POLITICS AS AN ART OF GOVERNMENT

“Politics is not a science, but an art”. These were the words of the chancellor of Germany

Bismarck.

Also coming to the word ‘Politics’ – it is derived from the Greek word ‘polis’ means ‘city- state’.

Ancient Greek society was divided into a collection of independent city- states, each of which

possessed its own system of government. The largest and most influential of these city-states

was Athens, often portrayed as the cradle of democratic government.

This view is advanced in the writings of the influential US political scientist David Easton

(1979), who defined politics as the ‘Authoritative Allocation of Values’. By this, David Easton

meant that politics encompasses the various processes through which government responds

to pressures from the larger society, in particular by allocating three things – Rewards,

Benefits or Penalties.

Rewards- refer to commission given to the government employees.

Penalties- refer to the negative decisions taken by the implementation wing of the

government i.e. the judiciary.

Authoritative values are of two types:-

1st: that are widely accepted in society. Eg- during the covid pandemic, no one to come out of

their homes.

In this way, politics as the 'authoritative allocation of values' represents a universal social

phenomenon. In the words of David Easton himself, 'Every society provides some mechanisms,

however rudimentary they may be, for authoritatively resolving differences about the ends that
are to be pursued, that is for deciding who is to get what there is of desirable things. An

authoritative allocation of some values is unavoidable'.

Thus, Easton's observations add a new dimension to our earlier formulation regarding the

nature of politics. It brings in the element of authoritativeness to the process of conflict-

resolution.

In this view, politics is associated with ‘policy’- a plan of action for the community. However,

it offers a highly restricted view of politics. According to aforesaid definition Politics is a

system of social organization centred on the machinery of government. Politics is therefore

practised in cabinet rooms, legislative chambers, government departments and it is engaged in

by a limited and specific group of people i.e. politicians, civil servants. This means that most

people, most institutions and most social activities can be regarded as being ‘outside’ politics.

Businesses, schools and other educational institutions, community groups, families and so on

are in this sense ‘non-political’, because they are not engaged in ‘running the country’.

Moreover, this definition can be narrowed still further. This is evident in the tendency to treat

politics as the equivalent of party politics. In other words, the realm of ‘the political’ is

restricted to those state actors who are consciously motivated by ideological beliefs, and who

seek to advance them through membership of a formal organization such as a political party.

This is the sense in which politicians are described as ‘political’, whereas civil servants are

seen as ‘non-political’, as long as they act in a neutral and professional fashion. Similarly,

judges are taken to be ‘non-political’ figures while they interpret the law impartially and in
accordance with the available evidence, but they may be accused of being ‘political’ if their

judgement is influenced by personal preferences or some other form of bias.

At last, I would like to quote certain personalities;

NOW THESE POINTS ARE OPTIONAL TO INCLUDE IN YOUR ANSWER AS

THEY CAN BE ASKED SEPARATELY also…..

PQ- Passion to learn quotient

CQ- Curiosity to discover quotient

GQ- Governance quotient (when govt is in charge of the people).

Nowadays, GQ is on fire as the government of the people has become govt off the people, for

the people has become far the people and by the people has become buy the people.

Lant Pritchett has given India the title of being “a flailing state” and not a failed state which is

currently the status given to Pakistan.

POLITICS AS PUBLIC AFFAIRS

This definition of politics as a public affairs moves it beyond the narrow realm of government

to what is thought of as ‘public life’ or ‘public affairs’. In other words, the distinction between

‘the political’ and ‘the non-political’ coincides with the division between an essentially public

sphere of life and what can be thought of as a private sphere. Such a view of politics is often

traced back to the work of the famous Greek philosopher Aristotle. In his book Politics,

Aristotle declared that ‘man is by nature a political animal’, by which he meant that it is only

within a political community that human beings can live the ‘good life’. From this viewpoint,

then, politics is an ethical activity concerned with creating a ‘just society’; it is what Aristotle
called the ‘master science’. So, the traditional distinction between the public realm and the

private realm conforms to the division between the state and civil society. The institutions of

the state (the apparatus of government, the courts, the police, the army, the social security

system, and so forth) can be regarded as ‘public’ in the sense that they are responsible for the

collective organization of community life. Moreover, they are funded at the public’s expense,

out of taxation.

In contrast, civil society consists of what Edmund Burke called the ‘little platoons’, institutions

such as the family and kinship groups, private businesses, trade unions, clubs, community

groups and so on, that are ‘private’ in the sense that they are set up and funded by individual

citizens to satisfy their own interests, rather than those of the larger society. On the basis of this

‘public/private’ division, politics is restricted to the activities of the state itself and the

responsibilities that are properly exercised by public bodies. Those areas of life that individuals

can and do manage for themselves (the economic, social, domestic, personal, cultural and

artistic spheres, and so on) are therefore clearly ‘non-political’.

An alternative ‘public/private’ divide is sometimes defined in terms of a further and more

subtle distinction; namely, that between ‘the political’ and ‘the personal’. Although civil

society can be distinguished from the state, it nevertheless contains a range of institutions

that are thought of as ‘public’ in the wider sense that they are open institutions, operating in

public, to which the public has access. One of the crucial implications of this is that it

broadens our notion of the political, transferring the economy, in particular, from the private

to the public realm. A form of politics can thus be found in the workplace. Nevertheless,

although this view regards institutions such as businesses, community groups, clubs and trade

unions as ‘public’, it remains a restricted view of politics. According to this perspective,

politics does not, and should not, infringe on ‘personal’ affairs and institutions.
The notion that politics should exclude ‘the personal’ has nevertheless been challenged by

feminist thinkers. From the feminist perspective, gender inequality has been preserved

precisely because the sexual division of labour that runs through society has traditionally been

thought of as ‘natural’ rather than ‘political’. The public sphere of life, encompassing politics,

work, art and literature, has historically been the preserve of men, while women have been

confined to an essentially private existence, centred on the family and domestic responsibilities.

If politics takes place only within the public sphere, the role of women and the question of

gender equality are issues of little or no political importance. Not only does this in effect

exclude women from politics, but, as radical feminists in particular argue, it excludes from

political analysis the core processes through which male domination and female subordination

are brought about. These include conditioning within the family (the process through which

boys and girls are encouraged to conform to contrasting stereotypes of ‘masculinity’ and

‘femininity’), the distribution of housework and other domestic responsibilities, and the

politics of personal and sexual conduct.

This view is also illustrated, for example, by the tendency of politicians to draw a clear

distinction between their professional conduct and their personal or domestic behaviour. By

classifying, say, cheating on their partners or treating their children badly as ‘personal’ matters,

they are able to deny the political significance of such behaviour on the grounds that it does

not touch on their conduct of public affairs. The view of politics as an essentially ‘public’

activity has generated both positive and negative images. In a tradition dating back to Aristotle,

politics has been seen as a noble and enlightened activity precisely because of its ‘public’

character. This position was firmly endorsed by Hannah Arendt, who argued in The Human

Condition (1958) that politics is the most important form of human activity because it involves

interaction amongst free and equal citizens. It thus gives meaning to life and affirms the

uniqueness of each individual. Theorists such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Stuart Mill
who portrayed political participation as a good in itself have drawn similar conclusions.

Rousseau argued that only through the direct and continuous participation of all citizens in

political life can the state be bound to the common good, or what he called the ‘general will’..

This is most clearly demonstrated by attempts to narrow the realm of ‘the political’, commonly

expressed as the wish to ‘keep politics out of’ private activities such as business, sport and

family life. From this point of view, politics is unwholesome quite simply because it prevents

people acting as they choose. For example, it may interfere with how firms conduct their

business, or with how and with whom we play sports, or with how we bring up our children.

POLITICS AS POWER AND STRUGGLE OF SCARCE RESOURCES

As proclaimed by Adrian Leftwich in his book: “What is politics? The activity and its study

(2004)”, ‘Politics is at the heart of all collective social activities, formal and informal, public

and private, in all human groups, institutions and societies. It concerns with the production,

distribution and use of resources in the course of social existence.

In this sense, politics takes place at every level of social interaction. It can be found within

families and amongst small group of friends as much as amongst nations on global stage. At

its broadest, politics concerns the production, distribution and use of resources in the course of

social existence.

Politics is power: the ability to achieve a desired outcome, through whatever means.
There are two advantages to study politics from the point of view of power. Firstly, it focuses

attention on process rather than on legal abstractions of the state. Secondly, this approach pays

greater attention to man as the basic unit of analysis. Politics became directly concerned with

the needs, interests, and goals of men that give rise to power relationships and ultimately lead

to a public policy.

This notion of politics as power was neatly summed up in the title of Harold Lasswell’s book

Politics: Who Gets What, When, How? (1936). From this perspective, politics is about diversity

and conflict, but the essential ingredient is the existence of scarcity: the simple fact that, while

human needs and desires are infinite, the resources available to satisfy them are always limited.

Advocates of the view of politics as power include feminists and Marxists. The rise of the

women’s liberation movement in the 1960s and 1970s, bringing with it a growing interest in

feminism, stimulated more radical thinking about the nature of ‘the political’. Not only have

modern feminists sought to expand the arenas in which politics can be seen to take place, a

notion most boldly asserted through the radical feminist slogan ‘the personal is the political’,

but they have also tended to view politics as a process, specifically one related to the exercise

of power over others. This encapsulates this belief that what goes in a family or personal life

is the basis of all political struggles (boundaries between personal/domestic life and politics

and public is blurred). This view was summed by Kate Millett in Sexual Politics (1969), in

which she defined politics as ‘power-structured relationships, arrangements whereby one group

of persons is controlled by another’.

Marxists used the term ‘politics’ in two senses. On one level, Marx used ‘politics’ in a

conventional sense to refer to the apparatus of the state. In the Communist Manifesto, he

referred to political power as ‘merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another’.
For Marx, politics, together with law and culture, are part of a ‘superstructure’ that is distinct

from the economic ‘base’ that is the real foundation of social life. However, he did not see the

economic ‘base’ and the legal and political ‘superstructure’ as entirely separate. He believed

that the ‘superstructure’ arose out of, and reflected, the economic ‘base’. At a deeper level,

political power, in this view, is therefore rooted in the class system; as Lenin put it, ‘politics is

the most concentrated form of economics’. As opposed to believing that politics can be

confined to the state and a narrow public sphere, Marxists can be said to believe that ‘the

economic is political’. From this perspective, civil society, characterized as Marxists believe it

to be by class struggle, is the very heart of politics.

Views such as these portray politics in largely negative terms. Politics is, quite simply, about

oppression and subjugation. Radical feminists hold that society is patriarchal, in that women

are systematically subordinated and subjected to male power. Marxists traditionally argued that

politics in a capitalist society is characterized by the exploitation of the proletariat by the

bourgeoisie. On the other hand, these negative implications are balanced against the fact that

politics is also seen as an emancipating force, a means through which injustice and domination

can be challenged. Marx, for instance, predicted that class exploitation would be overthrown

by a proletarian revolution, and radical feminists proclaim the need for gender relations to be

reordered through a sexual revolution. However, it is also clear that when politics is portrayed

as power and domination it need not be seen as an inevitable feature of social existence.

Feminists look to an end of ‘sexual politics’ achieved through the construction of a non-sexist

society, in which people will be valued according to personal worth, rather than on the basis of

gender. Marxists believe that ‘class politics’ will end with the establishment of a classless

communist society. This, in turn, will eventually lead to the ‘withering away’ of the state, also

bringing politics in the conventional sense to an end.

 POLITICS AS COMPROMISE AND CONSENSUS AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION

The conception of politics as a compromise and consensus relates not to the arena within which

politics is conducted but to the way in which decisions are made.

Specifically, politics is seen as a particular means of resolving conflict: that is, by compromise,

conciliation and negotiation, rather than through force and naked power. This is what is implied

when politics is portrayed as ‘the art of the possible’. Such a definition is inherent in the

everyday use of the term. For instance, the description of a solution to a problem as a ‘political’

solution implies peaceful debate and arbitration, as opposed to what is often called a ‘military’

solution. A search for conflict resolution through different dialogues and debates is the idea.

Once again, this view of politics has been traced back to the writings of Aristotle and, in

particular, to his belief that what he called ‘polity’ is the ideal system of government, as it is

‘mixed’, in the sense that it combines both aristocratic and democratic features.

Lord Acton believed that, “Power is to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Hence,

dispersion of power is very important in politics.

One of the leading modern exponents of this view is Bernard Crick. In his classic study In

Defence of Politics, Crick offered the following definition:

Politics [is] the activity by which differing interests within a given unit of rule are conciliated

by giving them a share in power in proportion to their importance to the welfare and the survival

of the whole community. (Crick, [1962] 2000)

In this view, the key to politics is therefore a wide dispersal of power. Accepting that conflict

is inevitable, Crick argued that when social groups and interests possess power they must be

conciliated; they cannot merely be crushed. This is why he portrayed politics as ‘that solution

to the problem of order which chooses conciliation rather than violence and coercion’. Such a

view of politics reflects a deep commitment to liberal– rationalist principles. It is based on

resolute faith in the efficacy of debate and discussion, as well as on the belief that society is

characterized by consensus, rather than by irreconcilable conflict. In other words, the

disagreements that exist can be resolved without resort to intimidation and violence.

Compromise is needed because in many cases, demand cannot be fulfilled.

Critics, however, point out that Crick’s conception of politics is heavily biased towards the

form of politics that takes place in Western pluralist democracies: in effect, he equated politics

with electoral choice and party competition. As a result, his model has little to tell us about,

say, one-party states or military regimes. This view of politics has an unmistakably positive

character. Politics is certainly no utopian solution (compromise means that concessions are

made by all sides, leaving no one perfectly satisfied), but it is undoubtedly preferable to the

alternatives: bloodshed and brutality. In this sense, politics can be seen as a civilized and

civilizing force. People should be encouraged to respect politics as an activity, and should be

prepared to engage in the political life of their own community. Nevertheless, a failure to

understand that politics as a process of compromise and reconciliation is necessarily frustrating

and difficult (in part, because it involves listening carefully to the opinions of others) may have

contributed to a growing popular disenchantment with democratic politics across much of the

developed world. This has been expressed in the rise of populism and in the emergence of a

style of politics that disdains compromise and consensus and places much more emphasis on
conflict. The election of Donald Trump as US president has often been said to illustrate this

trend.

INPUT- OUTPUT ANALYSIS art of govt

CAN DRAW A CYCLE TO SHOW IT IF U WISH

This ambitious model sets out to explain the entire political process, as well as the function of

major political actors, through the application of what is called systems analysis. A system is

an organized or complex whole, a set of interrelated and interdependent parts that form a

collective entity. In the case of the political system, a linkage exists between what Easton calls

‘inputs’ and ‘outputs’. Inputs into the political system consist of demands and supports from

the general public. Demands can range from pressure for higher living standards, improved

employment prospects, and more generous welfare payments to greater protection for minority

and individual rights. Supports, on the other hand, are ways in which the public contributes to

the political system by paying taxes, offering compliance, and being willing to participate in

public life.

Outputs consist of the decisions and actions of government, including the making of policy,

the passing of laws, the imposition of taxes, and the allocation of public funds (the authoritative

allocation of values in the form of rewards, benefits and penalties). Clearly, these outputs

generate ‘feedback’ which, in turn, shapes further demands and supports. The key insight

offered by Easton’s model is that the political system tends towards long-term equilibrium or

political stability, as its survival depends on outputs being brought into line with inputs.

THAT’S ALL I COULD FIND:(

 WELFARE STATE

A welfare state is a concept of government where the state plays a key role in the protection

and promotion of the economic and social well being of its citizens. This concept came into

prominence mainly after the second world war when the need was felt that the Laissez Faire

principles in relations to state functions would not be effective any longer. Henceforth, the state

could not act as a police force maintaining law and order only. These police functions cannot

serve the purposes of modern industrial society. At this stage, the welfare state came into being

to solve the problems of people and relieve their sufferings. It is based on the principles of

equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth and public responsibilities for those

unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life.

The general term may cover a variety of forms of economic and social organizations.

In the strictest sense, a welfare state is a government that provides for the well- being or welfare

of its citizens completely. Such a government is involved in citizens’ lives at every level. It

provides for physical, material and social needs rather than the people providing for their own.

The purpose of the welfare state is to create economic equality or to assure equitable standards

of living for all.

The welfare state provides education, housing, sustenance, healthcare, pensions, the

unemployment insurance, sick leave or time off due to injury. Supplemental income in some

cases and equal wages through price and wage controls. The role of the contemporary govt is

to withdraw from non- strategic areas like hotel, tourism etc and invest in strategic areas like
physical and social infrastructure. Social infrastructure implies Human resource development

i.e., developing the human capital by investing in health and education.

It also provides for public transportation, childcare, social amenities such as public parks and

libraries as well as many other goods and services.

Some of these items are paid for via govt insurance programs while others are paid for by taxes.

‘Welfarism’ is the need of the hour because at the macro international level, the first world

countries of the U.S. and western Europe are dominating the third world countries of Asia,

Africa and Latin America.

A uniform development of every part of our country is extremely important. That can only be

ensured via welfarism.

Sociologist T.H. Marshall described the modern welfare state as a distinctive combination of

democracy, welfare and capitalism.

