MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAGPUR

B.A.LL.B.(Hons.) Year-I, Semester-II: Academic Year : 2021-2022

First Open Book Assessment, February-2022

Course Code and Name:

Name of Student: UID:

Question 2.

Savarkar propounded the concept of ‘Hindu Polity’, in which he emphasized on political

and economic systems, which should be based on native thought rather than the
concepts borrowed from the west.For the same objectives, he pointed out the concept of
‘Seven Shackles’ as the biggestproblem in Hindu tradition. In the context of above
statement, discuss the idea of “Seven Shackle” by Saverkar.

Answer 2.

The Himalayan role played by Savarkar in the freedom movement is grossly undermined in
the popular discourse. What is even more undermined is his role as a reformer of Hindu
Society. His liberal views were unpalatable to many, including several of his associates who
were otherwise working with him in the freedom struggle. But, being true to his convictions
he continued immense work in this field with the topmost focus on eradicating the caste
system from India.

Unlike his ideological rival Gandhi, who in principle was a proponent of the Caste System or
Varnashram, Savarkar advocated and worked relentlessly towards complete and unconditional
eradication of the caste system. Being a modern rationalist with a scientific temperament he
was against maintaining old systems of society that have run their course. He said one must
drop practices of the past that are no more relevant in the current times. In his view, the
abhorrent practice of the Caste System and untouchability has done unimaginable loss to our
civilization. He envisaged a total casteless society in the early 20th century much before it
became a mainstream conversation driven by Gandhi and Ambedkar.

1
He spoke with reverence about the Indian Knowledge Systems comprising Vedas, Puranas,
Upanishads but refused to let them become fetters in his foot. Although he did maintain that
Sanatan Dharma does not talk about the hereditary caste system. He quoted that when Shri
Krishan describes “Chaturvarnayam maya srushtam” or it is I who have created four varnas,
he was referring that he had made people who have different qualities. There is no indication
that that Varnashrama has to be followed based on heredity.

He described the fetters in Hindu Society originating due to Caste System as The Seven
Shackles of Hindu Society.

1. Vedoktabandi

He said that being Brahmin alone can’t be the basis of learning Vedic Literature. This vast
pool of knowledge and wisdom should be available to every willing learner. Not just to all
Indians but the whole world. The practice of Brahminical hegemony over Vedic Studies
should be done away with. He referred to Ved Vyas and Valmiki from ancient times and
scholars like Shri Aurbindo, Swami Vivekanand, Bipin Chandra pal, who have attained great
heights in scholarship but were not brahmins by birth.

2. Vyavasayabandi

There is a practice of hereditary even in business. Just because someone’s father or family is
into some profession that should not be the only reason for an induvial to choose a profession.
The choice of the profession must be based on one’s nature and aptitude. He gave the example
of Dr. Ambedkar who came from the Mahr community whose profession was to skin the
animals. India would have lost a great scholar had he continued in his paternal profession. He
mentioned that it is not only a loss to the individual but to the nation’s productivity as well if
one does not work based on one’s skill and talent.

3. Sparshabandi

Savarkar said that the practice of untouchability is a blot on Humanity. The trauma of the
person who faces untouchability is indescribable. If the Hindu society has to advance, it has

2
no choice but to get rid of this abominable practice and bring its untouchable brethren into the
mainstream. He further maintained that the so-called untouchables are both willing and
capable to serve the country in different capacities.

Being a pragmatic man, Savarkar not only exhorted the upper caste Hindus to stop practicing
untouchability, but he also appealed to lower caste Hindus to stop practicing untouchability
amongst themselves. For example, Mahrs who were treated by the upper-caste brahmins,
themselves used to treat some other castes like Scavengers as untouchables.

He opined that that untouchability needs to be eradicated from all the sections of society and
not just upper-caste Hindus.

4. Samudrabandi

Societies tend to decay if they don’t get fresh air from other societies. Over the last few
centuries, our young men were discouraged to travel to foreign lands as travel abroad meant
losing their caste. A ridiculous notion which resulted in Indian society being insulated and
ignorant of what was happening in other parts of the world. Young Indians need to travel
abroad without the fear of losing one’s caste and bring back the best of the world has to offer
and spread the fragrance of Indian civilization across the globe.

5. Shudibandi

If somebody who earlier converted to the Non-Hindu faith by force, greed, own choice, or
survival wished to reconvert back to Hindu faith, that individual was summarily rejected by
the Hindu society. This pained Savarkar as he recounted that there is nothing mentioned even
in any of the Shastras about the prohibition of such reconversion. It was a social evil against
which he worked assiduously. He organized Shuddi movements and encouraged his
associates to help those who want to return to the Hindu faith without any prejudice.

