St.

Stephen’s College, DU
DDUDU
POLTICAL SCIENCE
ASSIGNMENT
Ba Programme – 1 SEMESTER – II

Topic - Critically examine the various approaches to the

nature of Indian state in relation to the development process.

SUBMITTED TO – Sir SANJAY RAO AYDE

SUBMITTED BY – ANIKA SINGH
Ba programme 1st Year
Semester II
20BBAP009

CRITICALLY EXAMINE
THE VARIOUS
APPROACHES TO THE
NATURE OF INDIAN STATE
IN RELATION TO THE
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
Dealing with a situation or a difficulty is referred to as an Approach. It involves looking at a
situation from a different angle. An approach is a method of reviewing a topic. There are
various approaches to comprehending and studying Indian politics. Things aren't always as
they seem. To understand the inner workings of the system, one must have a clear grasp. In
fact, using a method increases the significance and credibility of the analysis, as well as the
discipline. Politics is an inescapable process that never ends. Politics can be viewed and
understood from a variety of perspectives. It is as old as Aristotle’s Politics (book 1) where it
is said that a human individual is a ‘zoon politikon’ or political being. Politics, one of the
oldest fields of study, was once thought to be a branch of philosophy, history, and law.
However, from the late nineteenth century forward, an endeavour to turn politics into a
scientific subject steadily superseded this philosophical emphasis. Since the beginning of
Greek political philosophy, scholars, political scientists, and philosophers have examined and
researched many forms of political issues and happenings from their unique perspectives,
drawing conclusions and making recommendations based on their findings. As a result, a
variety of approaches to the study of politics have eventually emerged.

NATURE OF THE STATE IN INDIA: LIBERAL, MARXIST

AND GANDHIAN
In politics, the word "state" is the most widely used term. Political science was focused with the
study of the state phenomenon in its various facets and relationships until the first part of the
twentieth century. Political science, as Garner phrased it, "begins and ends with the state."
Proponents of this school of political thinking were also Gettle, Gilchrist, and others. A state is
linguistically defined as "structured machinery for the making and carrying out of political choices, as
well as the enforcement of a government's laws and rules." ‘The state, as a concept of political
science and public law, is a community of persons more or less numerous, permanently occupying a
definite portion of territory control, and possessing an organised government to which the great
majority of the inhabitants render habitual obedience,' according to Garner. The main elements of
the state, according to this concept, are people, fixed territory, governance, and sovereignty. The
state is considered a separate institution from society, government, associations, and nations. The
state is a major character in today's development drama, and is now here more significant than in
the growth of the developing countries. Without a thorough knowledge of the paths of state
development, its achievements, failures, and distortions cannot be completely appreciated. To
comprehend how states have progressed and become what they are, we must think historically
about them and go beyond their formal structures to their social and political characteristics.

The modern state can be divided into two types: liberal democratic and authoritarian states. While
the former is based on democracy, implying that power is in the hands of the people and is used by
their elected representatives, the latter is the polar opposite of the former, implying that political
power is in the hands of a group of power-hungry politicians or a junta of military oligarchs who seek
to undermine the legitimacy of their rule through force and fraud. Another type, dubbed the
"welfare state," has evolved. The welfare state notion was developed in response to the totalitarian
state's challenge. Various attempts have been made to comprehend India's politics. Though there is
no rational explanation on how a state is formed, there are primarily two methods to understanding
the nature of Indian states. These are liberal and Marxist ideologies, respectively.

LIBERAL APPROACH
The liberal perspective placed more importance on institutions and practices as a means of
conceptualizing the state and political power. It realizes the role of growth and societal
transformation. To understand the nature of any given state, one must examine the relationship
between the state, power, and social classes, as well as the state's goal. The liberal democratic form
rests on seven democratic pillars. It regards the state as a democratic one, with freedom of speech
and expression, free and regular elections, a responsible and accountable administration, an
independent judiciary, and the rule of law, among other things. The rule of law prevents chaos and
anarchy in society, limiting ultimate freedom but allowing all citizens to live free within the law. The
priority and independence of political processes were emphasised in this approach. The writings of
Rajni Kothari, S. Rudolph, and F. Frankel demonstrate this. The importance of accepting the
centrality of the state as autonomous actors or relative autonomy, where the state must play a
strongly interventionist developmental role, has been emphasised by liberal scholars. The continued
dominance of one party in India, namely the Congress party, for nearly four decades has aided in the
strengthening of the political foundation for the establishment of a strong state. It gained
independence from colonial authority under the leadership of the Indian National Congress, which
later evolved into a ruling party with a character for being conciliatory.