There is a concept of a Fixed pie where Cake of prosperity and development is small and

claimants are many. So, there is a search to have one’s slice of cake or that pie. In a welfare

state concept, the state is there to ensure that the poor and the needy also gets a share of this

cake of prosperity. So, what is important is the benefits also trickles down to the people at the

bottom of the social and economic pyramid.

In the context of political support in India, the party at centre currently is contributing

significantly in ensuring the maximisation of the welfare of the needy, Especially the class of

poor farmers who had been neglected since a long time in the previous govt regime.
The 13Ms, 2 Ws (Whats app to connect to the mind and heart of the population and Welfarism)

and 1 GK (focus on Gareeb Kisaan) followed by respectable Prime minister Mr. Narendra

Modi in 2019 general elections was an eg of the same.

Types of power according to joseph s nyre

Introduction

In the 21st century, the world is undergoing a critical transformation, with nation-states facing

serious political and socio-economic issues. The challenges are global in their nature and affect

the policies of many countries. A prevalent trend in today’s global context is the individual

nation-states’ concern over their power and influence. This is especially significant in light of

the growing geopolitical tensions, as well as the diffusion of power among global actors. One

can differentiate between hard and soft power tools in international relations. Traditionally, the

states opted for hard power tools in the framework of realpolitik thinking. Meanwhile, the

scholars and practitioners start to recognize that the world is in need of a shift from old

assumptions and rigid distinctions about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ power since the economic and

political challenges can no longer be simply resolved by military power or policy innovation

(Bound, 2007). The concept of soft power, initially introduced by Joseph Nye (1990).

“Power is the global information age is like 3D Chess game.”- (Joseph S. Nye)

Concept of Power

The subject of power has been an interest of social scientists for many decades. One of the

most influential definitions of power was given by Max Weber who defined it as the probability
of one actor within a social relationship to be in a position to carry out his own will despite

resistance. According to Weber, power is a zero-sum game and is an attribute that derives from

the qualities, resources and capabilities of one subject.

Power remains one of the critical topic in political science as well as in international relations.

In general, power is the ability to influence the behaviour of others to get the outcomes one

wants.

As the discipline of international relations was evolving, the rigid interpretation of power

slowly started to change. Joseph Nye argued that that the changing nature of international

framework has re-emphasized the use of intangible forms of power, such as culture, ideology,

and foreign policy of a country. The growing social mobilization make the factors of

technology, education, and economic growth as significant as geography, population, military

and resources. Joseph S. Nye splits the power into two forms: hard power and soft power.

According to Joseph S. Nye, “power is as an ability to affect others to achieve the outcomes

one wants.” Hard and soft power can be considered two pure forms of power.

Types of Power

According to Joseph S. Nye Power can be of 2 types:

A. Hard Power

B. Soft Power

Smart Power = Hard Power + Soft Power

Hard Power

Hard power is the oldest form of power. It is connected to the idea of an anarchic international

system, where countries do not recognize any superior authority and thus have to focus on
power politics. Hard power is defined as an ability to reach one's goals through coercive actions

or threats, the so-called 'carrots' and 'sticks' of international politics. Historically, hard power

has been measured by such criteria as population size, territory, geography, natural resources,

military force, and economic strength.

Hard power is the use of military and economic means to influence the behaviour or interests

of other political bodies. This form of political power is often aggressive (coercion), and is

most immediately effective when imposed by one political body upon another of lesser military

and economic power.

According to Joseph Nye, hard power involves ‘the ability to use the carrots and sticks of

economic and military might to make others follow your will’. Here, ‘carrots’ stand for

inducements such as the reduction of trade barriers, the offer of an alliance or the promise of

military protection. On the other hand, "sticks" represent threats - including the use of coercive

diplomacy, the threat of military intervention, or the implementation of economic

sanctions. Ernest Wilson describes hard power as the capacity to coerce ‘another to act in ways

in which that entity would not have acted otherwise’.

Example:

The United States has demonstrated a 'hard power' policy in terms of Military power in the Iraq

War and in the Afghanistan War and in terms of economic terms, sanctions on Iran and North

Korea.

Hard power can be of 2 forms:

1) Sharp Power

2) Sticky Power (Economic Power)

Sharp Power

Today's authoritarian states such as China and Russia, are using ‘sharp power’ to project their

influence internationally, with the objectives of limiting free expression, spreading confusion,

and distorting the political environment within democracies. Sharp power is an approach to

international affairs that typically involves efforts at censorship or the use of manipulation to

sap the integrity of independent institutions. This approach takes advantage of the asymmetry

between free and unfree systems, allowing authoritarian regimes both to limit free expression

and to distort political environments in democracies while simultaneously shielding their own

domestic public spaces from democratic appeals coming from abroad.

Sticky Power (Economic Power)

Sticky power or Economic Power is different from both Sharp power. It is not based on military

compulsion. The United States built its sticky power on two foundations: an international

monetary system and free trade. The Bretton Woods agreements of 1944 made the U.S. dollar

the world’s central currency, and while the dollar was still linked to gold at least in theory for

another generation, the U.S. Federal Reserve could increase the supply of dollars in response

to economic needs. The result for almost 30 years was the magic combination of an expanding

monetary base with price stability. These conditions helped produce the economic miracle that

transformed living standards in the USA. The progress toward free trade and economic

integration represents one of the great unheralded triumphs of U.S. foreign policy in the 20th

century.

With the opening of its market, the role of the dollar as a global reserve currency has increased

and US became known as the "locomotive of the global economy" and the "consumer of last

resort." U.S. trade deficits stimulated production and consumption in the rest of the world,
increasing the prosperity of other countries and their willingness to participate in the U.S. led

global economy.

A collapse of the U.S. economy and the ruin of the dollar would do more than dent the

prosperity of the United States, countries including China and Japan would fall into

depressions. The financial strength of every country would be severely shook or collapsed.

Under those circumstances, debt becomes a strength, not a weakness. Therefore, a collapsing

U.S. economy would inflict enormous, unacceptable damage on the rest of the world. That is

sticky power with a vengeance.

Sticky power is also differs from country to country. In India, Modi’s attempt to achieve

economic diplomacy, is based on two pillars:

(a) Aid diplomacy: India engaged in aid diplomacy in 2004. When during the Tsunami India

showed:

(i) Skills in disaster management

(ii) Well trained medical community

(iii) Well trained military machinery

(iv) Material resources

(b) Striking of FTAs (Free Trade Agreements) & RTAs (Regional Trade Agreements)

Soft Power

Nye popularised the term ‘soft power’ in his 1990 book, ‘Bound to lead: The changing nature

of American Power’. He further developed this concept in his 2004 book, ‘Soft power: The

Means to Success in World Politics’. Soft power rests on the ability to shape the preferences of

others, without the use of force, coercion or violence, but through intangible assets such as an

attractive personality, culture, political values, institutions, and foreign policies that are seen as

legitimate or having moral authority (Nye, 2008). Legitimacy is central for soft power.

There are three things central to Soft Power:

 (i) Political values

(ii) Culture

(iii) Foreign Policy

According to Nye, soft power of a country rests primarily on three resources: its culture (in

places where it is attractive to others), its political values (when it lives up to them at home and

abroad), and its foreign policies (when they are seen as legitimate and having moral authority):

1) Culture is the set of practices that create meaning for a society, and it has many

manifestations.

2) Government policies at home and abroad are another potential source of soft power.

Similarly, foreign policies strongly affect soft power. Government policies can reinforce or

diminish a country’s soft power.

3) Foreign policies and Domestic policies that appear to be hypocritical and indifferent to the

opinion of others or based on a narrow approach to national interests can undermine soft power

(Pallaver, 2011)

Agents of Soft Power

To understand soft power in the current global context, a methodological change is required.

In particular, one of the theoretical ambiguities stems from the notion of who are its

agents/implementers. The model proposed in the thesis emphasizes the following agents of soft

power: States, NGOs, Civil society, MNEs and network of actors.

Nation-states

The traditional actor of soft power is the state, which implements initiatives through various

state agencies. However, the state is no longer the only actor able to build and mobilize soft

power. The new global context requires governments to integrate other agents in its decision-
making process (Bolewski, 2008). Many non-traditional actors such as NGOs, multinational

corporations, civil society groups and individuals are becoming significant power players.

NGOs

With the proliferation of media technologies, the credibility of national government today is

often suspect; hence, one could argue that the political control should be removed from soft

power initiatives (Mark, 2009). The 2014 Edelman Trust Barometer ranked NGOs as the

world's most trusted institution − the seventh year in a row that they have come out on top of

business, media and governments (Dauvergne and LeBaron, 2014). NGOs can be defined as

professionalized independent societal organizations whose primary aim is to promote common

goals at the national or the international level (Martens, 2002). As stated before, legitimacy is

central to soft power (Nye and Armitage, 2007) and NGOs can provide the objectivity and

transparency. Unlike state and market institutions, which are driven by the need for social

control and profit, NGOs are interested, primarily in building communities. They are generally

smaller in size than the states, not as bureaucratic in their management styles, and have gained

legitimacy as a result of their effectiveness and accountability. Indeed, NGOs are often viewed

as powerful and legitimate players because of their organizational priorities and grassroots

foundation. However, the bottom-up initiatives 11 are often indirectly dependent on the top-

down institutions and inevitably there is some level of connection with the political actors

(Sanyal, 1998). Moreover, as argued by Nye and Armitage (2007: 49), certain elements of

public diplomacy will always remain in the government’s purview since it is linked to the

national interest and policy objectives. In view of such issues, perhaps the responsibility for

soft power needs to be transferred to independent entities such as British Council (Mark, 2009),

whose arm’s length connection with the government is highly acclaimed for its success (Bound,
et al. 2007). An alternative model to the British Council is to establish an independent entity

within a foreign service, accountable to an independent board (Mark, 2007).

MNCs

Multinational Corporations are another source of co-operative power (Nye, 1990). On many

issues, private actors and small states have become more powerful than states. The following

has contributed to this diffusion of power: economic interdependence, transnational actors,

nationalism in weak states, the spread of technology, and changing political issues, as well as

modernization, urbanization, and increased communication in developing countries (Nye,

1990). In the recent years, businesses across the world started to actively pursue corporate

social responsibility and thus have an incentive to support soft power strategies. Companies

are embedding corporate social responsibility into their policies and processes based on the

conviction that the environmental, economic and social sustainability of communities are part

of ensuring long-term business sustainability (UNAC and UNGC, 2010). Using private

organizations to conduct public diplomacy can be advantageous. However, there are

weaknesses such as lack of controlled over transmitted message and the difficulty of taking

relationships outside the private sector (Buckle, 2012). There is also the question of for profit

versus non-for-profit imperative. Finally, it might be difficult to control where the private

sector chooses to invest. Nevertheless, private sector is potentially a powerful player that could

aid in building and sustaining soft power.

Co-operation

In view of the various issues and shortcomings of the state, NGOs and MNEs, one could argue

for the constructive cooperation among the global actors. This refers to both the networks

including several countries, as well as the alliance of the principally different global actors.

Although the triple alliance between the state, market, and civil society are rare (Sanyal, 1998),

the collective action problem makes it more likely to occur. In fact, there is evidence that in
the current global framework, the establishment of networks is a key point in establishing or

sustaining power and influence. The networks are becoming important and the positioning in

current international network is an important power resource (Nye, 2011). So the power will

likely to shift towards multifaceted networks and coalitions in a multipolar world (National

Intelligence Council, 2012).

In sum, the ambiguity of the actors of soft power is one of the concept’s complex areas.

Post modernism (not in the syllabus)

Postmodernism is a term that was first used to describe experimental movements in Western

arts, architecture and cultural development in general. As a tool of social and political

analysis, postmodernism highlights the shift away from societies structured by industrialization

and class solidarity to increasingly fragmented and pluralistic ‘information’ societies. In these,

individuals are transformed from producers to consumers, and individualism replaces class,

religious and ethnic loyalties. Postmodernists argue that there is no such thing as certainty; the

idea of absolute and universal truth must be discarded as an arrogant pretence.

Elements of state
The state is a political association that establishes sovereign jurisdiction within defined

territorial borders, and exercises authority through a set of permanent institutions. These

institutions are those that are recognizably ‘public’, in that they are responsible for the

collective organization of communal life, and are funded at the public’s expense. The state thus

embraces the various institutions of government, but it also extends to the courts, nationalized

industries, social security system, and so forth; it can be identified with the entire ‘body politic’.

There are mainly 4 elements or components of state. They are:-

1. POPULATION – it includes all the inhabitants of a state. Without a population there can

be no state. The people living in the state are the citizens of that state. They enjoy rights and

freedom as citizens as well as perform several duties towards the state. They are bound to

obey the state laws and policies. The state exercises supreme authority over them through

its government.

India has a vast population of about 138 crore people.

If we combine Manpower (i.e. the effective working population of a country) with the

Modern scientific developments like Nuclear Power, we can witness the growth of World

Power, as has been seen in the case of China which is constantly making efforts to turn the

Human Resources into Human Capital and combining it with Nuclear power to become a

World leader.

People must be HEALTHY AND EDUCATED.

It was suggested to increase the share of GDP in the education from 4% to 6% in the country,

which is a very welcoming step seen so far.

 Recent developments in the health sector like the National Health Mission and various

Central government health schemes are applaudable steps in improving the health status of

various sections of population.

So, investing in Manpower via Health and Education is imp.

2. TERRITORY:- it is a geographical area subject to the sovereignty, control, or jurisdiction

of a state. It is the second essential element of the State. A state cannot exist in the air or at

sea. It is essentially a territorial state. The size of the territory of a state can be big or small;

nevertheless it has to be a definite, well- marked portion of territory.

States like Russia, Canada, India, China, Brazil and some other are large sized states

whereas Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Switzerland, Togo, Burundi and many others

are states with small territories. All persons, organisations, institutions and places located

within its territory are under the sovereign jurisdiction of the State.

Further, it must be noted that the territory of the state includes not only the land but also,

rivers, lakes, canals inland seas if any, a portion of coastal sea—territorial waters or

maritime belt, continental shelf, mountains, hills and all other land features along with the

air space above the territory.

The territory of the state can also include some islands located in the sea. For example

Anadaman & Nicobar and Daman and Diu are parts of India. State exercises sovereignty

over all parts of its territory. Ships of the State are its floating parts and Aero-planes are its

flying parts. Even a State can lease out its territory to another State e.g. India has given on

lease the Teen Bigha corridor to Bangladesh.

Conversely it states that imposition by force of a border change is an act of aggression.

Territorial integrity is in almost all legal documents paired with the notion of political
 independence. The territory is recognized as more than just a necessary requirement of

statehood. The territory is the exclusive zone in which the political independence of a state

can find its expression and where foreign governments may not – as a matter of principle –

interfere. In recent years there has been tension between this principle and the concept of

humanitarian intervention under Article 73.b of the United Nations Charter "to develop self-

government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them

in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular

circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement."

3. GOVERNMENT:- it might sound synonymous with the concept of state. But there are

considerable differences between the two which makes government a component of the state

and not the state itself.

Government is the organisation, machinery, agency or the magistracy of the State which

makes, implements, enforces and adjudicates the laws of the State. It is the third

essential element of the state as the state exercises its sovereign power through its

government.

Again, the difference between the two are clear as the sovereignty belongs to the state; and

the govt only uses it on behalf of the State.

Each govt has three organs:-

1. LEGISLATURE- which formulates the will of the state i.e. performs law- making

functions

2. EXECUTIVE- enforces and implements the laws i.e performs the law- application

functions’ and
 3. JUDICIARY- which applies the laws to specific cases and settles the disputes i.e.

performs adjudication functions.

Each of these three organs of the government carries out its assigned functions.

Independence of Judiciary is also a settled rule. The relationship between the Legislature

and Executive is defined by law and it corresponds to the adopted form of government.

In a Parliamentary form of government, like the one which is working in India and

Britain, the legislature and executive are closely related and the latter is collectively

responsible before the former.

In the Presidential form, as is in operation in the U.S.A., the legislature and executive

are two independent and separate organs with stable and fixed tenures, and the executive

is not responsible to legislature. It is directly responsible to the people.

Government is an essential element of State. However, it keeps on changing after regular

intervals.

SOVEREIGNTY-

Sovereignty is the fourth most important element of a state. Sovereignty, in its simplest

sense, is the principle of absolute and unlimited power. However, sovereignty can be

understood in different ways. Internal sovereignty is the notion of supreme power/authority

within the state. External sovereignty relates to a state’s place in the international order and

its capacity to act as an independent and autonomous entity.

The state is sovereign. It exercises absolute and unrestricted power, in that it stands above all

other associations and groups in society.

As the supreme power of the State, Sovereignty has two dimensions: Internal Sovereignty and

External sovereignty.

We can define external sovereignty of the State as its sovereign equality with every other state.

State voluntarily accepts rules of international law. These cannot be forced upon the State.

India is free to sign or not to sign any treaty with any other state. No state can force it to do so.

No State can really become a State without sovereignty. India became a State in 1947 when it

got independence and sovereignty. After her independence, India got the power to exercise

both internal and external Sovereignty. Sovereignty permanently, exclusively and absolutely

belongs to the State.

No other organisation or institution can claim sovereignty. An institution can have population,

territory and government but not sovereignty. Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Orissa, Punjab,

Sikkim, in fact all states of the Indian Union have their populations, territories and

governments.

These are also loosely called states. Yet these are not really states. These are integral parts of

the Indian State. Sovereignty belongs to India. Sikkim was a state before it joined India in 1975.

