportant in political
& social life if women gained access to education & other rights.
Radical feminism considers liberal feminism as an extension of the masculine doctrine
of liberalism and criticizes it for the lack of originality. The central feature of radical
feminism is the belief that the sexual oppression is the most fundamental feature of
society and other forms of injustices, based on class, races etc. are merely secondary.
In other words gender is thought to be the deepest social cleavage and most politically
significant. Radical feminists argue that individualistic perspective of liberal feminists
ignores the fact that women are subordinated not as an individual but as a ‘sex’. They
argue that stress in individualism upon ‘personhood’ makes it difficult for women to act
collectively on the basis of their common gender identity. Therefore, radical feminists
prefer ‘sisterhood’ over ‘personhood’. In addition, radical feminism have insisted that
the society should be understood as ‘patriarchal’ to highlight the central role of sex
oppression.
• While liberal feminists emphasized on the conventional approach of maintaining the
separation b/w ‘personal’ and political, radical feminists, on the other hand, suggests
that ‘personal is political’. In this way, radical feminists have sought to challenge the
divide b/w ‘public man’ and ‘private women’ and have been the keenest opponents of
the idea that ‘politics stops at the front door’. On the contrary, on the ground of
politicization of private sphere, liberal feminists challenge the notion of ‘personal as
political’.
• Liberal feminism is essential ‘reformist’ as it seeks to open up the public life to equal
competition b/w men and women, rather than to abolish the distinction b/w public and
private spheres of life. On the contrary, radical feminists assert that women’s liberation
requires a ‘revolutionary’ change by abolishing the gender differences b/w men and
women. For radical feminists, patriarchy is a system of politico-cultural oppression,
whose origins lie in the structure of family domestic & personal life. Therefore, they
argue that in order to liberate women, institution of family & domestic life have to be
destroyed and psychological & sexual oppression operating at all levels have to be over
thrown (i.e., a sexual revolution).
(8a) Evaluate Amartya Sen’s contribution to the contemporary theory of justice.
• Justice being the central normative concept of political science was a primary
concern of thinkers from Plato to Sen.
• Sen envisages his idea of justice as a critique of Rawls. Rawls, in his book ‘Theory
of justice’ which is credited with starting the golden age in theorizing about justice’,
has propounded the liberal-egalitarian theory of social justice. A/Q to Rawls, the
purpose of social justice is to ensure that the distribution of benefits & burdens of
society is just/fair to all.
• Amartya Sen appreciates Rawls for giving the criticism of utilitarianism and using
‘fairness’ as the basis of justice. However, he disagrees with Rawls on the following-
(i) He doesn’t support the necessity of any universal idea of justice as it is not possible
to arrive at an idea of justice satisfactory to all.
(ii) He also doesn’t believe that justice is a product of procedure. A/Q to Amartya
Sen, ‘Nyaya’ is superior to ‘Niti’.
(iii) He calls his methodology as social choice, which is superior to rational
choice.
(iv) Amartya Sen calls his theory of justice as comparative theory, which doesn’t
aim at achieving perfectly just society but making society as just as possible.
• Amartya Sen, in his book ‘Equality of what’, has given his theory of equality which
is closely linked to his conception of justice. He has given ‘capability Approach’, based
upon analytical distinction b/w means and end, which evaluates policies according to
its impact on people’s capabilities as well as their functioning’s A/q to Sen, capability
is the ability to achieve a certain set of function. For eg- literacy is a capability while
reading is a function.
• The capability approach stresses that the distributional equality should concern
itself with equalizing people’s capabilities, instead of emphasizing on resources. This
distinguishes it from the equality of resources approach, which focuses exclusively on
means (i.e., resources) of wellbeing and exclude the ultimate end (functioning’s) in
contrast to the resource approach, Sen proposes the notion of well-being in terms of
function.
• The theoretical basis on which the capability approach is preferred over equality of
resources is the idea that a proper analysis of inequality needs to go hand-in-hand with
human diversity. A/Q to Amartya Sen, people are deeply diverse in the internal
characteristics (such as age, gender, particular talents etc.) as well as external
circumstances such as social background, ownership of assets etc.
• Thus, Sen’s capability approach stresses that social policies must be tuned with facts
of human diversity to equalize people’s capabilities.
• Whereas a resource egalitarian may insist that resources such as books &
educational services may tackle illiteracy, the capability approach would stress on
internal capability to read and write. It is in this context, capability approach to address
the problem of inequality is a preferred approach.
(8b) Bring out Ambedkar’s diagnosis & remedy of social injustice in India. Contrast
it with the Gandhian view.
• Gandhi-Ambedkar relationship can be best analyzed not in the context of
personalities or political strategies, but in terms of their perspective regarding the
probable solution to the social problems, which were itself differently conceptualized
by them.
• Social justice refers to that aspect of socio-economic and political arrangement
through which it can be ensured that all the benefits, opportunities and privileges in
society is shared by all. To quote B. R. Ambedkar, ‘A just society is that society in which
ascending sense of reverence and descending sense of contempt is dissolved into the
creation of a compassionate society’.
• Caste and consequent graded structure of Indian society has been a dominant issue
in Ambedkar quest and vision of social justice. He believed that untouchability was an
expression of caste system, which is a system of artificially dividing the population &
preventing from fusing into one another. Thus, he chose to study the caste system &
critically analyze the justification if received from Hindu scriptures & traditions. He
held that out-caste is a bye-product of caste system and it cannot be removed without
overall annihilation of caste.
• On the contrary, Gandhi emphasized on untouchability & other caste-based