Liberal modernists include political scientists Rajni Kothari, Norman Palmer, and Morris Jones. Rajni
Kothari described India as a civilization with a "dominant political centre" and several identities. He
saw pluralist tolerance and a knack for integration as critical aspects in India's democratic system.
Morris Jones concentrated on the functioning of political institutions and processes in order to
comprehend India's state structure. He emphasised the need of democratic institutions in bringing
about change at various levels. He emphasised political institutions' "capacity to bring about
economic and social change. “Rajni Kothari, Atul Kohli, The Rudolph, and Gunnar Myrdal have all
written liberal critiques of the Indian state. Gunnar Myrdal slammed the Indian state's institutional
model for its incapacity to execute public policies aimed at eradicating poverty or enforcing laws,
dubbing it a "soft state." According to Myrdal, the Indian state was weak because it lacked the
authority to correct institutions that impeded reform and progress. As a result, it has been unable to
directly address the institution of caste, implement efficient land reform, reduce corruption, or
effectively implement development ideals through the people. The rise of left-wing extremism,
which Manmohan Singh described as the country's "gravest domestic threat," is one result of this
softening. Myrdal's 'hard state' would have been capable of combating Naxalism, which has wreaked
havoc on the country. To explain state and political power in India, the liberal approach focuses on
institutions and practices.

The state is regarded as the primary agent of change and the central instrument of social
advancement. According to the Rudolph’s, the Indian state is divided into two groups: the "owners
of production" and the "labourer" group. They looked at the state as a mediator between these two
opposing factions, and they concluded that it must stay autonomous in order to sustain the state's
structural unity. As a result, the state would be the "third actor." The Rudolph’s regard India as a
state that is both weak and strong. Large primary industries, secularism, democracy, socialism, and a
mixed economy have all contributed to the country's strength. Caste class disputes, religious
extremism and communalism, increased levels of political mobilisation, and other factors have made
it weak.

Marxist Approach
Then there's the Marxist perspective, which emphasises the importance on political economy. The
most essential vehicle for economic development is the state. It accords the state a politicized role in
the continuous class conflict between the ruling and ruled classes. The Indian state, according to
Marxists, is responsible for establishing a social system that supports capital's hegemony over labour
and attempts to repeat this relationship. Beginning with Plato and Aristotle, this was the
fundamental intellectual counterweight to western political thinking. The state was seen necessary
for the maintenance of order and civilization in this view. Marxists argued that the state arose
historically in accordance with the division of society into a ruling class that enjoyed leisure and
privilege, while the majority of people were forced to work and were exploited as slaves and
proletarians in the overall evolution of society from the ancient to the modern period. Marx later
became convinced that the state might be dissolved once the proletariat had prevailed in the class
struggle, which he believed was inevitable. India is described by the Communist Party of India as a
national bourgeoisie state capable of peacefully progressing toward socialism by following a non-
capitalist growth path. After more than five decades of post-independence development, the Indian
capitalist class has expanded and undergone significant changes. At the time of independence, there
existed a large bourgeoisie that dominated the entire class. However, the big bourgeoisie's
worldview has shifted dramatically.

The great bourgeoisie defined the sort of capitalist development that began in India in the 1950s: 

A class that comprehended the international situation as well as its own social basis in India. To
acquire capital and promote capitalism, the Indian government was required. The Indian ruling
classes' support for state capitalism served a dual purpose. It allowed capitalism to flourish in a
restricted environment. A model of capitalist development that does not include a full-fledged
agrarian revolution, necessitating a compromise with landlordism and the establishment of agrarian
capitalism from above, relying on landlords and wealthy peasants.

The Indian bourgeoisie's subordinate position in relation to international capitalism demanded an

organic link with foreign finance capital and reliance on this imperialist capital to progress along the
path of capitalist development. In a system where the Soviet Union and a socialist bloc existed, such
a capitalist development could have a degree of autonomy; the bourgeois-landlord classes in India
could use the disputes between the two blocs and manoeuvre to increase their own position to a
limited extent. A.R. Desai, an academic Marxist, described India as a capitalist state.