Now it is one of the 28 states of India. UNO is not a state and so is the case of the

Commonwealth of Nations, because these do not possess sovereignty. SAARC is not a state.

It is only a regional association of sovereign states of South Asia.

India, China, U.S.A., U.K., France, Germany, Japan, Australia, Egypt, South Africa, Brazil,

Argentina and others such countries are States because each of these possesses all the four

essential elements of state.

Has secularism failed in India? Give reasons to support your answer (Not in

the syllabus)

At home and abroad, one of post independence India’s defining characteristics is that the nation

has managed to sustain democratic governance in the face of striking ethnic, linguistic, and

religious diversity. In the early years after independence, the country’s first prime minister,

Jawaharlal Nehru, and the ruling Indian National Congress (or Congress Party) advocated for

an Indian brand of secularism designed to hold the country’s disparate communities together

under one roof. Indeed, Nehru often pronounced that India’s composite culture was one of its

greatest strengths.

CRITICALLY ANALYZE THE NATURE OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

Already done yaar.

 STATE AS A NATURAL INSTITUTION

In Aristotle’s own words:

“Our own observation tells us that every polis is a community (or association) of persons

formed with a view to some good purpose. I say ‘good’ because in their actions all men do in

fact aim at what they think good.

Clearly then all communities aim at some good, that one which is the supreme and embraces

all others will have also as its aim the supreme good. That is the community which we call

polis (or State) and that type of community we call political.”

Let us now see what the definition wants to emphasize. According to Aristotle, the state is a

community of persons. Every community has certain purpose and that purpose is good. As a

community the state has a purpose, and that purpose is also good.

But the state is not an ordinary community. It is the highest of all communities and naturally

its purpose shall be the highest or supreme. It is thus evident that like all associations the state

is an association. But its purpose is different from that of other associations. Again, it is not an

ordinary association. It enjoys the highest rank or position in the society or social structure.

As a typical biologist, Aristotle has analyzed the nature of state by dividing it into several

components. He has said that we are accustomed to analyze other composite things till they

can be subdivided no further, let us in the same way examine the state and its component parts.

The application of natural method reveals that the state is natural or exists by nature.
In the analysis of the natural method we find the application of physic and nomos. Physic

implies growth, nature and fundamental reality. The meaning of nomos is man-made,

convention and custom. Aristotle says that the state is characterized by natural growth. But,

during its different stages of progress, man-made laws and conventions have intervened.

It is true that man is, by nature, a self-interest seeking animal and he does not hesitate to oppose

the fulfillment of others’ interests. So the law, justice, institutions and conventions which are

made by man may be evil. But Aristotle does not accept it.

He is of opinion that laws and conventions are basically good and man has made them to serve

their beneficial objectives. To sum up, the state has developed naturally. It must not be

treated as a result on contract or human contrivance. Men have made laws, institutions and

conventions for their own benefit and these have facilitated and enriched the functioning of the

state.

If the state is a natural development there are definitely several stages. The argument put

forward by Aristotle begins with a schematic, quasi- historical account of the development of

the city- state out of simpler communities. First, individual human beings combined in pairs

because they could not exist apart. The male and female joined in order to reproduce, and the

master and slave came together for self- preservation. The natural master used his intellect to

rule, and the natural slave employed his body to labor. Second, the household arose naturally

from these primitive communities in order to serve everyday needs. Third, when several

households combined for further needs, a village emerged also according to nature as man’s

necessities are various and naturally it is beyond the capacity of the family to meet those

demands. Finally, “the complete community, formed from several villages is a city- state,
which at once attains the limit of self- sufficiency. It comes to be for the sake of life, and exists

for the sake of the good life”. Elsewhere he has said that common interest is a factor in bringing

men together, since the interest of all contributes to the good life of each. The good life is

indeed the chief end of the state- both corporately and individually.

Aristotle defends three claims about nature and the city- state: first, the city- state exists by

nature, because it comes to be out of the more primitive natural associations and serves as their

end, because it alone attains self- sufficiency. Second, human beings are by nature political

animals, because nature, which does nothing in vain, has equipped them with speech, which

enables them to communicate moral concepts such as justice which are formative of the

household, and city- state. Third, the city- state is naturally prior to the individuals, because

individuals cannot perform their natural functions apart from the city- state, since they are not

self- sufficient. Household, villages could meet only a part of man’s necessities but not all.

These three claims are conjoined, however, with a fourth: the city- state is a creation of human

intelligence. “Therefore, everyone naturally has the impulse for such a political community,

but the person who first established it, is the cause of very great benefits.”

In his politics we find two types of self- sufficiency- self sufficiency in the necessities of day-

to- day life and self- sufficiency in the need for good life.

Aristotle’s idea of the fulfilment of necessities of life is not to be detached from the conception

of the attainment of ethical values. We have already noted that, according to Aristotle, for the

sake of good life, the exercise of both ethical and intellectual virtues is very much essential and

the former requires the easy availability of sufficient amount of external goods. Only the state

with an adequate size and sufficient population can ensure the smooth supply of external goods.

In Aristotle’s view, man seeks to satisfy his physical or material demands to attain good life.

Any institution or community other than polis is insufficient. Therefore, the membership of

polis is essential.
So, it is now clear that the state is a natural form of organization and by nature man has become

the member of the state. Therefore, both state and individuals as its members are natural.

INDIA AS EMERGING ECONOMIC POWER

India’s economy over the last decade looks in many ways like a success story; after a major

economic crisis in 1991, followed by bold reform measures particularly the implementation of

LPG (liberalization, privatization, and Globalization), the economy has experienced a rapid

economic growth rate, more foreign investment, and a boom in the information technology

sector. In spite of some severe socio- economic challenges, India has proven its ability to break

through global economy during the past decade. With a constantly rising growth rate, several

of the strongest industry and agriculture markets worldwide and important exports and import,

the nation is now considered as one of the fastest-growing economy in the world and could

become the world’s first power by 2050.

An auspicious growth

Today, India is considered as the world’s sixth-largest economy by nominal GDP and the third-

largest by purchasing power parity. According to several studies, India’s growth rate should

stabilise at 8% during the next decades, ranking the country as the world’s fastest-growing

economy. Its GDP could overtake that of the US before 2050, turning India into the strongest

economy worldwide.

India’s key growth factors are:

- a young and rapidly growing working-age population,

 - rising education and engineering skill levels, accentuating growth in the manufacturing

sector,

- a rapidly growing middle-class, implementing a sustained growth of the consumer

market.

- Government measures and policies in accelerating the overall economic growth of the

country.

India’s economic strengths:

India’s economy is distributed as followed:

Agriculture: 17,4% of GDP, 49% of employment;

Industry: 25,8% of GDP, 20% of employment;

Services: 56,9% of GDP, 31% of employment.

India embraced an economic model which has the features of both free market capitalism and

socialism. The policy makers called this a model of ‘mixed economy’. The reason for adopting

such a hybrid model was to raise people’s standard of living and reduce income inequality.

India cherishes an economic model that uniquely combines free market capitalism with that of

state intervention in essential sectors of the economy. The govt of India is constantly doing a

lot of public spending on investment in human capital and research and development and is

ensuring that the benefits of development are equally distributed among all the sections of

society esp the poor who are at the bottom of the social and economic hierarchy. The govt is

creating job opportunities by constantly working on various projects like building dams, roads,

buildings, etc to ensure that those who remained unemployed gets livelihood and no section of

society is left behind in the path of progress. Hence, resulting in the overall growth of the

country.

Special focus on the development of health infrastructure and educational institutions are

helping in creating a strong manpower.

Today, India with its efficient manpower combined with nuclear power is in its way to become

the world power. However, India will only acquire this status when its economic foundations,

its state institutions and its military capabilities are truly robust. It will take concerted efforts

to reach this pinnacle.

NON- ALIGNED MOVEMENT

BACKGROUND:
 - The Non- Aligned Movement was formed during the Cold war as an organization of

states that did not seek to formally align themselves with either the US or the Soviet

Union, but sought to remain independent or neutral.

- The basic concept for the group originated in 1955 during discussions that took place

at the Asia- Africa Bandung Conference held in Indonesia. The principles that would

govern relations among large and small nations, known as the “Ten Principles of

Bandung”, were proclaimed at that Conference. Such principles were adopted later as

the main goals and objectives of the policy of non- alignment.

- The first NAM summit conference took place in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, in September

1961. It has 120 members. There are 17 countries and 10 international organizations

that are observers at NAM.

- The non-aligned movement was founded and held its first conference (the belgrade

conference) in 1961 under the leadership of josip broz tito of yugoslavia, gamal abdel

nasser of egypt, jawaharlal nehru of india, kwame nkrumah of ghana, and sukarno of

indonesia.

- The purpose of the organization was enumerated in havana declaration of 1979 to

ensure "the national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of non-

aligned countries" in their struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism,

racism, and all forms of foreign subjugation.

- During the cold war era the nam played a vital role in stabilizing the world order and

preserving peace and security. non alignment of nam doesn't mean the neutrality of state

on global issues, it was always a peaceful intervention in world politics.

PRINCIPLES

The principles of nam were largely guided by panchsheel principles, some of them are:
 - respect for the principles enshrined in the charter of the united nations and international

law.

- respect for sovereignty, sovereign equality and territorial integrity of all states.

- peaceful settlement of all international conflicts in accordance with the charter of the

united nations.

- respect for the political, economic, social and cultural diversity of countries and

peoples.

- defence and promotion of shared interests, justice and cooperation, regardless of the

differences existing in the political, economic and social systems of the states, on the

basis of mutual respect and the equality of rights.

- respect for the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence, in accordance with

the charter of the united nations

- non-interference in the internal affairs of states. no state or group of states has the right

to intervene either directly or indirectly, whatever the motive, in the internal affairs of

any other state.

- promotion and defence of multilateralism and multilateral organisations as the

appropriate frameworks to resolve, through dialogue and cooperation, the problems

affecting humankind.

OBJECTIVES:

- NAM has sought to "create an independent path in world politics that would not result

in member states becoming pawns in the struggles between the major powers."

- it identifies the right of independent judgment, the struggle against imperialism and

neo-colonialism, and the use of moderation in relations with all big powers as the three

basic elements that have influenced its approach.

 - at present, an additional goal is facilitating a restructuring of the international economic

order.

NAM IN COLD WAR ERA:

- Against apartheid: the evil of apartheid was massively prevalent in african countries

like south africa, its was on the agenda of nam right from first conference. during 2nd

nam conference at cairo the government of south africa was warned against the

discriminatory practices of apartheid.

- disarmament: the non-aligned movement repeatedly comes out for maintenance of

peace,'the cessation of arms race and the peaceful coexistence of all states. in the

general assembly, india submitted a draft resolution declaring that the use of nuclear

weapons would be against the charter of the united nations and crime against humanity

and should therefore be prohibited.

- UNSC reforms: right from its inception nam was in the favour of unsc reforms, it was

against the domination of us and ussr. it wanted the representation of third world

countries to make unsc more democratic. members echoed with same demand at 17th

nam conference at venezuela.

- Failed to resolve regional tensions: in the era of cold war the tension in south asia

escalated due to regional conflict between india- china and india-pakistan. nam failed

to avoid tensions in the region, that further led to the the nuclearisation of the region.

INDIA’S POSITION:

- India being a founder and largest member in NAM was an active participant in NAM

meetings till 1970s but India’s inclination towards erstwhile USSR created confusions
 in smaller members. It led to the weakening of NAM and small nations drifted towards

either US or USSR.

- Further disintegration of USSR led the unipolar world order dominated by US. India’s

New Economic Policy and inclination towards US raised questions over India’s

seriousness over non alignment.

- Prime Minister of India skipped the 17th Non Aligned Movement (NAM) summit held

in Venezuela in 2016, it was only second such instance when Head of a state didn’t

participate in NAM conference.

- Moreover, NAM continued losing relevance for India in a unipolar world, especially

after the founding members failed to support India during crisis. For instance, during

1962 War with China, Ghana and Indonesia, adopted explicitly pro-China positions.

During 1965 and 1971 wars, Indonesia and Egypt took an anti India stance and

supported Pakistan.

- India in particular, but also most other NAM countries, have integrated themselves to

varying degrees within the liberal economic order and have benefited from it.

- India is a member of the G20 and has declared itself as a nuclear weapons power and

has for all practical purposes abandoned the call for global nuclear disarmament.

- India has also engaged itself with new and old global powers. India joining the

Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, a coalition seen by many as a counterforce to China’s

rise in the Indo-Pacific and Shanghai cooperation organisation led by China shown

India’s balancing approach in new world order.

- India is striving hard for a multipolar world order and asserting itself as one of the

player. Multi polar world order is very much closed to NAM principles.

EMERGING GLOBAL ORDER

NAM has to adopt and change itself to suit the newly emerging challenges and geopolitics such

as:

- World has again moved towards bi-polarity, one led by US and other by China-Russia.

The war torn syria is prime example of this, where both US and Russia is asserting

power.

- The escalating tension in Indo-pacific region due to China’s assertion and US acting as

a counterweight to check the Chinese expansionist policy.

- The large scale migration in Europe and Asia due to the unstable regimes and ethnic

conflict in different parts of world.

- Issue of global climate change and occurence of catastrophic disasters raising demand

to form global consensus to deal with it.

- Changing US policies, protectionism, prevalent terrorism and nuclearisation of middle

east.

- Formation of multiple regional economic groupings like TPP and RCEP and fading

away of multilateral bodies WTO from global arena.

RELEVANCE OF NAM:

NAM continues to hold relevance as a platform and due to its principles.

- World peace - NAM has played an active role in preserving world peace.It still stands

by its founding principles, idea and purpose i.e. to establish the peaceful and prosperous

world. It prohibited invasion of any country, promoted disarmament and a sovereign

world order.
- Territorial integrity and sovereignty - NAM stands with this principle and proved its

repeated relevance with the idea of preserving the independence of every nation.

- Third World nations - Third world countries fighting against socio-economic

problems since they have been exploited for a long time by other developed nations,

NAM acted as a protector for these small countries against the western hegemony.

- Support of UN - NAM’s total strength compromises of 118 developing countries and

most of them being a member of UN General Assembly. It represents two third

members of general assembly, hence NAM members act as important vote blocking

group in UN.

- Equitable world order - NAM promotes equitable world order. It can act as a bridge

between the political and ideological differences existing in the international

environment.

- Interest of developing countries - If disputes arise between developed and developing

nation at any point of a concerned topic for example WTO, then NAM act as a platform

which negotiates and conclude disputes peacefully securing the favorable decisions for

each member nation.

- Cultural diversity and human rights - In the environment of gross human right

violation, it can provide a platform to raise such issues and resolve the same through its

principles.

- Sustainable development - NAM supported the concept of sustainable development

and can lead the world toward sustainability. Can be used as larger platform to make

consensus on global burning issues like climate change, migration and global terrorism.

- Economic growth - The countries of NAM has inherent assets, such as a favourable

demography, demand and favourable location. The cooperation can lead them to higher
 and sustainable economic growth. Can be an alternative to regional groupings like TPP

and RCEP.

WAY FORWARD:

- NAM as a concept can never be irrelevant, principally it provides a strong base to

foreign policy of its members.

- It should be seen as “Strategic Autonomy”, which is the need of the hour of today’s

world. The principles of NAM still can guide the nations towards it.

- NAM is a platform where India can assert its soft power and provide an active

leadership and by being a torchbearer for smaller countries at multilateral platforms.

- The conference of Heads of the State or Government of the Non-Aligned Countries,

often referred to as Non-Aligned Movement Summit is to be held in Azerbaijan in June

2019. Platform should be used for consensus making on spectrum of global issues.

- It should be used as a platform to raise global issues like terrorism, climate change and

trade protectionism and others.

- NAM platform can be used to garner support by South-East Asian countries like

Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and Philippines against Chinese assertion in South China

Sea and related island and border disputes.

- NAM can provide a platform for Afro-Asian cooperation and a strong position for poor

African nation to have healthy negotiations with China and US for economic

development without compromising the sovereignty of their land.

POLITICS IN RELATION WITH ECONOMICS

I DUNNO !
 BEHAVIOURAL AND POST BEHAVIOURAL REVOLUTION IN POLITICAL SCIENCE

Since the mid- nineteenth century, mainstream political analysis has been dominated by the

‘scientific tradition’ reflecting the growing impact of positivism. In the 1870s, ‘political

science’ courses were introduced in the universities of Oxford, Paris, and Columbia and was

being published. However, enthusiasm for a science of politics peaked in 1950s and 1960s

with the emergence, and most strongly in the US, of a form of Political analysis that drew

heavily on the BEHAVIOURALISM.

Behavioral revolution is considered as the brainchild of American political scientist- David

Easton. He tried to focus on facts majorly to make political science a ‘True science’. But he

failed to a great extent because the factors of arts could not be discounted. It was very difficult

to make political science a pure science. The behavioralists were criticized for their value free

approach thus resulting in biases towards status quo and social preservation.

FEATURES OF BEHAVIORAL REVOLUTION

- The behaviorists tried to make politics as a science and not a philosophy. And

therefore, the key objective of the study was- Man’s behavior and politics as what it

is i.e. Facts.