discriminations rather than the caste itself. He identified untouchability as the most
abhorring expression of caste based inequality. Thus, he held that removal of
untouchability would symbolically end the caste system by removing the caste-
consciousness.
• Owing to the differences in their conceptions of social evils, Gandhi & Ambedkar
differed in their discourses of social justice’. Ambedkar a steadfast constitutionalist,
sought solutions to social problems with the help of the state. He was of the idea that
social justice forms an inalienable part of the constitutional democratic framework.
Ambedkar’s insistence on statutory measures for social justice is based on the idea that
statutory status ensures that social justice become policy of the state and do not remain
in the nature of altruistic favours being extended to depressed classes.
• On the contrary, Gandhi employed ‘socio-humanist’ approach to the problem. A/Q
to him, sustainable social justice can be achieved only through self-realization/ self-
reformation. Rejecting the idea of compulsions through satyagraha or statutory
measures, he believed that reform of the Indian society should be based on enlightment
& self- realization.
• However, despite the difference in their discourses for attainment of social justice,
Gandhi & Ambedkar shared similar visions based on equality, justice & fraternity. A/Q
to Suhash Palshikar, despite their different approaches and areas of concentration,
their discourses were not antithetical in the sense that both were fundamentally
concerned with social justice & transformation of the Indian society. Both relied heavily
on mobilizing people against social injustices & called for social action based on
democratic & popular struggles.
• A/Q to Prof. D. R. Nagaraj, in his work ‘self- Purification v/s self- Respect: On the
Roots of Dalit movement (1993)’, through various, debates & arguments, both Gandhi
& Ambedkar had internalized one another’s ideas while Gandhi recognized the village
to be socio-economic space of exploitation & inequality, Ambedkar realized that social
rights are not protected efficiently by law but by social & moral conscience of society.
• Thus, it can be argued that it is only through the intermixing of both approaches that
social injustices can be addressed. Nagaraj called for synthesis of both the approaches
to deal with contemporary social evils. A/Q to Suhash Palshikar, as the contemporary
social movements have become more localized, instead of attempting at broader social
justice, both the Gandhian & Ambedkar’s discourses or approaches needs to be
reconciled & synergized to tackle contemporary social problems.
(8c) ‘Rights (properly so called) are the creatures of law (properly so called)’.
(Bentham).
In the light of above statement, discuss the limitations of the theory of natural rights.
• The relationship b/w individual and the state has been an important question of
interest of political theory. Among others, the three most important concepts in this
context are citizenship, rights and duties.
• Rights are product of individual’s social nature and emanates from their
membership of the society. T. H. Green defines rights as powers necessary for the
fulfilment of men’s vocation as a moral being.
Theory of natural rights
Rights are not only of different kinds but there’re various theories on the nature, origin
and meanings of rights.
• The theory of natural rights has been advocated mainly by Locke (Two Treatise on
Government), and Rousseau (the social contract). These social contract theorists hold
the view that there were natural rights possessed by men in the state of nature (condition
of human life in the absence of organized political authority).
• These rights possessed in the state of nature are called as natural because they don’t
owe their origin to the social existence and are present in pre-social stage.
• A/q to Locke, in the state of nature, men are in perfect freedom and have a natural
right to life and property within the bounds of law of nature, provided that he doesn’t
interfere with any other men’s enjoyment of the same conditions. He envisages state for
the protection of their natural right to life, liberty and property.
• However, the theory of natural rights has been criticized by legal rights theorists on
the following grounds-
(i) Rights cannot be natural simply because they were the possessions of men in the
state of nature. There can never be rights before the emergence of society. Thus, the
notion of pre-society natural rights is contradictory.
(ii) Rights presuppose the existence of some authority to enforce and protect
them. It is in contradiction with idea of natural rights in the state of nature as there is
no authority.
(iii) The idea that natural rights existed in the state of nature is wrong in the sense
that it makes them absolute and unrestricted.
(iv) The theorists of natural rights treat individuals as the end and the state as the
means to protect the natural right to life, liberty and property. In this way, the natural
rights theory attacks the political sanctity attached to the institution of state.
(v)Thinkers such as Hobbes suggest that man cannot enjoy rights under in the state of
nature (S.O.N) since in S.O.N ‘might is right’ and all are equally powerful.
(vi) Utilitarian’s like Bentham criticized the doctrine of natural rights as a
‘rhetorical non-sense upon stilts’. He further says ‘man has liberty only where law is
silent’. He asserts that rights against the state will lead the state in to chaos.

Test Series 1 Optional Psir

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Test Series 1 Optional Psir

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PSIR Crash Course Test 01 Model Answers

Ques. (1a) ‘Plato is philosophy. Philosophy is Plato’ (Emerson) Comment.

(Q1)(b)Write short notes on negative & positive liberty.

• From neo-Marxist perspective, Herbert Marcuse also favours a positive conception

(3c) Do you agree that structural-functional analysis is ideologically inclined

• However, a critical examination of the structural-functional approach shows that it

Thus, deliberative or discursive democracy is a form of democracy that is concerned

• Therefore, Aristotle’s theory of justice is based on ‘proportional equality’, which

• However, despite being an incoherent philosophy or a resolutely shapeless doctrine,

• Fascism embraces an extreme version of a tradition of chauvinistic and expansionist

element of importance. The individualism of human rights presents a host of

• The philosophical basis of liberal feminism lies in the principle of ‘individualism’

You might also like