A "bourgeoisie constitution," as he dubbed the Indian constitution, stated that the right to property
was originally included in the constitution to provide the right to income through ownership,
resulting in socioeconomic disparities. In addition, Indian mixed-economy planning acknowledged a
class structure based on private ownership as the foundation for economic progress. According to
him, the mixed economy is skewed toward the private sector. C.P. Bhambari, in a similar vein, has
underlined the tension between the governing elites and the state's relative weakness. According to
Hamza Alvi, India's relative economy in mediating the opposing interests of the ruling classes was
due to its post-colonial status. He claims that while there is no class-based politics in India and that
multi-class parties such as Congress exist, the Indian state enjoys a large deal of relative autonomy
due to the weakness of the indigenous property class. Some other scholar, Partha Chatterjee, claims
that after independence, there has been a coalition of dominating classes. Landed elites were given
power in order to exert control over the state. A Marxist perspective of the Indian state reveals the
state's class nature, with the state serving the dominant classes and, if necessary, utilising coercive
tactics to protect their socioeconomic structure.

Gandhian Approach
The concept of Swaraj underlines Gandhi's approach to studying the nature of state. It entails the
removal of foreign rule and the formation of self-government. He saw the state as a necessary evil
and agreed with Thoreau's maxim that "the ideal government is the one that governs the least." It
claims that government works best when people's liberties and rights are respected to the greatest
extent possible. In Gandhi's opinion, the state (of the Western variety) was a symbol of concentrated
violence. The state (that is, its power) uses force or violent tactics indiscriminately to ensure citizens'
allegiance. “The individual has a soul, but the state is a soulless machine, and the state can never be
weaned away from the violence that gives it life,” he once said. To put it another way, Gandhi
compared the state with violence or coercion. He goes on to add that while there is a state, violence
or coercion in any kind is unimaginable.

He learned from his time in South Africa that as the state's power grew, so did the level of violence
and coercion. South Africa's white government amassed great power in the pretext of maintaining
law and order, leading to brutal management, exploitation, and restrictions on individual freedoms.
He stated earlier that a political party rooted on violence would never win his support. Rather, he is
constantly afraid of such a group or organisation. “I look at a rise in the authority of the state with
greatest fear,” he said, “because, although outwardly doing good by minimising exploitation, it does
the most harm to people by eroding individuality, which is at the root of progress.” From the
foregoing perspective, it is apparent that Gandhi disliked the Western type of state because it
symbolised violence or oppression.

The question now is why he was so opposed to violence. According to Gandhi, the contemporary
state was on the verge of destroying individuality—individual freedom and a natural desire to
labour. Second, individualism is the driving force behind growth. Gandhi believed that using force
would accomplish nothing. Again, no one can be forced to work against his or her will or
spontaneous inclination. To put it another way, Gandhi believes that the advancement of society can
be achieved through voluntary functions performed by individuals. Individual liberty cannot be
compromised under any circumstances. Gandhi's devotion to individual liberty places him among
the great anarchist philosophers. Gandhi's core argument is that the state is an undesirable political
organisation because of its close ties to violence. Swaraj, as defined by Gandhi, is government based
on the permission and involvement of the people. In a big country like India, he believes, direct
democracy is impossible. India's constitution makers adopted certain Gandhian state traits after
independence. Some of these include a focus on an equitable society, untouchability, and special
attention to society's poorer members. In fact, they aimed to establish decentralisation of authority
throughout India under the Panchayat Raj System. He also justified the existence of the state in
terms of the functions it performs, as long as and to the extent that such functions lead to the good,
welfare, and upliftment of all people.

BIBILIOGRAPHY
 India's Political Economy 1947-2004: The Gradual Revolution book by Francine
Frankel
 In Pursuit of Lakshmi book by Lloyd Rudolph
 Caste In Indian Politics by Rajini Kothari
 The Oxford Companion to Politics in India by Niraja Gopal Jayal and Pratap
Bhanu Mehta
 JOURNAL ARTICLE Review: STATE POLITICS IN INDIA: AN OVERVIEW Reviewed
Works: State Government and Politics: Sikkim by N. Sengupta; State Government
and Politics: Jammu and Kashmir by M.K. Teng; Politics and Political Leadership in
Goa by S. Esteves; Dynamics of State Politics: Kerala by N. Jose Chander Review by:
C.A. PERUMAL
 Journal article Review: STATE POLITICS IN INDIA: AN OVERVIEW
Reviewed Works: State Government and Politics: Sikkim by N. Sengupta; State Government
and Politics: Jammu and Kashmir by M.K. Teng; Politics and Political Leadership in Goa by S.
Esteves; Dynamics of State Politics: Kerala by N. Jose Chander Review by: C.A. PERUMAL
 Journal article 'Seeing' the State in India by Neera Chandhoke