- EH Carr (a historian) has written a book ‘What is history?’. In this book, he says that

‘History is not what happens but it is a reflection of the historian’s views’

 - The good is the “Description of the present”. This was the focus of America and an

attempt by America to focus on the maintenance of democracy as the only ideology

of the world.

In short, the Behavioral revolution was probably the result of convergence of two powerful

contemporary intellectual currents which emphasize scientific discourse. First was

Behaviorism in psychology and second was the logical positivism in philosophy.

 Logical positivism:-

 Developed by members of the Vienna circle, which considers that the only

meaningful philosophical problems are those which can be solved by logical

analysis.

 It is characterized by the view that scientific knowledge is the only kind of

factual knowledge and that all traditional metaphysical doctrines are to be

rejected as meaningless.

 According to it, Science and knowledge are believed to occur inductively from

data to theory.

So, we see that Behavioral revolution tried to focus on the fact that traditional enquiry into

the form and content of what Aristotle described as a good life was useless.

Thus, the traditional categories of explanations had to be re- formulated and cast aside

because they were based on non- observable constructs and the discipline in order to qualify

for the status of ‘science’ by moving away from the realm of Political philosophy.
So, this was all about two powerful movements in psychology and philosophy i.e ‘the

behavioral revolution in psychology’ and ‘the logical positivism in philosophy’.

KEY FEATURES OF BEHAVIORAL REVOLUTION AS DECIPHERED BY DAVID EASTON:

David Easton had written a research paper titled ‘Current meaning of Behavioralism’. In this,

he laid down the 8 intellectual foundation stones on which the behavioral movement has

been constructed:

Those 8 intellectual foundation stones are as follows:-

4. Regularities- these are certain observable uniformities in political behavior which can be

expressed in generalization theories, and which are capable of explaining and predicting

political behavior.

5. Verification- Knowledge in order to be valid should consists of prepositions that have been

subjected to empirical tests and all evidences must be based on observation.

6. Techniques- Includes Correct techniques of acquiring and interpreting data and the use of

research tools or methods which generate valid, reliable and comparable data.

7. Quantification- it means all the findings should be based on quantifiable data.

8. Value- free: includes an attempt to make Behavioralism Value- free (free from ethical and

moral aspects). Behaviorists believe that facts and values are different things and they

must be kept analytically distinct.

9. Systematization- the objective of fact collection should be theory- building. Research in

political science must be systematic i.e. theory- oriented or theory- directed.

10. Pure science- It holds that the understanding and explanation of political behaviour is

essential to utilize political knowledge in the solution of urgent practical problems of

society.

11. Integration- In order to get a multi- dimensional view of man, they endorse

interdisciplinary approach.

CRITICISMS OF BEHAVIORALISM:

1. It sacrifices values at the alter of facts.

2. There is a mad craze for scientism.

3. It is status- quoist.

4. Limits to science.
 - It presents the barren political theory .

For example, Many leaders in the past have been talking of replacing the

parliamentary form of government with the presidential one.

But, whatever is administered best is best. Hence, instead of switching over to

Presidential type, we need to correct the lacuna of parliamentary form.

- It is status- quoist. Instead of offering a principle of social change in Revolution, the

aim of Behavioralism is to collect data and analyze it to protect and defend democracy

in the world.

- Dissatisfaction with behavioralism grew as interest in normative questions revived in

the 1970s, as reflected in the writings of theorists such as John Rawls and Robert

Nozick.

Moreover, the scientific credentials of behavioralism started to be called into

questions. The basis of the assertion that behaviouralism is objective and reliable is

the claim that is value- free. However, the focus of the analysis is observable behavior.

Thus, instead of meaning ‘popular self- government’, democracy came to stand for a

struggle between competing elites to win power through the mechanism of popular

elections.

POST- BEHAVIORAL APPROACH

It is both a movement and an academic tendency. It opposed the approach of Behavioral

tendency to make political science a value free science. The Post Behavioral Approach is a

future oriented approach which wants to solve problems of both: Present and Future.

To this approach, political science should put importance on social change. To it, political

science must have some relevance to society. Along with relevance, this approach believes

that action is the core of studying political science. It accepts that political science needs to

study all realities of politics, social change etc.

There are some basic characteristics of Post Behavioral approach: Importance on action and

relevance, human problem oriented, quantitative and qualitative, concerned with

regularities and irregularities.

David Easton had mentioned about 7 key approaches of post behavioral feature of political

science. Considering these 7 features, he opined that substance must have precedence over

technique, political science should put emphasis on social change, research in social science

must not lose touch with reality, study should accord value also, study should also be future

oriented etc. To him, mad craze for scientism should be discarded as social science can’t be

pure science at any cost. Therefore, we can say that post behavioral approach lays emphasis

on substance rather than technique. It is an attempt to develop a practical, social change

oriented approach to political science.

At last, a table is drawn to further conclude with the differences between the two:
 Philosophical, empirical and the scientific traditions to the study of Politics

INTRODUCTION

Approaches to the study of politics

Disagreement about the nature of political activity is matched by controversy about the nature

of politics as an academic discipline. One of the most ancient spheres of intellectual enquiry,

politics was originally seen as an arm of philosophy, history or law. Its central purpose was to

uncover the principles on which human society should be based. From the late nineteenth

century onwards, however, this philosophical emphasis was gradually displaced by an attempt

to turn politics into a scientific discipline. The high point of this development was reached in

the 1950s and 1960s with an open rejection of the earlier tradition as meaningless metaphysics.

Since then, however, enthusiasm for a strict science of politics has waned, and there has been

a renewed recognition of the enduring importance of political values and normative theories.
If the ‘traditional’ search for universal values acceptable to everyone has largely been

abandoned, so has the insistence that science alone provides a means of disclosing truth. The

resulting discipline is more fertile and more exciting, precisely because it embraces a range of

theoretical approaches and a variety of schools of analysis.

PHILOSOPHICAL TRADITION:

The origins of political analysis date back to Ancient Greece and a tradition usually referred to

as ‘political philosophy’. This involved a preoccupation with essentially ethical, prescriptive

or normative questions, reflecting a concern with what ‘should’, ‘ought’ or ‘must’ be brought

about, rather than with what ‘is’. Plato and Aristotle are usually identified as the founding

fathers of this tradition. Their ideas resurfaced in the writings of medieval theorists such as

Augustine and Aquinas. The central theme of Plato’s work, for instance, was an attempt to

describe the nature of the ideal society, which in his view took the form of a benign dictatorship

dominated by a class of philosopher kings.

Such writings have formed the basis of what is called the ‘traditional’ approach to politics. This

involves the analytical study of ideas and doctrines that have been central to political thought.

Most commonly, it has taken the form of a history of political thought that focuses on a

collection of ‘major’ thinkers (that spans, for instance, Plato to Marx) and a canon of ‘classic’

texts. This approach has the character of literary analysis: it is interested primarily in examining

what major thinkers said, how they developed or justified their views, and the intellectual

context within which they worked.

Secondly, the philosophical approach aims at evolving "standards of right and wrong" for the

purpose of a critical evaluation of the existing institutions, laws

and policies. As Dyke has further noted: It may denote efforts to arrive at truth through the use

of reason. The truth sought may be normative, descriptive, or prescriptive. The object of

philosophic inquiry in this sense is to establish standards of the good, the right, and the just,

and to appraise or prescribe political institutions and practices in the light of these standards.

Most of the classical political theory represents philosophical approach.

Although such analysis may be carried out critically and scrupulously, it cannot be objective

in any scientific sense, as it deals with normative questions such as ‘Why should I obey the

state?’, ‘How should rewards be distributed?’, and ‘What should the limits of individual

freedom be?’.

However, the moral aspect of such reasoning can be questioned from the viewpoint of our

'modern consciousness'. For instance, Kant's concept of 'human dignity' which rules out any

type of slavery, is closer to modern consciousness than Aristotle's defence of slavery. Then

most of the political thinkers proceeded on some notion of 'human nature' which can now be

questioned in the light of the findings of the contemporary psychology and social sciences.

Hence the philosophical approach does not simply rely on the political thought of the past; it

is a subject of current and continuous debate.

Of the contemporary champions of the philosophical approach to the study of politics, Leo

Strauss is the most outstanding. According to Strauss, political science and political philosophy

are coterminous. They denote an attempt to obtain true knowledge of political things as well

as the standards of the right and the good. Political philosophy is a product of our quest for

good life and good society. Values as well as facts are indispensable part of political philosophy
which enable us to undertake a critical and coherent analysis of political institutions and

activities. Without such analysis, assumptions regarding the political things take the character

of opinions. Political philosophy seeks to replace opinion by knowledge, as originally

postulated by Socrates. Strauss has severely criticized the contemporary behavioural approach

which insists on 'value-free analysis' and thus destroys the essence of true knowledge of

politics.

EMPIRICAL APPROACH:

Although it was less prominent than normative theorizing, a descriptive or empirical tradition

can be traced back to the earliest days of political thought. It can be seen in Aristotle’s attempt

to classify constitutions, in Machiavelli’s realistic account of statecraft, and in Montesquieu’s

sociological theory of government and law.

Machiavelli made an empirical study of Italy which was divided into 5 principalities during his

period. The key goal before Machiavelli was the creation of public spirit.

In his book, ‘The Prince’, he said that ‘If a prince kills anybody out of personal vendetta (feud),

it is wrong, but if he kills anybody to further the public spirit, it is perfectly moral’. He tried to

redefine morality in a new way.

Machiavellianism: it is a personality trait that denotes cunningness, the ability to be

manipulative, and a drive to use whatever means necessary to gain power. acc to this, there are

2 sets of morality- morality called personal interactions and morality for the state.

2 oxymorons are used to describe this concept- “it’s kind to be cruel” and “it’s fair to be unfair”.
Machiavellianism is opposite of Gandhism. Gandhism believe that ‘the end should be as pure

as the means, because if the means are like the roots, ends are like the fruits. If the roots are

bitter then the fruits cannot be sweet’.

So, Machiavelli believed that sometimes for the public welfare and unity of the country, many

times we have to be slightly cruel. It’s kind to be cruel, we have to be realistic.

Montesquieu was a French philosopher known for two things:

1st- his famous book “The spirit of laws” and,

2nd- his concept of Separation of power.

In many ways, such writings constitute the basis of what is now called ‘comparative

government’, and they gave rise to an essentially institutional approach to the discipline. In the

USA and the UK, in particular, this developed into the dominant tradition of analysis. The

empirical approach to political analysis is characterized by the attempt to offer a dispassionate

and impartial account of political reality. The approach is ‘descriptive’, in that it seeks to

analyse and explain, whereas the normative approach is ‘prescriptive’, in the sense that it makes

judgements and offers recommendations.

Descriptive political analysis acquired its philosophical underpinning from the doctrine of

empiricism, which spread from the seventeenth century onwards through the work of theorists

such as John Locke and David Hume.

John Locke is known as the ‘Father of Liberalism’. In political philosophy, Locke refuted the

theory of the “Divine right of kings” and argued that all persons are endowed with natural
rights to life, liberty and property and that rulers who fail to protect these rights may be removed

by the people, by force if necessary.

He believed that the most basic human law of nature is the preservation of mankind. To serve

that purpose, he reasoned, individuals have both a right and a duty to preserve their own lives.

John Locke is the founder of the “Doctrine of Empiricism”. It states that “Experience is the

only basis of knowledge and that all hypothesis and theories should be tested by a process of

observation.

So, Empirical approach tries to believe that ‘experience should be the guiding principle of

political analysis and not only experience, but observation should also be there’.

By the 19th century, such ideas developed into what became known as ‘Positivism’, an

intellectual movement particularly associated with the writings of Auguste Comte (1798–

1857). This doctrine proclaimed that the social sciences, and, for that matter, all forms of

philosophical enquiry, should adhere strictly to the methods of the natural sciences. Once

science was perceived to be the only reliable means of disclosing truth, the pressure to develop

a science of politics became irresistible.

SCIENTIFIC APPROACH:

Since the mid-nineteenth century, mainstream political analysis has been dominated by the

‘scientific’ tradition, reflecting the growing impact of positivism. In the 1870s, ‘political

science’ courses were introduced in the universities of Oxford, Paris and Columbia, and by

1906 the American Political Science Review was being published. However, enthusiasm for a

science of politics peaked in the 1950s and 1960s with the emergence, most strongly in the

USA, of a form of political analysis that drew heavily on behaviouralism. For the first time,
this gave politics reliably scientific credentials, because it provided what had previously been

lacking: objective and quantifiable data against which hypotheses could be tested.

Political analysts such as David Easton proclaimed that politics could adopt the methodology

of the natural sciences, and this gave rise to a proliferation of studies in areas best suited to the

use of quantitative research methods, such as voting behaviour, the behaviour of

legislators, and the behaviour of municipal politicians and lobbyists. Attempts were also made

to apply behaviouralism to international relations (IR), in the hope of developing objective

‘laws’ of international relations. The rise of behaviouralism also gave a major impetus to the

systemic study of comparative politics.

Behaviouralism, however, came under growing pressure from the 1960s onwards. In the first

place, it was claimed that behaviouralism had significantly constrained the scope of political

analysis, preventing it from going beyond what was directly observable. Although behavioural

analysis undoubtedly produced, and continues to produce, invaluable insights in fields such as

voting studies, a narrow obsession with quantifiable data threatens to reduce the discipline of

politics to little else. More worryingly, it inclined a generation of political scientists to turn

their backs on the entire tradition of normative political thought. Concepts such as ‘liberty’,

‘equality’, ‘justice’ and ‘rights’ were sometimes discarded as being meaningless because they

were not empirically verifiable entities. Dissatisfaction with behaviouralism has grown as

interest in normative questions has revived since the 1970s, as reflected in the writings of

theorists such as John Rawls and Robert Nozick.

YAAR BAKI PREV ANS ON BEHAVIORALISM ND POST BEHAVIORALISM SE

INCLUDE KR LENA. IMP PARTS BAS.

 Political ideologies of Fascism, Anarchism and Religious fundamentalism

ANARCHISM:

Anarchism is a belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a

voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.

Anarchism is unusual amongst political ideologies in that no anarchist party has ever succeeded

in winning power, at least at national level.

Nevertheless, anarchist movements were powerful in, for example, Spain, France, Russia and

Mexico through to the early twentieth century, and anarchist ideas continue to fertilize political

debate by challenging the conventional belief that law, government and the state are either

wholesome or indispensable. Anarchist thinking has also been influential within the modern

anti-capitalist, or anti-globalization, movement. The central theme within anarchism is the

belief that political authority in all its forms, and especially in the form of the state, is both evil

and unnecessary (anarchy literally means ‘without rule’). Nevertheless, the anarchist

preference for a stateless society in which free individuals manage their own affairs through

voluntary agreement and cooperation has been developed on the basis of two rival traditions:

liberal individualism, and socialist communitarianism. Anarchism can thus be thought of as a

point of intersection between liberalism and socialism: a form of both ‘ultraliberalism’ and

‘ultrasocialism’.

The liberal case against the state is based on individualism, and the desire to maximize liberty

and choice. Unlike liberals, individualist anarchists such as William Godwin (1756–1836) was

the first thinker who argued unequivocally for a stateless society. His Enquiry Concerning

Political Justice (1793) is regarded to be the first systematic defence of anarchism. He believed
 that free and rational human beings would be able to manage their affairs peacefully and

spontaneously, government being merely a form of unwanted coercion.

Modern individualists have usually looked to the market to explain how society would be

regulated in the absence of state authority, developing a form of anarcho-capitalism, an

extreme version of free-market economics. The more widely recognized anarchist tradition,

however, draws on socialist ideas such as community, cooperation, equality and common

ownership. Collectivist anarchists (sometimes called social anarchists) stress the capacity for

social solidarity that arises from our sociable, gregarious and essentially cooperative natures.

On this basis, the French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, for instance, developed

what he called ‘mutualism’. Other anarchists, such as the Russian Peter Kropotkin (1842

1921), advanced a form of anarcho-communism, the central principles of which were

common ownership, decentralization and workers’ self-management. Modern thinkers

influenced by anarchism include Noam Chomsky and the US libertarian and social

ecologist Murray Bookchin (1921–2006).

Of the several schools of anarchist thought, the following are particularly important:

philosophical anarchism, socialist anarchism, revolutionary anarchism, anarcho-

syndicalism, pacific anarchism, and libertarian anarchism.

 Philosophical anarchism- it rejects the idea of legitimate authority in the sense that no

individual, whether state official or not, has the right to command the obedience of another.

Individual autonomy, as conceived morally, requires individuals to act according to their own

judgments. Because of its focus on individual, this school of thought is also called
 'individualist anarchism'. It was originally founded by Godwin himself in his essay Enquiry

Concerning Political Justice (1793).

Accordingly, philosophical anarchism has little scope to encourage cooperation among

individuals or to evolve their formal organization. Its upholders are generally suspicious of

authority, yet they recognize the rational authority of experts within their fields of

competence and the moral authority of basic social norms, such as 'contracts should be kept'.

 Socialist anarchism- it insists on freedom of individual, defined as the capacity to satisfy his

needs. It regards social and economic equality as a necessary condition to secure maximum

freedom of all. In its view, social and economic equality is incompatible with capitalist private

property and the state. It therefore rejects both. P.J. Proudhon (1809-65), a French philosopher,

is the chief exponent of socialist anarchism. He postulated 'mutual aid' as the appropriate

method of achieving its goal. It is therefore also called 'mutualism'.