6. Rotibandi

Savarkar said religion is in the heart, the soul, the spirit, and not in the stomach. He wondered
how eating with another Human Being of a different religion can rob somebody of its caste.

3
Savarkar organized mass inter-dining events, many times at the cost of grave criticism by his
associates.

7. Betibandi

Interfaith marriage was considered a shameful act and was discouraged across the sections of
society. Savarkar said that this has done incalculable harm to the evolution of Hindu Society.
He said the basis of marriage should be compatibility between the boy and girl, with the caste
having no bearing. He again was not in favor of forced inter-faith marriages but was in favor
of its encouragement by society.

Throughout his life, Savarkar continued writing and working on breaking these Seven
Shackles of Hindu Society.

Question 3.

“In practice the Constitution of India is quasi-federal in nature and not strictly federal.”
Explain.

Answer 3.

K.C.Wheare defines federal government as an association ofstates, which has been formed for
certain common purposes, but in which the member states retain a large measure oftheir
original independence. A federal government exists when the power of the government for a
community is divided substantially according to a principle that there is single independent
authority for the whole area in respect ofsome matters and there are independent regional
authorities for other matters, each set of authorities being co-ordinate to and subordinate to the
other within its own sphere. The framers ofthe Indian constitution attempted to avoid the
difficulties faced by the federal constitutions of U.S.A., Canada and Australia and to
incorporate certain unique features in the working of the Indian Constitution. Thus, our
constitution contains certain novel provisions suited to the Indian conditions. The doubt which
emerges about the federal nature ofthe Indian Constitution is the power ofintervention in the

4
affairs ofthe states given to the central government by the constitution. According to K.C.
Wheare, in practice the Constitution of India is quasifederal in nature and not strictly federal.

Why is India called ‘quasi-federal’?

The Supreme Court has commented on the nature of the Indian Union in several judgments. It
has noted that the essence of a ‘federation’ is the existence of the Union of the States, and the
distribution of powers between them. In S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India , it notes the
commonly invoked model of federalism is the United States, by which it is clear that it is a
federation of States. These States were independent and sovereign in their territories, and
decided to form a federation. Their territories cannot be altered by the federal government. In
India, on the other hand, Parliament has the power to admit new States, create new States,
alter their boundaries and their names, and unite or divide the States. In the latest exercise, the
unprecedented act of converting a State into a Union Territory has also been performed. The
concurrence of States is not needed for the formation and unmaking of States and Union
Territories. Further, the court noted the existence of several provisions of the Constitution that
allow the Centre to override the powers of the States. In legislation, there is a Concurrent List,
unlike in the U.S., which outlines the powers of the federal government, and leaves any matter
not mentioned in it as the legislative field for the States. In India, the residuary powers of
legislation, that is the power to make law in a field not specified in the Constitution, is vested
in Parliament, whereas in the U.S., residuary powers are with the States. Further, in fiscal
matters, the power of the States to raise their own resources is limited, and there is a good
deal of dependency on the Centre for financial assistance.

Features of the Federal System of India

1. Dual government polity

2. Division of powers between various levels
3. Rigidity of constitution
4. Independence judiciary
5. Dual citizenship
6. Bicameralism

5
All federations might not have all the above features. Some of them may be incorporated
depending on what type of federation it is.

Federalism in India

India is a federal system but with more tilt towards a unitary system of government. It is
sometimes considered a quasi-federal system as it has features of both a federal and a unitary
system. Article 1 of the Indian Constitution states, ‘India, that is Bharat, shall be a union of
states’. The word federation is not mentioned in the constitution.

Elements of federalism were introduced into modern India by the Government of India Act of
1919 which separated powers between the centre and the provincial legislatures.

Federal Features of the Indian Union

 Governments at two levels – centre and states

 Division of powers between the centre and states – there are three lists given in
the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution which gives the subjects each level has
jurisdiction in:
 Union List
 State List
 Concurrent List
 Supremacy of the constitution – the basic structure of the constitution is indestructible as
laid out by the judiciary. The constitution is the supreme law in India.
 Independent judiciary – the constitution provides for an independent and integrated
judiciary. The lower and district courts are at the bottom levels, the high courts are at the
state levels and at the topmost position is the Supreme Court of India. All courts are
subordinate to the Supreme Court.