 Revolutionary anarchism- it is still another version of socialist anarchism. Mikhail Bakunin

(1814-76), a Russian revolutionary, is regarded the chief exponent of revolutionary anarchism.

It is called revolutionary because of its method of achieving the goal of anarchism. Since it

believes in collectivization of the means of social production, it is also called 'collectivism'.

Bakunin stood for the strategy of encouraging popular insurrections. It was envisaged that

during the course of these insurrections, capitalist and landed property would be expropriated

and collectivized, and the state would be abolished. It would be replaced by autonomous, but

federally linked, communes. Bakunin projected the vision of a socialist society which would

be organized from below upwards, not from above downwards.

 Anarcho-syndicalism or syndicalist anarchism- it is another version of revolutionary

anarchism. George Sorel (1847-1922) was its chief exponent. It was based on the idea to turn

trade unions into revolutionary instruments of class struggle.

Instead of 'communes' (as envisaged by communist anarchism), anarcho- syndicalism sought

to make trade unions the basic units of a new society. In his important work Reflections on

Violence (1908), Sorel argued that law and institutions of every enduring society contain a form

of structural violence. Capitalist system is itself an epitome of violence. Unjust violence should

be fought with just type of violence.

 PACIFIC ANARCHISM- In contrast to revolutionary anarchism, pacific anarchism stands

for abolition of the state in a peaceful manner. It advocates anarchism on moral grounds. Its

chief exponent, Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910), the Russian novelist, was inspired by 'the law of

love', expressed in the Sermon on the Mount (delivered by Christ himself). This made him

denounce the state as 'organized violence' and to call on people to disobey its immoral

commands. Tolstoy argued that the state tried to fight evil with another evil, i.e. with the help

of police and military force. Private property enables the few to lead a luxurious life by

exploiting others' labour. Both of them should be abolished for the regeneration of humanity.

Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948), the Indian philosopher, was inspired by these ideas in

developing his philosophy of non-violence.

 Libertarian anarchism- it represents the contemporary version of 'individualist

anarchism'. Its beginnings may be traced to Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), a British

philosopher. Spencer's concept of 'blessedness of anarchy' envisages the development of

'market society' to a stage where the state is dissolved and society becomes self-regulated.
Libertarianism stands for the revival of laissez faire individualism which believes in minimum

interference of the state in economic activities of people.

They do not recommend to abolish the state altogether. But, stand for restricting the role of the

state to minimum possible level.

FASCISM:

Whereas liberalism, conservatism and socialism are nineteenth-century ideologies, fascism is

a child of the twentieth century. Some would say that it is specifically an interwar phenomenon.

Although fascist beliefs can be traced back to the late nineteenth century, they were fused

together and shaped by World War I and its aftermath and, in particular, by the potent mixture

of war and revolution that characterized the period. The two principal manifestations of fascism

were Mussolini’s Fascist dictatorship in Italy in 1922–43, and Hitler’s Nazi dictatorship in

Germany in 1933–45.

Forms of neofascism and neo-Nazism have also resurfaced in recent decades, taking advantage

of the combination of economic crisis and political instability that often followed the collapse

of communism or, more widely, of increased anxieties over immigration and multiculturalism.

In many respects, fascism constituted a revolt against the ideas and values that had dominated

Western political thought since the French Revolution: in the words of the Italian Fascist

slogan, ‘1789 is dead’. Values such as rationalism, progress, freedom and equality were thus

overturned in the name of struggle, leadership, power, heroism and war. In this sense, fascism

has an ‘anti-character’. It is defined largely by what it opposes: it is a form of anti-capitalism,

anti-liberalism, anti-individualism, anticommunism, and so on.

Of the three mainstreams of political thought—Liberalism, Marxism and Idealism—fascism is

openly opposed to liberalism and Marxism. It is wedded to the idealist theory, but only to its

distorted form. Fascism embraced some theoretical principles only to win the political support

of some groups, especially to mobilize a large number of frustrated elements in society. Since

these heterogeneous groups had no common interest, no common ideal and no common values,

fascism could never evolve a consistent political theory.

A core theme that, nevertheless, runs throughout fascism is the image of an organically unified

national community. This is reflected in a belief in ‘strength through unity’. The individual, in

a literal sense, is nothing; individual identity must be absorbed entirely into that of the

community or social group. The fascist ideal is that of the ‘new man’, a hero, motivated by

duty, honour and self-sacrifice, prepared to dedicate his life to the glory of his nation or race,

and to give unquestioning obedience to a supreme leader.

Not all fascists, however, think alike. Italian Fascism was essentially an extreme form of

statism that was based on unquestioning respect and absolute loyalty towards a ‘totalitarian’

state. As the Fascist philosopher Gentile (1875–1944) put it, ‘everything for the state; nothing

against the state; nothing outside the state’. German National Socialism (or Nazism), on the

other hand, was constructed largely on the basis of racialism. Its two core theories were

Aryanism (the belief that the German people constitute a ‘master race’ and are destined for

world domination), and a virulent form of anti-Semitism that portrayed the Jews as inherently

evil, and aimed at their eradication. This latter belief found expression in the ‘Final Solution’.

In politics, fascism is identified with a sick mental attitude which sets aside reason as well as

sound moral and social principles for the fulfilment of ambitions of narrow groups. Fascist
tendencies pose a danger to peace and freedom in the world. The word 'fascist' is a term of

abuse in present-day vocabulary.

RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM:

Religious fundamentalism has been a growing political force since the 1970s. Its most

politically significant form has been Islamic fundamentalism, sometimes called Islamism.

Often associated with the 1979 ‘Islamic Revolution’ in Iran, Islamic fundamentalism has

been evident throughout the Middle East and parts of north Africa and Asia. However, forms

of Christian fundamentalism (USA), Hindu fundamentalism and Sikh fundamentalism (India),

and even Buddhist fundamentalism (Sri Lanka and Myanmar) have also emerged. It is difficult

to generalize about the causes of this fundamentalist upsurge, because in different parts of the

world it has taken different doctrinal forms and displayed different ideological features. It is

nevertheless clear that fundamentalism arises in deeply troubled societies, particularly societies

afflicted by an actual or perceived crisis of identity. Among the factors that have contributed

to such crises since the final decades of the twentieth century have been the spread of

secularism and the apparent weakening of society’s ‘moral fabric’, and the search in

postcolonial states for a non- Western and perhaps anti-Western political identity.

Secularism: The belief that religion should not intrude into secular (worldly) affairs, usually

reflected in the desire to separate the state from institutionalized religion.

The core idea of religious fundamentalism is that religion cannot and should not be confined

to the private sphere; instead, it finds its highest and proper expression in the politics of popular

mobilization and social regeneration. As Ayatollah Khomeini (see p. 191) put it, ‘politics is

religion’. This implies that religious values and beliefs constitute the organizing principles of

public existence, including law, social conduct and the economy as well as politics. While some
claim that such a tendency can be identified in all of the world’s major religions, others argue

that it is restricted to Islam, Protestant Christianity, and possibly Catholicism, as only these

religious traditions have the capacity to throw up comprehensive programmes of political

renewal. In the case of Islam, this tendency may be particularly pronounced, as Islam has never

been just a ‘religion’ as such; rather, it is a complete way of life, with instructions on moral,

political and economic behaviour for both individuals and nations alike. In this light, politics

may be more integral to Islam than it is to, say, Christianity, which has traditionally relied on

the distinction between God and Caesar (representing human government) to separate the holy

from the worldly. As Hindu, Sikh, Jewish and Buddhist forms of fundamentalism tend to be

more narrowly concerned with helping to clarify or redefine national or ethnic identity, they

are perhaps better classified as examples of ethnic nationalism.

Divine origin theory of state

The Divine Origin theory is one of the oldest theory of the origin of the state. The theory

explains about how the state came into being. The supporters of this theory believed that the

state doesn’t come into being by the people but it is the handiwork of God on the earth. The

state was created by the God and the King was the representatives or agents of God on the

earth.

The king was given the divine power and he was to be responsible to the God alone for his

deeds and was not responsible to the people for any of his works. The king was given the

supreme power to rule over the people through God. This theory has made the king above law

and no subjects will have the right to question his authority or his action.
The theory prevailed in the old age where religion has dominated the minds of the people. The

key exponents were the Hindus, Jews, Christians, Muslims, and all other faiths of the world.

The subjects believed that as the king is the agent of God so they have to abbey the king and

to go against the king will be a sinful act.

“The king can do no wrong”- This belief led to the emergence of the dogma of Divine Rights

of kings. Nothing on earth could limit his will and restrict his power. His word was law, and

his actions were always just and benevolent. Other exponents of this divine origin theory were

The theory of the Divine Origin of the State is as old as Political Science itself. There is

sufficient evidence to prove that early States were based on this conception, and all political

authority was connected with certain unseen powers. The earliest ruler was a combination of

priest and king or the magic man and king. The authority and reverence that a ruler commanded

depended on his position as a priest or a magic man. Religion and politics were so inextricably

mixed up in primitive societies that not a hazy demarcation line could be drawn between the

two.

DECLINE OF THE DIVINE ORIGIN THEORY:

In the twentieth century, this theory has been criticized or we may say it came under a criticism

being an incorrect explanation of the origin of the state.

There are many causes for the decline of the theory. In the first place it was the emergence of

the social contract theory as a more acceptable theory, the divine origin theory was dashed into

the ground as this social contract theory has suggested that the state is the handiwork of man
and not the creation by the grace of God. Second, was the separation of the church and the

state. Thus the secular outlook made the divine origin theory totally unacceptable. Third, is the

emergence of democracy because democracy it glorified the individual and not the king who

was considered as the agent of God.

The people were no longer superstitious and have no blind faith, they began to accept only

those things that stood the test of logic and reasoning, for this reason the theory suffered a

setback.

The State is essentially a human institution. It comes into existence when several people

occupying a definite territory Organize themselves politically to achieve common ends; the

laws of the State are made by men and enforced by them. Therefore, the State originated in the

bare needs of man’s life and continues in existence for the satisfaction of those needs and

aspirations for a good life. To accept it as God’s creation is to defy nature itself and exalt the

State to a position above criticism and change.

The Divine Origin theory is dangerous as it justifies the arbitrary exercise of royal authority by

holding that authority has a religious sanction and origin, and Kings are the vicars of God.

When the ruler is made responsible for his actions to God alone, and the law is held to reside

ultimately in the King’s breast is tantamount to preaching absolutism and making the King a

despot.

Even if it be conceded that the King is the vicegerent or deputy of God, then how can the

existence of a bad King be justified? History abounds in examples of bad and vicious Kings.

God personifies virtue, grace, and benevolence, and so should be His deputy. It is, accordingly,
bad logic to accept the dogma of James I that Kings are breathing images of God upon the

earth.

Greek political thought

Introduction to Ancient Greek Political Thought!

According to Ernest Barker, the origin of political thought began with the ancient Greeks. In

other words, Greek political thought is considered one of the oldest in the world. It had a

profound influence on the political institutions of not only the ancient times but also of modern

times. The simple reason for this is the rational mind, secular outlook and efficient management

of city-states by the Greeks. These city-states, in fact, served as laboratories for experimenting

with various institutions.

The social and political organization of Greek city-states resembled a common-wealth society

wherein there was a great amount of mutual sharing of life and habitat. Religion had no impact

on the lives of the people. The entire Greek community opined that state is a natural institution

that came into existence for the moral and personal development of the individual.

The state was regarded as a means to an end. Man is regarded as an independent citizen of the

self-governing society and there was perfect equality as well as opportunities and rights.

Further, a number of Greek city-states practiced different forms of governments such as

aristocracy, monarchy and democracy.

Greeks firmly believed in an ethical society. In their view, a city-state is not only a self-

sufficient body, but also a self-governing body. A man’s life was expected to be ethical because

the state was considered an ethical institution.

Human welfare was the primary objective. There was a great amount of emphasis on education

in order to create an ideal state. Ancient Greek philosophers aimed at making a society wherein

there was a greater cooperation between the people from different classes.

Some of the unique features of ancient Greek city-states are as follows:

1. The city-state was administered directly owing to its small territories,

2. The city-state was a church as well as a state,

3. The city-state was self-sufficient and self-governed, and citizens enjoyed freedom, and

4. The city-state was an educational, ethical and political body; there was active participation

of the people in political activities, and there was greater harmony in the city-states.

Greeks had given great importance to law owing to their ability to think rationally. A number

of Greek political thinkers opined that law is the dispassionate reason—objective and unbiased.

They believed that law is essential for the promotion of the well- being of the citizen. As far as

justice is concerned, Greek thinkers viewed justice as virtue in action.

They contended that justice enables a person to discharge his duties towards the development

of human personality. Further, a city-state was considered ideal only if it was based on justice.
According to thinkers like Plato and Aristotle, justice is nothing but willful obedience of laws

of the state.

The notion of citizenship held today is not a continuation from the Greeks. There were, in fact,

stark differences between the Greek notion of citizenship and that of the modern view.

Citizenship is not mere payment of taxes, right to exercise vote or obedience to laws. It is a

direct participation in the political affairs of the state, as the Greeks did not believe in

representative system.

However, not all members of the society were given an opportunity to participate in the political

affairs of the state. Slaves, minors, old—and in some city-states women—were not allowed to

participate or did not have citizenship because it was widely believed that they could not

discharge their duties towards the state.

Even working classes, both skilled and unskilled, were denied citizenship because they lacked

leisure, and with this, reasoning and a speculative mind. The Greeks, therefore, restricted

citizenship to only those privileged classes of the society who were free from economic

insecurity and from other economic day-to- day problems.

The system of governance in the ancient Greek city-states was not uniform despite identical

territorial limits and populations. Three important forms of governments were in practice in

different city-states, viz., monarchy, aristocracy and democracy.

Aristotle, the most celebrated ancient Greek political thinker, after examining nearly 158

constitutions, argued for a mixed constitution, taking the best of all the available forms of
governance. Greeks never believed in democracy, as they never had faith in representative

forms of government. Thus, their conception of government is symptom-atic of the class-based

authority—aristocracy.

Thus, from the above points, it can be stated that Greeks have a great passion for reason, virtues

and knowledge. They attached considerable significance to the discussions for reaching truth.

The entire political enquiry was conducted through discussions and dialogues.

Methodologically, they may be viewed as the pioneers for the application of inductive and

deductive approaches for the analysis of political phenomena. It is indisputable that the Greek

thinkers have left an indelible mark on the intellectual tradition of the successive political

philosophers of the medieval, modern and contemporary times in the West. With the above

basic premises that guide the Greek political thought, let us study about the two most famous

Greek political philosophers, viz., Plato and Aristotle, and their opinions.

Aristotle greatly admired Greek philosophy and culture. This influence of culture was very

obvious on Aristotle’s views on slavery, wherein he justified slavery on the grounds of

expediency. Similarly, he opined that Greek city-states were the best forms of political and

social institutions that human beings ever conceived.

Further, his pre-conceived notions about the superiority of the Greeks made him advocate

limited citizenship and excluded slaves. It was his successful marriage that made him oppose

Plato’s theory of communism and property.

Aristotle spent two-thirds of his life studying political institutions that naturally gave him an

extra edge to define what exactly a political set-up should be.

Above all, the impact of Plato was the most formidable of all owing to his long association

with his tutor. Aristotle proved to be the best student and ardent follower of Plato’s ideas.

During Plato’s intimate discussions with Aristotle, the former instilled as well as moulded the

latter.

In fact, these two thinkers held almost similar views on a range of issues, which can be

outlined as follows:

1. Man is by nature a social animal, and therefore must live in an association, and society

is not only necessary for the sake of life but for the sake of good life.

2. State exists for moral perfection of human beings and it is essential for the welfare and

development of the individuals. In other words, state is a means to an end.

3. Only fit and able men must rule, as administration is an art, which requires self-control

and proper training.

4. The state, apart from social-political and economic functions, has certain moral

functions as well. It is the responsibility of the state to ensure that there is no conflict

of interests between the individuals and the state.

5. As everybody is not endowed with the power to understand the techniques of good

governance, democracy is not the ideal form of governance.

6. Both thinkers supported slavery as they opined that citizens must concentrate on mental

work, and the slaves should do physical work. It is for this reason they advocated

limited citizenship.

7. Both the philosophers supported a mix of monarchial and democratic elements in

governing.

8. The laws should be uniform, applied on all because unrestrained liberty was considered

a greater harm to the entire society.

 9. Both the thinkers believed war is the only solution for eternal peace despite knowing

that war is not the end in itself.

10. Education was given priority and stated that it is the responsibility of the state to educate

its citizens.

Social contract theory of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau and general will (The

social contract of Rousseau is Leviathan with its head chopped off” by

Rousseau)

INTRODUCTION:

Social Contract theory was mainly advocated by three thinkers- John Locke, Thomas Hobbes

and J Rousseau. They believed that man should be selfish as it is the need of the hour. If he is

not selfish, people will use him to achieve their personal goals.

Michael Lessnoff in his introductory part of Social Contract said that, “A social contract theory

can be defined as one which grounds the legitimacy of political authority and the obligations

of rulers and subjects on a premised contract or contracts relating to these matters”.