Unitary Features of the Indian Union

 The flexibility of the constitution – the constitution is a blend of flexibility and rigidity.
Certain provisions of the constitution can be easily amended. In case the amendments seek

6
 to change aspects of federalism in India, the provision to bring about such amendments is
not easy.
 More power vests with the Centre – the constitution guarantees more powers with the
Union List. On the Concurrent List subjects, the parliament can make laws that can
override the laws made by a state legislature on some matters. The parliament can also
make laws regarding certain subjects in the State List.
 Unequal representation of states in the Rajya Sabha – the representation of the states
in the upper house is based on the states’ populations. For example, Uttar Pradesh has 31
seats and Goa, 1 in the Rajya Sabha. In an ideal federal system, all the states should have
equal representation.
 The executive is a part of the legislature – in India, the executive in both the centre and
the states is a part of the legislature. This goes against the principle of division of powers
between the different organs of the government.
 Lok Sabha is more powerful than the Rajya Sabha – in our system, the Lok Sabha is
more powerful than the upper house and unequal powers to two houses is against the
principle of federalism.
 Emergency powers – the centre is provided with emergency powers. When an emergency
is imposed, the centre has increased control over states. This undermines the autonomy of
the states.
 Integrated judiciary – the judiciary in India is integrated. There is no separate judiciary
at the centre and the state levels.
 Single citizenship – in India, only single citizenship is available to citizens. They cannot
be citizens of the state as well. This helps in increasing the feeling of nationality as it
forges unity amidst regional and cultural differences. It also augments fundamental rights
such as the freedom of movement and residence in any part of the nation.
 Governor’s appointment – the governor of a state acts as the centre’s representative in
the state. The state government does not appoint the governor, the centre does.
 New states formation – the parliament has the power to alter the territory of a state by
increasing or reducing the area of the state. It can also change the name of a state.
 All India Services – through the All India Services such as the IAS, IPS, etc. the centre
interferes in the executive powers of the states. These services also offer uniformity in
administration throughout the nation.

7
 Integrated election machinery – the Election Commission of India is responsible for
conducting free and fair elections at both the centre and the state levels in India. The
members of the EC is appointed by the president.
 Veto over states bills – The governor of a state can reserve certain kinds of bills for the
president’s consideration. The president enjoys absolute veto on these bills. He can even
reject the bill at the second instance that is when the bill is sent after reconsideration by
the state legislature. This provision is a departure from the principles of federalism.
 Integrated audit machinery – the president of the country appoints the CAG who audits
accounts of both the centre and the states.
 Power to remove key officials – the state government or state legislature does not have
the authority to remove certain key government officials even at the state level like the
election commissioner of a state, judges of the high courts, or the chairman of the state
public service commissions.

Even though the States are sovereign in their prescribed legislative field, and their executive
power is co-extensive with their legislative powers, it is clear that “the powers of the States
are not coordinate with the Union”. This is why the Constitution is often described as ‘quasi-
federal’.

Question 4.

Lohia recommended decentralization of state power; he proposed to divide of the state

power in four pillar of society. He proposed a decentralization and functional
Federalism by distribution of powers among village, district, province, and nation.
Discuss the political approaches of Ram Monhar Lohia toward the polity of India.

Answer 4.

Ram Manohar Lohia has been one of the main proponents of socialism in India. He
championed the idea of ‘Democratic Socialism’ while associaing his socialism with
democracy. Lohia considered both capitalism and socialism equally irrelevant for Indian

8
society. His principle of Democratic Socialism has two objectives - the economic objective in
form of food and housing and the non-economic objective in form of democracy and freedom.

Lohia advocated Chouburja Rajneeti in which he opines four pillars of politics as well as
socialism: Centre, Region, District and Village – all are linked with each other. Giving
consideration to affirmative action, Lohia argued that the policy of affirmative action should
not only be for the downtrodden but also for the women and the non-religious minorities.
Based on the premise of Democratic Socialism and Chouburja Rajneeti, Lohia supported a
‘Party of Socialism’ as an attempt of merging all political parties. The Party of Socialism
according to Lohia should have three symbols, viz., Spade [prepared to make efforts], Vote
[power of voting], and Prison [Willingness to make sacrifices].

Chaukhamba Raj of Ram Manohar Lohia

Reiterating his faith in the idea of democracy, as a system of government, to provide for basic
institutional framework of government in India, Lohia; however, also expressed his anxiety
with democracy having the tendency of turning into a sterile— and sometimes oppressive—
model, if it was not properly supported by positive orientations in the policies and
programmes of the government. He, therefore, argued for adapting the system of democracy
to the complex and unique socio-economic conditions prevailing in India. He was in favour of
guaranteeing basic fundamental freedoms of the people, provided it was ensured that the basic
needs of each and every citizen would be fulfilled. In Lohia‘s opinion, the notion of
democracy must not be limited merely in allocating certain civil and political rights to the
people, but be understood in such a way that it leads to generation of such socio-economic
conditions where nobody remains without securing the basic minimum needs of life.
Disenchanted with the existing two-pillar model of government, i.e., Centre and the States, in
India, he pioneered the notion of four-pillar model of government, which envisaged an
arrangement when a constitution was framed on the basis of the four- pillar state, the village,
the district, the province and the centre, being four pillars of equal majesty and dignity. It was
construed as an integral part of Lohia‘s conception of socialism. Lohia‘s Chaukhamba Model
was apparently not a mere executive arrangement under which the superior parliaments could
legislate and the village and district organs were left with the execution of the laws, rather it
was both a legislative as well as a full-fledged executive arrangement.

9
Construed as a way of life extending to all spheres of human activity, for instance, production,
ownership, administration, planning, education and the like, the Chaukhamba Model‘
provides a structure and a way in which the community of a state is to be so organised and
sovereign power so diffused that each little community in it lives the way of life that it chose.
These various ways of life is a commonly strong bond that unite the numerous communities
into a state. The state, therefore, was to be organised in such a manner that it could allow the
widest opportunity for popular participation, ―Sovereign power must not reside alone in
centre and federating units. It must be broken up and diffused over smallest region where a
group of men and women live. The idea of such a state however, did not represent the idea of
a selfsufficient village but of the intelligent and vital village.‘ Under such a structure of the
state each little community would live intelligently and strive after the integrity and unity of
the nation.

Thoughts and achievements

Lohia was one of the founders of the Congress Socialist Party (CSP) along with Jaya Prakash
Narayan, Achyut Patwardhan, Yusuf Meherally, etc. and editor of its mouthpiece ‘Congress
Socialist’. As part of the Foreign Relations Department of the Congress Party, he evolved the
theory of the Third Camp in world affairs. He rejected both the blocs in the Cold War and his
policy became the official policy of the Congress Party.

Lohia was at the forefront of the ‘Quit India’ movement launched by the Congress in 1942
and founded the Azad Hind Radio during its underground phase. After independence, he was
against Portugal’s continuing sovereignty over Goa. He had visited the area in 1946 to
strengthen and inspire the fight against colonial rule.

He opposed the partition of the country in 1947 along with a few other members of Congress.
However, after partition, he was keen to promote the idea of a confederation of India and
Pakistan.

He thought that the industrialization of Western Europe was due to the exploitation of their
colonies. He wanted to bring out the close relationship between industrialization and
imperialism.

10
As regards the economic strategy to be adopted after independence, Lohia pointed out that
India was capital scarce but labour abundant, didn’t have colonies or the time-space of a
hundred years or more which the Western countries used for their industrialization. He,
therefore, suggested labour intensive technology as against the capital intensive technology of
the West and wanted the introduction of the small unit machine to be driven by power. He
called upon Indian technologists and scientists to attempt the invention of such machines.

Lohia desired to achieve economic equality and end exploitation. He wanted public ownership
of large scale industries and wanted to reconstruct the Indian economy with land reforms with
land to the tiller. He wanted limits to be imposed on income and expenditure.

Lohia analyzed the caste system and advocated preferential treatment for the backward castes.
He felt that the abolition of the class system would lead to the simultaneous abolition of the
caste system. He believed that inequality was not only economic but social too. In India where
the caste system and patriarchy were part of society, one had to fight for caste and gender
equality along with economic equality. He demanded a 60 percent reservation in all areas of
public life for women, the backward, and the backwards amongst the minority religious
groups.
Lohia was staunchly anti-English and pro-vernacular. He desired that the country’s
administration, judiciary, and its elite professions must not remain alienated from the masses.
He was against the continuation of English as the medium of higher and professional
education, administration, and the judiciary. He wanted English to be replaced by regional
languages and Hindi to replace English as the link language. If a large proportion of Indians
are still illiterate/semi-literate and the quality of education low and at many times sub-
standard, the reason for it is the opposition to Lohia’s language policy.

Lohia advocated devolution of politico-administrative power and coined the phrase ‘Four-
Pillar State’. He supported Panchayat Raj.