It contains some terms and conditions which bind both the ruler and the ruled. But this is not

all. These conditions are legitimate. This is because at the time of finalization of the contract

both the parties promised to obey the terms and conditions and they did it assembling in an

open place.
 In other words, pure democratic methods were used to finalize the contract. Naturally nobody

can violate the terms and conditions of the contract. Social contract theory is also defined as a

foundation of political authority. The authority or the government performs certain functions

and the general public may raise the legitimacy or the utility of those functions. As again the

ruled may refuse to cooperate with the authority or the govt in respect of cooperating with the

ruler. All these questions are easily solved by invoking the terms and conditions of the social

contract.

Contract is the vital or the most important source of consent. In the Middle Ages or even before

that it was generally believed that all men are equal and naturally one cannot impose his will

or decision upon other. If one wishes to perform certain duties with others then he must seek

their consent or opinion. Since it is not possible to seek opinion on every issue there shall exist

a general agreement or contract which will provide the guidelines. This general agreement rules

out the scope of repeated agreement.

Therefore, social contract can be defined as the holder of a general consent. All the parties to

the contract are legally bound to act in accordance with the terms of the contract.

Thus, one legal document comes to be the potential source of many other legal aspects. Some

may raise the question on the importance or authenticity of contract as the source of the

foundation of political society. This question or objection is very old.

Still many ‘believe that behind its foundation there is some sort of contract. Today almost all

the states have written constitutions and these may be treated as contracts.

o Hobbes claimed that ‘In a stateless society, the life of the people was solitary, poor, nasty,

brutish and short’.

o The thinkers explained why it was necessary to leave this unhealthy environment created by

the absence of the state and come to an agreement which gives the ground for the existence of

the state.

o The contract which people make to end this state of affairs obliged the citizens to obey the state

in respect of the security it delivers.

So, social contract theory was never a historical event but simply a tool to justify various states

the philosophers supported.

The New Right, or at least its neoliberal wing, is distinguished by a strong antipathy towards

state intervention in economic and social life, born out of the belief that the state is a parasitic

growth that threatens both individual liberty and economic security. In this view, the state,

instead of being, as pluralists suggest, an impartial umpire or arbiter, is an overbearing ‘nanny’,

desperate to interfere or meddle in every aspect of human existence. The central feature of this

view is that the state pursues interests that are separate from those of society, and that those

interests demand an unrelenting growth in the role or responsibilities of the state itself.

Hobbes was followed by Locke who tried to create a state of nature and a theory he constructed

to justify the political freedom, constitutional government and limited sovereignty.

On the whole, the theory has been used to justify the conception that the government authority,

if it is to be legitimate, must rest ultimately on the consent of the governed.

This theory has been attacked from three different angles- the historical, the legal and the

philosophical or rational.
 SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY BY HOBBES, LOCKE AND ROUSSEAU:

 HOBBES- According to Hobbes, life of man in the state of nature (used to describe the

conditions before the formation of state) is one of continuous warfare on account of the

essentially selfish nature of man. In his own words, the life of a man is ‘solitary’, ‘poor’,

‘nasty’, ‘brutish’, and ‘short’. Therefore, man thought of getting the source of all pleasures

i.e. power.
 Hence, according to Hobbes, man is engaged in a perceptual struggle to acquire more and

more power that ceases only with death as power is the ultimate source of happiness.

So, men to escape from this horrible state of nature, enter into a contract among themselves.

By this contract, everybody surrendered their natural rights to an entity called state.

So, the hallmark of this contract was that it was a one- way contract. Sovereign is the protector

of common wealth and he is not accountable to the people as he is not party to the contract.

This gave the concept of the legal sovereignty. No separate laws were needed to be coded.

His obligation was obligatory and people had to follow it.

CRITICISM:

There must be a system for checks and balances, which was not there in Hobbes’ case, and

there was a picture of so much power given to a single entity.

He denied the immutable and eternal nature of morality in his depiction of the state of nature.

If individuals were so asocial, they would never have been able to come together to establish

a civil society and govt.

Eachard felt that humankind, contrary to Hobbes’ analysis, was tolerably tame and that

society did not reflect the wickedness that Hobbes wanted us to believe.

 LOCKE- He like Hobbes believed that there is a state of nature but his picture of state of

nature was different from that of Hobbes.

 He being the supporter of the political sovereignty believed that the king was party to the

contract and thus was expected to observe the terms of the contract.

When the people felt that the ruler was abusing their trust, they may revolt and therefore,

renew their contract with the new ruler.

While Hobbes’ man is selfish, Locke’s man is good, peace loving and therefore, the state of

nature is a picture of peace and goodwill, mutual assistance and mutual preservation.

It also implies that if the govt fails in respect of the protection of natural rights, people may

dismiss the govt and establish a new one. It is due to this that while the final conclusion of

Hobbes is in favour of absolute monarchy, that of Locke is in favour of Limited monarchy.

CRITICISM:

The powers of the king are limited! ‘People are like sleeping giants who may take the active

sovereign or the govt to task on the charge of forbidding the trust of the community and make

a resort to revolution’.

Thus, the critiques believe that Locke dwelled on only one factor i.e. the role of consent in

making of the state, whereas, there are multiple factors which have played their parts in the

making of the state.

2ndly, Locke is criticized for making his theory dangerous by sanctioning resort to revolution

as for the satisfaction of the people.

 ROUSSEAU- According to him, the contract is between the individual in their personal

capacity and the individual in their corporate capacity.

 He believed that the hallmark of a man are his emotions, his passions and if he uses only his

reason, then he is akin to a robot.

He believed that since man was initially acted by his passions or his heart, he was like a noble

savage. ‘Man is divine, but is uncivilized’ and he enjoys a life of primitive simplicity and

idealistic happiness.

He believed that because few people created their own property, other people were deprived

of the pleasures of a simple communistic life. It led to the rise of conflicts and as a result, the

peaceful conditions of life were disturbed. The innocent creatures became selfish and

aggressive and natural life was destroyed.

Sovereignty lies with the people who exercise it in the name of the general will or good of

all. The question of the abuse of the trust of the community does not arise because people or

their majority for all practical purposes, cannot do anything that is harmful to public interest.

CRITICISM:

- Critiques believe that the concept of General will is abstract. This is beyond the

comprehension of a common man to comprehend what is Actual and Real wills, as they

cannot be quantified.

- The reason for Rousseau leaving no such safeguards is because he believed that when

the state is ruling, people are ruling vicariously through the submission of their real

wills to the state which is taking all the measures for people’s welfare.
 Concept of sovereignty and factors affecting it in age of LPG and role of

MINTIE

INTRODUCTION:

Sovereignty is the supreme power or authority within a territory. It is a modern notion of

political authority. The state is the political institution in which sovereignty is embodied.

The word sovereignty is taken from a Latin word ‘Supernus’ meaning supreme. The supreme

power of the state is its sovereign power.

6 BASIC FEATURES OF SOVEREIGNTY:

1. Permanence

2. Absoluteness

3. All Comprehensiveness

4. Exclusiveness

5. In Alienability

6. Indivisibility

The Greeks made no difference between sovereignty and authority. The Romans had no

crystallized concept of sovereignty. Then in medieval period, there was a divided hierarchal

society so, this concept of sovereignty had no development. The sovereignty was

distributed between different people. Medieval period was dubbed as ‘Dark Ages’ because

there was lack of any political activity and political growth.

 This concept developed with the writings of Machiavelli.

And in modern period, it further developed with the writings of Hobbes, Locke and

Rousseau.

VARIOUS CONCEPTS OF SOVEREIGNTY:

1. Austin gave a command theory of law. He was a Jurist, not a political theorist. He

believed that things are not right or wrong, but they are legal or illegal.

2. Political Sovereignty: it comprises of citizens and electorates manifested by the govt.

Locke, Dicey and Montesquieu propounded this. Montesquieu is known for his concept

of ‘Separation of power’.

3. Popular sovereignty: people have the supreme power and they are the source of all

power. Rousseau, Althusius and Marsiglio propounded this.

Nowadays, the sovereignty is being diluted in this age of LPG (Liberalization,

Privatization and Globalization).

Sovereignty is diluted because of the decline of nation states.

So, we can say that sovereignty in this contemporary age of globalization is under onslaught

or attack because of Non- State Actors (MINTIE).

Non-state actors (NSAs) are entities that participate on the world stage or act in the

international relations to engage themselves in affairs relative to territorial possession, human

rights, social justice and global commerce. They are organizations with sufficient power to

influence and cause a change even though they could not belong to any established institution

of a state.
MINTIE is the abbreviation of the followings:

 Multi-National Corporations (MNCs) and Trans-National Corporations (TNCs)

 International Economic Order

 Non-Government Organisations (NGOs)

 Terrorist Groups

 International Media Order

 Ethnic Groups

Multi-National Corporations (MNCs)

Multi-National Corporations (MNCs) are huge firms that own and control plants and offices in

at least more than one country. They sell their goods and services around the world.

MNCs are “major driver of global economic integration” and “establish unprecedented

linkages among economies worldwide” (Peterson, 1995). The biggest and the most effective

industrial corporations are based in the United States, Europe and Japan. Naturally the primary

objective of MNCs is profit maximization (Miyoshi, 1993). They are very effective in directing

foreign policy of states, including that of the most powerful ones, and they set agenda for

international politics. They have become a major factor in national economic decision making

process (Peterson, 1995). As mentioned by Miller (1994), the activities of MNCs “may seem

evidence of the growing inability today of the sovereign state to control and regulate effectively

economic activities within the private sector. If that is so, then one of the traditional rationales

for modern sovereignty is undermined”. One of the measures of the influence of MNCs is the

extent of the resources they control. They have enormous “flexibility in moving goods, money,

personnel, and technology across national boundaries, and this flexibility increases their

bargaining power with governments”. Dozens of MNCs have annual sales of tens of billions
of dollars each. Many of them have more economic activity than the GDPs of the majority of

the states in the world. For instance, MNCs such as General Motors, Royal Dutch Shell,

General Electric.

International Economic Order

The term international economic order refers to the set of proscribed rules, norms, and

procedures that regulate the cross-border exchange of goods, services, and capital. While

economists have persistently preached the virtues of an open economy since David

Ricardo (1772–1823), leaders have been warier because of a combination of ideological

concerns, domestic politics, and realpolitik.

For instance, currently, IMF and World Bank are trying to impose the Washington Consensus

on the Third World Countries, which is actually a new liberal agenda, which is the political

ideology of Globalization resting on state compression (i.e. rolling back the frontiers of the

state).

Non-Government Organisation (NGOs)

Non-governmental organizations are institutions that are established by non-state actors. There

are many kinds of NGOs such as transnational, government organized, government-regulated,

people’s organizations. Their number increased and their effectiveness for transnational

politics became more relevant in recent decades. They have become “crucial participants in the

international policy process” (Brown, 1995). NGOs create and mobilize global networks by

creating transnational organizations, gathering information on local conditions through

contacts around the world, alerting global network of supporters to conditions requiring

attention, creating emergency response around world, and mobilizing pressure from outside
states. They participate in Inter-Governmental Organisations (IGOs) (ASEAN etc.)

conferences by mobilizing transnational social movements organizations around issues in

IGOs, building transnational social coalitions, raising new issues, supporting IGO

development, addressing IGO meetings, submitting documents to governmental organizations’

meetings, improving skills in conference diplomacy, and increasing expertise on issues

(Mingst, 1999). They facilitate inter-state cooperation by preparing background papers and

reports, educating delegates and representatives of states to narrow technical gap, serving as

third party source of information, expanding policy options, facilitating agreements, and

bringing delegates together in third party fora. NGOs conduct many kinds of activities within

states such as linking to local partners, linking to transnational social movements with

complementary skills, working in national arenas to harmonize state policies, providing

humanitarian aid, and protecting accompaniment of persons in danger. They also enhance

public participation within states by reminding government delegates that they are being

watched, enhancing public understanding, increasing transparency of international negotiations

and institutions, and provoking public protest. As a by-product of intensified globalization

process, NGOs which operate at transnational level have become more significant determinants

of foreign policies of nation-states. Like their counterparts that operates at domestic level and

lobby in their respective countries, they lobby at international and transnational levels. Human

rights advocates, gender activists, religious movements, developmentalists, and indigenous

peoples have invaded the territory of nation-states. As pointed out by Brown (1995), “as the

countries and sectors of world society have become more and more interdependent, it has

become commonplace for nongovernmental groups representing similar communities in their

various countries to closely coordinate their policies and to constitute (or reconstitute)

themselves as international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs)”.

Terrorist Groups

Terrorist groups are enemies of peace diluting the sovereignty of the countries. These are

dubbed as Lone Lunatics, especially with access to weapons of mass destruction.

Although national liberation movements and ethnic groups sometime use terrorism, but

terrorist organizations are different from NLMs since terrorism is their main means of struggle.

Terrorist groups use terrorism as the main instrument and largely lack large-scale support from

the public. Individuals and groups engage in terrorism for different political, economic, social,

religious, cultural, and even personal reasons (Mickolus, 1995: 98). Their goals are to publicize

their grievances and aspirations to international community by hijacking, assassination,

kidnapping and attacking on embassies. Terrorism has moved from the national to transnational

level and from plane hijacking to a wider range of terrorist techniques since the 1960s. The

transnational dimension of terrorism is established when there is collusion and cooperation

between different terrorist groups and when some countries serve as sanctuaries and training-

centres for terrorists of various nationalities. While some states orient their policies by

supporting terrorist groups, some other states change their foreign policies by taking counter-

terrorist measures. One way or another, all states are influenced by terrorist activities; therefore,

no country tends to ignore terrorism. Today, terrorism is globalized like other non-state actors,

as was witnessed during the attacks directed toward the heart of the American state and the

US-led international system on September 11. That particular terrorist attack has caused more

damages than most of the attacks carried out by nation-states and shocked the whole world as

well as the US more than the Pearl Harbour attack, which made by Japanese and ended up the

US to take place in the Second World War. September 11 incident showed the world the horror

of terrorism, the vulnerability of all nations-states including the strongest one, and its

paramount effect on international politics and the world order.

International Media Order

International media agencies, which are also usually corporations, report on the social and

political situation in countries worldwide, and may therefore be highly influential as NSAs.

Ethnic Groups

Ethnic groups are also engaged in the political affairs at international level. Although they

resides mainly within an individual state, they are often affected by external forces and

increasingly spill over international borders.

Example:

Uighur Muslims in China.

ROLE OF NON- STATE ACTORS:

Some of the major role of non-state actors in international relations is as follows:

1) Changes in the concept of Sovereignty and Nationalism

The emergence of non-state actors and the transnational relations has attacked the state-centric

international system. It has changed the nature of international relations. Non-state actors have

forced a change in the concepts of sovereignty and nationalism. These have affected the role

of the nation-states as actors in international relations.

The policies, decisions and actions of the nation-states now bear the increasing influence of the

presence and activities of the non-state actors. The latter have emerged as powerful non-

political, commercial, economic, cultural or trading actors in the international environment.

Wye and Keohane have observed that IGOs, NGOs and MNCs help to build and broaden the

foreign policy agendas of national decision-makers by serving as transmission belts through

which a nation’s policies become sensitive to another’s. At the same time non-state actors are

pursuing their interests largely outside the direct control of nation-states. However these

frequently involve governments in particular problems as a result of their activities.

2) Non-state actors and the Nation-States system

The non-state actors have produced several big changes in the nation-states system as well as

in the role of the nation-state in international relations. These have been instrumental in

increasing international independence and relations, as well as in ordering and expanding

relations in this age of interdependence.

These have, overshadowed and are still overshadowing the role of the nation-state in some

areas. The low politics (Economic relations) has assumed more importance in international

relations because of the growth of several economic and functional non-state actors,

particularly the multinational corporations.

3) Non-state actors as the products of the new international system

Non-state actors are the products of the nuclear age, space age, age of communication

revolution, internationalism and globalization, which have in turn been the products of the

nation-state system. Most of these non-state actors have emerged and are working because of

the acceptance of their utility by the nation-states.

The inter-governmental organizations (ASEAN), and the international organization like the

United Nations, have their existence in their accordance with the wishes of the nation-states.
The nation-state still holds monopoly on the use of coercive power in the international system.

It still moulds the activities of non-state actors more than its behavior is molded by them.

4) A New Complexity in International Relations

Non-state actors have made international relations more complex and problematic. These have

been in the main responsible for a reduced importance of political relations in the international

system. Some of these have been acting as harbingers of international peace and security while

some others have been acting as agents of neo-colonialism and dependency for the under-

developed countries.

These have contributed towards the growth of internationalism, and dilution of nationalism in

favor of internationalism. These have also been instrumental in the emergence of several strong

peaceful, developmental and ecological movements.

BORDERLESS CAPITALISM

For instance, in describing the sphere in which the major industrial economies operate, Kenichi

Ohmae asserts that “national boundaries have effectively disappeared, and along with them,

the economic logic that made them useful lines of demarcation in the first place.”

Borderless world is a concept of globalization where the goods, services, technology,

information, capital flow through the borders from one nation to another. In this present day

world of globalization, components may be produced in one country, assembled in second

country and marketed in third country and financed from fourth country. Hence running of

businesses is changing drastically. Organizations are finding a lot of opportunities to expand

and run in other countries. Resources can also be found very easily in a borderless world.
Globalization means interaction between the masses in terms of culture, ideas, economy and

politics, across the globe. Through the Internet, people across the world can communicate with

each other within a fraction of a second, regardless of borders. A global economy has been

formed through international trading. From India to Australia, from Ghana to the United States,

from the Caribbean Islands to Saudi Arabia, from the Far East to Russia, it is under the umbrella

of a single integrated economy, that is, it is a global village. That is the product of globalization.

Consequently, scholarly attention shifted towards the changing nature of the state and whether

it retained the autonomy or capacity to perform its traditional roles, including the management

of borders. Higgins (1999) claims “Globalization represents the reality that we live in a time

when the walls of sovereignty are no protection against the movement of capital, labor,

information and ideas”. Phillips (2005) goes further, describing globalization as “an

irreversible process ... heralding the obsolescence of national entities, not only states but

economies, societies, systems of regulations and modes of governance”. Many believed the

continuing process of deterritorialization would eventually cause the state system to collapse,

causing sovereign territorial borders to crumble, resulting in a “borderless world”. Slaughter

(1997) asserted that a consequence of the global economy was the inevitable decline of the

state as a unit of economic organization, as economic outcomes would be determined by world

market forces and not national policies. Ohmae (1995) supported this argument, claiming the

state had already lost its role in the global economy as borders had become increasingly porous,

permeable and irrelevant in the face of global flows of trade, finance and information.

Green and Ruhleder (1995) reflected this line of thinking, questioning “are we heading towards

a new form of social organization? ‘A borderless world’ in which we will live as citizens is a
global village?”. It was implied that the emergence of an ‘international civil society’ or a

‘global culture’ facilitated by new communications and technology would restrict sovereign

claims by the state to its people and as a result, weaken cultural control and homogenization

over territorial space. Haas (2008), Rosenau (1993) and Nye (1994) talked about a rise of

“sovereignty free” collectivities such as global corporations, non-governmental organizations,

the media and criminal networks— all of which, they claimed would transform the

international system by eroding the capacity and authority of the state, reducing its role as a

key player.

CRISIS OF GOVERNABILITY IN INDIA

Democratic governance is measured by the level of people’s participation, free and fair

elections, accountable elected representatives, availability of information, people’s role in

decision making, women’s participation and fulfilling the expectations of the poor.

Competitive elections, positive discrimination and involvement of diverse social forces have

created space for popular participation in India. But, our democracy faces challenges from

corruption, poverty, fickle coalitions, regionalism, and violence. Real decision-making is

controlled by powerful elite groups. Sovereignty is conceived in terms of powerful

governments, not free citizens; democracy begins and ends with the ballot box. Only

Parliament is exposed to the public mandate.

Democracy has not changed the lives of millions of ordinary people in the country, who are

still unable to read and write, drink clean water, or earn a decent living. In democracies,

elections are necessary to legitimize the state; but there is a life beyond the elections, which

must be ensured.

Legitimate governments are not necessarily good governments. Human lives shrivel and the

poor remain voiceless because of sharp income inequalities, widespread feudalism, absence of

internal democracy within political parties, inadequate checks and balances, institutions and

ignorance of elected representatives.

Electorates have lost their faith in elections, which reflects in poor voters’ turnout. The political

process no longer commands the confidence of the people. Marginalised groups, desperate for

representation and bypassed by the mainstream, take up arms against the state. Human lives,

lost in these conflicts, represent the brutal costs of poor governance.

India has been ridden with civil tensions ever since the first signs of dissent in Kashmir during

the forties. Since then, various ethnic groups in Punjab, Haryana, Tamilnadu, Assam, and

Northeast India have demanded political rights and even autonomy to form a state that would

protect their interests. The assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi

highlights the culture of political violence prevailing in the country since independence.

State resources are the most valued prize for politicians and their constituencies. Ultimate

authority over resources has passed into the hands of individuals, not formal institutions. The

rise of businessmen and industrialists has led to money-politics. The license-quota-permit Raj
forged an alliance between industry and politics; lack of transparency makes their transactions

suspect. No large party has opened its accounts for independent audit. The election process is

thus reduced to an auction of political power and patronage through lucrative government

contracts. Industrialists are making illegal donations, and enjoy political clout as part of the

ruling elite.

The spread of political corruption is challenging orderly governance in India. The Vohra

Committee Report, 1995, highlighted the nexus between crime syndicates, police, bureaucracy,

and politicians. Former Prime Ministers Rajiv Gandhi and Narsimha Rao were investigated on

corruption charges. This has made institutions weak leading to plunder of public money,

lowering of trust, and decay of governance.

The Parliamentary system in India reveals a variety of corrupt practices. Parliamentary

proceedings are poorly attended and alliances are notoriously fickle. Now, regional parties have

become stronger; fragmented parliaments have made unstable coalitions unavoidable. The

country had faced its third election in as many years at immense financial cost.

The role of the judiciary lies in protecting individuals and minorities against the misuse of

power by public authorities. Despite judicial review and public interest litigation there is an

erosion of public confidence in the system itself due to lack of effective access to justice, huge

backlog of cases, long delays, and persistent corruption.

Governments are getting larger in India without getting better. Despite increase in per capita

government expenditure, the total number of poor and illiterates has increased, since these
funds do not touch the lives of ordinary people. Increased resources for social services become

meaningless due to wrong priorities, improper implementation of policies, and financial

leakage.

Despite amounting to half the electorate, women occupy just seven per cent of parliament seats.

There are repeated calls to reserve seats in the Parliament for women, but they have gone

unheeded.

Clearly, the institutions of governance in India have failed to provide social, economic and

political opportunities to its teeming millions, who happen to be born poor and are thus

marginalized. Increasing levels of crime, violence, and conflicts also reflect this reality.

Progress towards better governance will be impossible without the protection of the basic rights

of the people and their participation in development activities.

Prof. Pritchett, who has been studying the social development parameters of India and other

countries, highlighted the fact that for all its vigorous and vibrant democracy- in terms of

parameters of social development- india was doing worse than countries like Bangladesh and

Indonesia.

We have to move on three fronts to witness social or economic development. The first is at the

levels of inputs. There are two types of inputs- hardware and software. The hardware inputs

include the provision of adequate financial and physical resources in terms of infrastructure.

The old game played by the bureaucrats is to slip in surreptitiously a new scheme with a

deliberately small outlay to hoodwink the finance department and later on allow the mission

creep or programme creep to take over. The inertia in bureaucracy and budget drafting takes
care of the rest. Zero base and performance budgeting have been talked about but never

seriously pursued.

Equally important as the hardware inputs, are the software inputs. These will include human

resources- not just people, but people with right skills. Except the collector and the district

superintendent of police, 99 percent of all officers in the government right up to the cabinet

secretary and the chief secretary have no powers assigned to them by law to discharge their

functions. This lacuna has rendered our bureaucracy into a spineless hand maiden of scheming,

selfish politicians. Providing the requisite legal and financial powers to those entrusted with

the task of implementing the programme is a sine qua non. The second important aspect is strict

monitoring and implementation. The third crucial aspect is accountability. For every

programme there must be people who are held accountable and if they fail they must be

severely dealt with.

REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS

A Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) is a hypothesis in military theory about the future of

warfare, often connected to technological and organizational recommendations for military

reform.

It’s the inclusion and expansion of new technology eg drones, satellite imaging and remotely

operated vehicles within the current military tactics. RMA has made America and China as

pre- eminent military powers in the world.

RMA has generally been praised for its ability to reduce casualty rates and facilitate

intelligence gathering.

RMA is the state- of- the- art technology which comprises of C-4 ISR concept. [Command,

Control, Computers, Communication, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance].

- Command and Control is the exercise of authority and direction by a properly

designated military commander over assigned and attached forces in the

accomplishment of the mission.

- Computers have played an increasingly important role in the military. They have been

adapted or designed to do a broad range of tasks, such as analyzing intelligence,

organizing prudent data for military leaders, geospatial analysis, etc.

- Military communication is the totality of means and methods that make it possible to

exchange information in the interests of controlling military forces. The main mission

is to ensure that commanders and staffs at all levels are able to maintain continuous

control of subordinate forces under any conditions and to communicate signals to the

forces at the proper time concerning the threat of enemy attack and the implementation

of combat readiness.

- Military intelligence is a military discipline that uses information collection and

analysis approaches to provide guidance and direction to assist commanders in their

decisions. Such an intelligence can be of great value to a nation’s fighting forces

because it allows them to be privy to the strategies, weaknesses, and attitudes of the

enemy.

- Modern military systems make use of advanced imaging and video resources to carry

surveillance, reconnaissance, and information gathering missions.

 During conflict, the battlefield surveillance mission is to detect, locate, identify, and

monitor changes in the enemy’s resources: tanks, helicopters, motorized troops, air

defense batteries, etc.

Border surveillance systems have also developed to carry out all weather surveillance

and to monitor the border areas which are of great significance.

- In military operations, reconnaissance or scouting is the exploration or survey of an

area by military forces to obtain info about enemy forces, terrain, and other activities.

THE RMA AND THE EVOLUTION OF CHINA’S STRATEGIC THINKING:

The revolution in military affairs has become the biggest challenge to China’s economic

development and military modernization. To Chinese political and military leaders, RMA

is not only a new military theory but it also promises to be a new type of war of mass

destruction. The Chinese leadership has genuine reasons to be worried. The countries most

vigorously advancing RMA and most capable of bringing the concept to reality are all

China’s potential adversaries. The US, in particular, is using RMA to consolidate its

military superiority over all other countries. This has inspired the People’s Liberation Army

to formulate its long- term modernization guidelines. China will continue to reform the

PLA along the lines of RMA, gradually streamlining and digitizing its CI systems,

significantly trimming its force size and substantially restructuring its force components.

Military research and development will give greater access to new concept weapons.

National defence strategy, campaign tactics, and combat principles are also under constant

review.
 CAN EXPLAIN IN TERMS OF RECENT MILITARY DEVELOPMENTS IN

INDIA + POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE.

Main features of Liberalism. Also discuss the different types of Liberalism.

INTRODUCTION:

Liberalism is the political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the

individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government

is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize

that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. As the revolutionary American

pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in Common Sense (1776), govt is at best “a

necessary evil”. Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and

liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against him.

The problem, then, is to devise a system that gives govt the power necessary to protect

individual liberty, but also prevents those who govern from abusing that power.

The problem is compounded when one asks whether this is all that govt can or should do

on behalf of individual freedom. Some liberals answer in affirmation. Since the late 19 th

century, however, most liberals have insisted that the powers of govt can promote as well

as protect the freedom of the individual.

 In its earliest form, liberalism was a political doctrine. As reflected in the ideas of thinkers

such as John Locke, it attacked absolutism and feudal privilege, instead advocating

constitutional and, later, representative government.

According to modern liberalism, the chief task of govt is to remove obstacles that prevent

individuals from living freely or from fully realizing their potential. Such obstacles include

poverty, disease, discrimination, and ignorance.

The disagreement among liberals over whether govt should promote individual freedom

rather than merely protecting is reflected to some extent in the different prevailing

conceptions of liberalism in the US and Europe since the late 20 th century.

In the US liberalism is associated with the welfare- state policies of the govt, whereas, in

Europe, it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited govt and laissez-

faire economic policies.

LIBERALISM AND ITS KEY PRINCIPLES:

Individualism: Individualism is the core principle of liberal ideology. It reflects a belief in the

supreme importance of the human individual as opposed to any social group or collective body.

Human beings are seen, first and foremost, as individuals. This implies both that they are of

equal moral worth and that they possess separate and unique identities. The liberal goal is

therefore to construct a society within which individuals can flourish and develop, each

pursuing ‘the good’ as he or she defines it, to the best of his or her abilities.
Freedom: Individual freedom is the core value of liberalism; it is given priority over, say,

equality, justice or authority. This arises naturally from a belief in the individual and the desire

to ensure that each person is able to act as he or she pleases or chooses. Nevertheless, liberals

advocate ‘freedom under the law’, as they recognize that one person’s liberty may be a threat

to the liberty of others; liberty may become licence. They therefore endorse the ideal that

individuals should enjoy the maximum possible liberty consistent with a like liberty for all.

Reason: Liberals believe that the world has a rational structure, and that this can be uncovered

through the exercise of human reason and by critical enquiry. This inclines them to place their

faith in the ability of individuals to make wise judgements on their own behalf, being, in most

cases, the best judges of their own interests. It also encourages liberals to believe in progress

and the capacity of human beings to resolve their differences through debate and argument,

rather than bloodshed and war.

Equality: Individualism implies a belief in foundational equality: that is, the belief that

individuals are ‘born equal’, at least in terms of moral worth. This is reflected in a liberal

commitment to equal rights and entitlements, notably in the form of legal equality (‘equality

before the law’) and political equality (‘one person, one vote; one vote, one value’). However,

as individuals do not possess the same levels of talent or willingness to work, liberals do not

endorse social equality or an equality of outcome. Rather, they favour equality of opportunity

(a ‘level playing field’) that gives all individuals an equal chance to realize their unequal

potential. Liberals therefore support the principle of meritocracy, with merit reflecting,

crudely, talent plus hard work.

Toleration: Liberals believe that toleration or forbearance is both a guarantee of individual

liberty and a means of social enrichment. They believe that pluralism, in the form of moral,

cultural and political diversity, is positively healthy: it promotes debate and intellectual

progress by ensuring that all beliefs are tested in a free market of ideas.

Consent: In the liberal view, authority and social relationships should always be based on

consent or willing agreement. Government must therefore be based on the ‘consent of the

governed’. This is a doctrine that encourages liberals to favour representation and democracy,

notably in the form of liberal democracy. Similarly, social bodies and associations are formed

through contracts willingly entered into by individuals intent on pursuing their own self-

interest. In this sense, authority arises ‘from below’ and is always grounded in legitimacy.

Constitutionalism: Although liberals see government as a vital guarantee of order and stability

in society, they are constantly aware of the danger that government may become a tyranny

against the individual (‘power tends to corrupt’ (Lord Acton)). They therefore believe in

limited government. This goal can be attained through the fragmentation of government power,

by the creation of checks and balances amongst the various institutions of government, and by

the establishment of a codified or ‘written’ constitution embodying a bill of rights that defines

the relationship between the state and the individual.

Liberalism treats market society as the model of social organization where role of the state

should be confined to the protection of individuals' life and property, enforcement of contracts,

and maintenance of minimum common services which would not be undertaken by private

entrepreneurs

DIFFERENT TYPES OF LIBERALISM:

Classical liberalism

The central theme of classical liberalism is a commitment to an extreme form of individualism.

Human beings are seen as egoistical, self-seeking and largely self-reliant creatures. In what C.

B. Macpherson (1962) termed ‘possessive individualism’, they are taken to be the proprietors

of their own persons and capacities, owing nothing to society or to other individuals. This

atomist view of society is underpinned by a belief in ‘negative’ liberty, meaning non-

interference, or the absence of external constraints on the individual. This implies a deeply

unsympathetic attitude towards the state and all forms of government intervention.

In Tom Paine’s words, the state is a ‘necessary evil’. It is ‘necessary’ in that, at the very least,

it establishes order and security, and ensures that contracts are enforced. However, it is ‘evil’

in that it imposes a collective will on society, thus limiting the freedom and responsibilities of

the individual. The classical liberal ideal is therefore the establishment of a minimal or

‘nightwatchman’ state, with a role that is limited to the protection of citizens from the

encroachments of fellow citizens.

Modern liberalism

Modern liberalism is characterized by a more sympathetic attitude towards state intervention.

Indeed, in the USA, the term ‘liberal’ is invariably taken to imply support for ‘big’ government

rather than ‘minimal’ government. This shift was born out of the recognition that industrial

capitalism had merely generated new forms of injustice and left the mass of the population

subject to the vagaries of the market. Influenced by the work of J. S. Mill, the so-called ‘New

Liberals’ (figures such as T. H. Green, L. T. Hobhouse and J. A. Hobson) championed a

broader, ‘positive’ view of freedom. From this perspective, freedom does not just mean being

left alone, which might imply nothing more than the freedom to starve. Rather, it is linked to

personal development and the flourishing of the individual; that is, the ability of the individual

to gain fulfilment and achieve self-realization.

This view provided the basis for social or welfare liberalism. This is characterized by the

recognition that state intervention, particularly in the form of social welfare, can enlarge liberty

by safeguarding individuals from the social evils that blight individual existence. These evils

were identified in the UK by the 1942 Beveridge Report as the ‘five giants’: want, ignorance,

idleness, squalor and disease. In the same way, modern liberals abandoned their belief in

laissez-faire capitalism, largely as a result of J. M. Keynes’ insight that growth and prosperity

could be maintained only through a system of managed or regulated capitalism, with key

economic responsibilities being placed in the hands of the state. Nevertheless, modern liberals’

support for collective provision and government intervention has always been conditional.

Their concern has been with the plight of the weak and vulnerable, those who are literally not

able to help themselves. Their goal is to raise individuals to the point where they are able, once

again, to take responsibility for their own circumstances and make their own moral choices.

The most influential modern attempt to reconcile the principles of liberalism with the politics

of welfare and redistribution was undertaken by John Rawls.

Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism is an updated version of classical political economy that was developed in the

writings of free-market economists such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, and
philosophers such as Robert Nozick. The central pillars of neoliberalism are the market and

the individual. The principal neoliberal goal is to ‘roll back the frontiers of the state’, in the

belief that unregulated market capitalism will deliver efficiency, growth and widespread

prosperity. In this view, the ‘dead hand’ of the state saps initiative and discourages enterprise;

government, however well-intentioned, invariably has a damaging effect on human affairs.