With respect to communal tensions and conflicts, Lohia made a difference between the
humanistic essence of Hinduism and the narrow-minded use of it for fomenting communal
tensions. He also differentiated between foreign Muslim aggressors and the local Muslims
who had nothing to do with those aggressions. These ideas of Lohia are more relevant today
in the present surcharged communal atmosphere as they were during his lifetime.

11
Lohia also influenced the writings of Kannada writer U.R.Ananthamurthy, Hindi writers such
as Fanishwarnath Renu, Raghuvir Sahay, Srikant Verma, Sarveshwar Dayal Saxena besides
Assamese writers like Birendra Kumar Bhattacharya and several Marathi, Oriya, and Gujarati
writers.

He led a crusade against the despotic rule in Nepal and assisted the Nepali Congress in its
democratic struggle. In order that the socialist movement in the Afro-Asian countries become
a vehicle of the aspirations of the people of the Third World, Lohia, along with Jaya Prakash
Narayan and other colleagues, helped in founding the Asian Socialist Conference in Rangoon,
Myanmar in 1953.

Lohia’s major writings in English include ‘Fundamentals of a World Mind’; Guilty Men of
India’s Partition; India, China, and Northern Frontiers; Interval during Politics; The Caste
System; Foreign Policy; Fragments of World Mind; Marx, Gandhi, and Socialism, etc.

Lohia’s Concept of New Socialism

Rammanohar Lohia forcefully raised the issue of the doctrinal foundation of Indian Socialism
in 1952 at Panachmarhi session of the party. In his famous Presidential address at Panchamari
in 1952, Lohia emphasised .the· need of an independent doctrine of socialism. He espoused
the thesis that the ' Indian society must develop on its own .. According to him, the new creed
could not be developed on the basis of a borrowed erred.

1. Socialism is a newer doctrine than Capitalism or Communism. He further says Socialism

should cease to live on the borrowed breath. Too long has it borrowed from communism
its economic aims and capitalism or the liberal age its non-economic and general aim. An
acute disharmony has resulted.

2. To explore once again the economic and the general aims of society and to integrate them
into a harmony should be a high endeavor of Socialist doctrine.

12
3. The establishment of social ownership over existing means of production, their further
development, and mass production, and some kind of a planned economy are
acknowledged in varying degrees as the economic aims of Socialism.

4. The preservation of national freedom, democracy, and human rights and the securing of
peace and of what is variously termed as the values of a culture or the spiritual qualities of
life are believed to be the general aims of Socialism.

5. Unless Socialism is able to disintegrate the premises on which Capitalism and

Communism are founded and arrange instead its own harmony of economic and general
aims, it will continue to be an illogical doctrine that refuses to come of age. According to
Lohia “the idea of achieving equality and prosperity is socialism”. In our country, this
definition acquires a deeper meaning, for I think that here or in any other country where
there is poverty, absolute poverty, the only means to achieve prosperity is equality”.

Rammanohar Lohia’s contribution to the development of socialist thought in India is very

significant and unique. Apart from his socialist ideas like four pillar state and Seven
Revolutions. He was also an advocate of small-unit technology and critic of modern
civilization. Contemporary Indian society experiencing many socio-political problems and
Lohia’s socialist ideals can be a tool to solve the many problems of the present. Although
Lohia is not physically with us still his ideas are influencing many activists across India and
the world who are working hard to achieve the egalitarian society.

Thus, Ram Manohar Lohia was the father of non-Congressism; champion of backward castes
in the politics of north India; originator of Other Backward Classes (OBC) reservations; a
critic of dynastic politics of the Nehru-Gandhi family, and the man responsible for the politics
of anti-English. He campaigned against poverty, unemployment, and price rise and advocated
gender justice. He was a staunch nationalist who suggested a sharp response to Chinese
aggression and also upheld the Indian case on Kashmir.

His cultural politics included efforts to organize a Ramayan Mela; an effort to bring Indian
languages closer; a call for cleaning rivers and protecting pilgrimage centers; protest against
the museumisation of Adivasis (aboriginals) such as the Andamanese, Nicobarese, Todas, etc.
and culturally integrating the north-east with the rest of the country.

13
As an Internationalist, he advocated pacifism; opposed nuclear weapons; protested against
racial inequality; advocated Indo-Pak federacy; and dreamt of a world without visas and
passports in effect recommending the concept of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the world is one
family).

Though Lohia has faded away many of his thoughts and ideas still reverberate in the political
and intellectual landscape of India and find practical application in economy, religion, society,
and politics.

14