This is reflected in the liberal New Right’s concern with the politics of ownership, and its

preference for private enterprise over state enterprise or nationalization: in short, ‘private,

good; public, bad’. Such ideas are associated with a form of rugged individualism, expressed

in Margaret Thatcher’s famous assertion that ‘there is no such thing as society, only individuals

and their families’. The ‘nanny state’ is seen to breed a culture of dependence and to

undermine freedom, which is understood as freedom of choice in the marketplace.

Instead, faith is placed in self-help, individual responsibility, and entrepreneurialism. Such

ideas are widely seen to be advanced through the process of globalization, viewed by some as

neoliberal globalization.

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL:

Liberalism is, no doubt, a dynamic political philosophy which has responded to the changing

needs of time. However, like any other ideology, it has failed to redeem mankind from its

predicament. In fact, liberalism has clung to capitalism so firmly that all its new ventures appear

to be new devices for sustaining the capitalist system or justifying its existence.

Actual Imbalance of Group Interests

Contemporary liberalism upholds representative democracy on the assumption that the state

represents the interests of all groups within society and. that it ensures reconciliation of

conflicting interests. This could be true in the case of some societies but it cannot be

demonstrated as a universal phenomenon. In developing nations, it is particularly evident that

various groups are not equally conscious of their interests, nor are they equally well-organized,

nor equally vocal. Usually, these countries are dominated by 'vested interests'.

For instance, in India a handful of business interests are very well-organized, active and vocal

while the tremendously large body of consumers is not adequately organized. Thus, in spite of

decisions being taken by representative institutions, in practice, there is an obvious imbalance

in the sphere of protection of the interests of the various groups.

CONTRIBUTION OF LIBERALISM:

The greatest merit of liberalism lies in initiating the process of replacing traditionalism by

modern rationalism. In other words, it asserted that socioeconomic relations of men in society,

which were hitherto based on 'tradition', should now be based on 'reason'. Since this process

was started by the new middle class—the merchants and the industrialists—they were the first

to benefit from this change; feudalism was replaced by capitalism not only in the economic

sphere, but corresponding changes were brought about in the political sphere as well.

Once the process of redefining social relations from the point of view of 'reason' had started, it

could not be stopped from reaching its logical conclusion: the rise of socialism. Socialism

sought a better deal for the working class on the same principle of 'reason' which was initially

invoked by liberalism. Faith in 'reason' is a dynamic force. Liberalism, therefore, did not
hesitate to transform itself as and when it was faced with new challenges. This has led to new

insights as regards the principles of freedom, equality, justice, democracy, progress, and other

human values.

Austinian concept of ‘sovereignty’

INTRODUCTION:

Sovereignty is the supreme power or authority within a territory. It is a modern notion of

political authority. The state is the political institution in which sovereignty is embodied.

The word sovereignty is taken from a Latin word ‘Supernus’ meaning supreme. The supreme

power of the state is its sovereign power.

AUSTIN’S CONCEPT OF SOVEREIGNTY:

Historical context- Austin placed the notion of sovereignty at the basis of his theory of

law. Austin borrowed from the European experience he had. The sudden break up of the

Roman empire after thousands of years of peaceful rule made people realize that peace can

be maintained only through a single unified authority with infinite power of command at

its disposal. So Austin gave a command theory of law. Moreover, Austin wrote his works

at a time when England was in need of vast legislative reforms.

Austin’s ideas of sovereignty- For Austin laws are commands of sovereign supported by

sanction. The word law presupposes a command that obliges a person to a course of

conduct, being a command it must issue from a determinate person with the threat of

displeasure if not obeyed.

Austin was a jurist, not a political theorist. He believed that things are not right or wrong,

but they are legal or illegal.

Austin’s concept of sovereignty has been discussed in his book ‘Province of Jurisprudence

Determined’. He had written that, “The matter of jurisprudence is positive law, law simply

and strictly so called or laws set by political superiors to political inferiors.”

Limits of the sovereign:

Since every law in an independent political society is set directly or indirectly by a

sovereign person to a person in a state of subjection, therefore it follows from the nature of

sovereign that the power of a monarch is incapable of legal limitation. If a monarch was

bound by the commands of another superior he cannot be the sovereign. The power of the

sovereign imposing restraints would be free from fetters of positive law. According to

Austin even though sovereign bodies have attempted to oblige themselves or to oblige their

successors to their sovereign powers the position that they are incapable of any limitation

will hold true universally. He clearly states that the laws imposed by sovereign on

themselves are merely "rules of positive morality", they are merely principle that they adopt

as guidelines, sovereign is not constrained to observe it by a legal or political sanction, for

if the sovereign was legally bound to observe it, the sovereign would be in a state of

subjection to a higher superior or sovereign.

Rationale behind obeying a sovereign - According to Austin the purpose for which

the sovereign exists is the greatest possible advancement of human happiness, of the people

of the community which the deity has commanded it to rule. From this proper purpose for

which sovereign exists, Austin infers the cause of habitual obedience which he says is

bottomed in the principle of utility. If the enlightened masses thought that sovereign

accomplished its proper purpose, this would be their motive to obey. If they deemed the

government to be faulty a fear that the evil of resistance might surpass the evil of obedience

would be their inducement to summit to the sovereign, for they would not persist in

obedience to a government which they deemed imperfect if they thought a better

government might probably be got by resistance. But Austin takes into account also those

who are not adequately informed or enlightened, he says that such people render obedience

as a consequence of custom, they pay obedience as they are in a habit of obeying, here

prejudice and not utility is the factor that is responsible for obedience. The habitual

obedience arises from a perception by the bulk of the community of the utility of the

government or a preference of any government to anarchy. Thus, according to him the

general cause of permanence of government is that the general masses were desirous of

escaping to a state of government from a state of anarchy. Thus, they submit freely or

voluntarily to a sovereign.

Critical Analysis of His Concept of Sovereignty:

According to Austin only those commands that are given by a political superior i.e.

sovereign are laws, this would mean that the existence of a state or sovereign is a pre

condition for laws to be formed & obeyed. This definition of law cannot stand the scrutiny

of history. Historically law is older than any form of government or state. Through a mature
political system, a state may develop a machinery for creating, applying and enforcing the

rules but no doubt, laws may exist even in the absence of a state machinery. Duguit said

that, “it’s not the state which creates the law, but the law which creates the state.” He also

said that “law is binding since it is necessary for the attainment of social solidarity.”

Any era in human history would defy the definition of law given by Austin.

Even in primitive societies where there was no organized state or sovereign, there were

rules behind which the community threw the whole weight of its organization. In the middle

ages an application of Austinian definition would give very less compass to law. Definition

of law given by Austin was incomplete from an anthropologists view.

The power of sovereignty according to Austin is incapable of legal limitation, thus it

follows that the notion that rules of law might bind sovereign in their dealings was foreign

to Austin. This means that within his territory a sovereign is free from all restraints as he is

the sovereign.

In modern democratic states which are ruled by the constitution and where authority is

decentralized, it's difficult to find a determinate human superior in Austin’s sense of terms.

Other criticism was given by Henry Maine. He believed that this theory of sovereignty

given by Austin does not apply to developing, undeveloped and Least developed societies

because the concept of law in these countries which according to Austin is a command of

the sovereignty is NOT FULLY DEVELOPED.

Most of the laws in these countries are based on customs, traditions which result in a

common consciousness of the people of which sovereignty is a part. He can’t change them

as and when he likes!

 Force theory of origin of state

INTRODUCTION:

The theory advocates the argument that man, apart from being a social animal, is bellicose by

nature. There is also a lust for power in him.

historically it means that the govt is the outcome of human aggression, that the beginnings of

the state are to be sought in the capture and enslavement of man by man, in the conquest and

subjugation of feebler tribes and in the self- seeking domination acquired by superior physical

force. The progressive growth from the tribe to the kingdom and from the kingdom to the

empire is a continuation of the same process.

The theory tells us that the state is primarily the result of forcible subjugation through long

continued warfare, among primitive groups and historically saying, as Jenks says, “There is

not the slightest difficulty in proving that all political communities of the modern type owe

their existence to successful warfare.”

Once the state had been established, force, which had hitherto been utilized for subjugating

others, was used to maintain internal order and make it secure from any kind of external

aggression.

But this alone was not sufficient. Force was used as the sinews of war and power and a bid for

superiority. One State fought against another, eliminating the weaker and only those who

survived, which could not be conquered. No venture was made to conquer them as they were

comparatively Powerful.

The theory has, thus, four Implications. First, force is not only a historical factor. Still, it is the

present essential feature of the State secondly, that the States were born of force only thirdly,
that power is their justification and raison d’etre and, finally, that the maintenance and

extension of power within and without is the sole aim of the State.

As every dispute is settled by the use of force, it makes one the ‘victor’ and other the ‘vanquish’.

THE THEORY IS USED IN SUPPORT OF DIVERSE PURPOSES:

Different thinkers and writers have advanced the theory of Force for advocating their own point

of view.

In modern times, the individualists owned the theory to protect individual liberty against govt

encroachment. They characterized the state as a necessary evil and argued that the state should

leave the individual alone, laissez- faire, and should not interfere in what he does, except for

the maintenance of internal peace and external security. The individualists base their arguments

on the principle of survival of the fittest and prove that only the strong survives and the weak

goes to the wall.

On the other hand, the Socialists hold that the state is the outcome of aggressive exploitation

of the weaker by, the stronger, the latter constituting the propertied class who had ever staffed

administration and directed the government’s machinery to their own benefit. The existing

industrial organization system, it is maintained hinges upon force because a part of the

community has succeeded in defrauding their fellows of the just reward of their labor. They

further argue that force is the origin of civil society. The govt represents merely the coercive

organization that tends to curb and exploit the working class to maintain the propertied class’s

privileged position.
On the other hand, Hitler and Mussolini regarded force as the normal means for maintaining a

nation’s prestige, cultural influence, commercial supremacy in the world, and holding the

allegiance of citizens at home. This general doctrine of political authoritarianism, both with

Hitler and Mussolini, became a creed of dominance by intimidation militancy in international

relations, and forcible suppression of political dissent in domestic government.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE THEORY:

The Force Theory, indeed, has played an important part in the origin and development of the

state. Some of the greatest empires of today have been established through Blood and Iron

policies. Force is an essential element of the state. Internally, the state requires force to ensure

obedience to its commands. Externally, it is necessary to repel aggression and to preserve the

integrity of the state. Without force, no state can exist, and the state’s sovereignty always rests

ultimately on the force. Kant said, “Even a population of devils would find it to their advantage

to establish a coercive state by General consent.”

But, all this does not sufficiently explain the origin of the state. Force is no doubt, one of the

factors which contributed to the evolution of the State. However, it is not the only one nor the

most important factor. The theory of force errs in magnifying What has been only one factor

in society’s evolution into the sole controlling force. Force is, also, not the only basis of the

State. Something other than force is necessary for binding the people together. It is a will, not

force, Which is the real basis of the State. Sheer force can hold nothing together because force

always disrupts unless it is made subservient to the common will. The force we do need in

maintaining the State, but its indiscriminate use cannot be permitted. It must be used as a

medicine and not a daily diet as force is the State’s criterion and not its essence. If it becomes

the State’s essence, the State will last so long as force can last. Indiscriminate use of force has
always been the former of revolutions, overthrowing governments which rest on force. Since

the State is a permanent institution, the only moral force can be its permanent foundation.

Moreover, the Theory of Force unduly emphasizes the principle of the survival of the fittest. It

means that might is right, and those who are physically weak should go to the wall. It is

dangerous to employ such a principle in the State Might’s internal existence without right is

antagonistic to individual liberty. The State is duty-bound to protect the weak and the strong

equally and create equal opportunities for all. Externally if might is the supreme right, and the

dispute as to what is right is decided by the arbitrament of war, there can be no international

peace. Every State will be at perpetual war with the rest. This is a condition of chaos, pure and

simple, endangering the world’s peace and security.

Marxian theory of state

INTRODUCTION:

Karl Marx was a great sociologist and a revolutionary who undertook a critical analysis of

capitalist society, propounded materialistic interpretation of history and showed the way for

transition to communism.

Marx regarded the state, regardless of the forms of govt, as an evil, because it was a product of

a society saddled with irreconcilable class struggles. Marx was also critical of Hegel’s analysis

of the state. The state for him was not, as Hegel described, a “march of God on earth”, but an

instrument of the dominant economic class exploiting and oppressing the other sections of

society.
Marxist theory of the state is an alternative to pluralist theory of the state. Marxists argue that

the state maintains the class system by either oppressing subordinate classes or elevating class

conflict.

In a capitalist society, the state, as defined by Marx in the Communist Manifesto, was “the

executive committee of the bourgeoisie”.

THEORY OF STATE:

Marx's view on state emerges from his interpretation of history in terms of means of production

and class exploitation. He took a radically different position from all earlier political

philosophers and thinkers who all saw the state as a representative of the society as a whole.

Marx argued the state as it had always been in Europe was never either a natural institution

formed as a result of social contract or a moral divine creation. He theorized that the state had

always been an instrument for class domination and exploitation by the dominant economic

class. Marx argued that the state in a society is divided along class lines or is composed of

different economic classes and can never exist in the general interest but only in the interest of

the propertied classes. He states in the Communist Manifesto, 'the executive of the modern

state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie and also

that the state is 'nothing more than the form of organization which the bourgeoisie necessarily

adopts both for internal and external purposes for the mutual guarantee of their property and

interests'. He also stated that the state in a liberal capitalist democracy only pretends to mediate

in disputes and conflicts among the economic classes or the rich and the poor but never really

does so. As for the origin of the state, Engels and Marx have theorized that the state has not

existed for ever but it was only at a particular point in history when society was divided into

propertied and non-propertied classes that the state became a necessity for the propertied to
protect their properties and class interests and to manage conflicts and disputes arising out of

property.

Engels stated that the state had three characteristics:

(a) it divided the people according to territory,

(b) it maintained an armed coercive capability by way of a police and military to project its

authority and

(c) to finance and maintain its public power and authority it imposed and levied taxes on the

population.

Marx and Engels thus argued since the state arose as a consequence of conflict among classes,

it was under the influence of the dominant classes from the beginning and was used by them

as a tool for holding down and the exploiting the subordinate and oppressed classes. They

further illustrate their point historically by arguing how during the Greek period the state

belonged to the masters who dominated over the slaves and during the medieval period, it

belonged to the feudal lords for holding down the peasants, serfs and bondsmen, and in the

modern capitalist industrial state it became an instrument of exploitation of the working classes

by the owners of industry. The state has assumed different forms at different times like

monarchy, aristocracy, democracy but it has always maintained its basic class character and

has remained as a tool in the hands of the propertied rich to oppress the lower and poorer

classes. So, Marx and Engels argued that there is no possibility of human emancipation as long

as state exists because the state can only exist as a tool for the exploitation of one class by

another.
Marx argued, ‘in any society which is class divided as any capitalist liberal society as the state

cannot be a true democracy because a true democracy is only possible in a classless society’.

In a class divided society the rich using their money power can buy the loyalty and services of

everyone from the politicians to the police to the bureaucracy and the legal system and thus not

allow the intended meaning of democracy to be realized in reality. The Marxists prescription

to correct this is that since the state is not inherently an eternal institution, by changing the

control over means of economic production from a few rich families to the whole society the

class system would stand abolished and consequently the need for a state would vanish. This

new society is thus to be achieved by the proletariat in a revolution which will have as its

objective the abolition of private property, reconstruction of the economic system on socialist

basis and the establishment of a classless society. Once a classless society is established the

state will become a less relevant institution. Once, the socialist state is established it serves the

interests of the working class. It is only in a communist classless society where a state becomes

irrelevant or non-existent in a real sense. Marx in his theory or prescription of a revolution by

the proletariat talks about using the institution of a state to build a socialist society. The state

established by the proletariat after a revolution is also a class state but the purpose of the state

becomes to abolish classes and class conflict consequently.

The functions of the state in a socialist society are (a) the establishment of the dictatorship of

the proletariat, (b)destruction of the capitalist mode of production, and (c) establishment of a

socialist mode of production and socialist society.

This will be achieved by suppressing the bourgeois classes, confiscation of their property and

reorganization of its economy on socialist lines. Marx accepted and argued that political

repression and dictatorship may be necessary during this initial period for the socialist
revolution to destroy private property and help the proletariat assume control of the means of

production. As class division and class struggle as a consequence ends it creates the conditions

for the state itself to wither away. Equality in society will mean there will be no ruling classes

and there will be no private property. Coercion and power will cease to exist and everyone will

have equal status as a contributor to society.

Neo-Marxism

A more complex and subtle form of Marxism developed in Western Europe. By contrast with

the mechanistic and avowedly scientific notions of Soviet Marxism, Western Marxism or neo-

Marxism tended to be influenced by Hegelian ideas and by the stress on ‘Man the creator’

found in Marx’s early writings. In other words, human beings were seen as makers of history,

and not simply as puppets controlled by impersonal material forces. By insisting that there was

an interplay between economics and politics, between the material circumstances of life and

the capacity of human beings to shape their own destinies, neo-Marxists were able to break

free from the rigid ‘base–superstructure’ straitjacket. This indicated an unwillingness to treat

the class struggle as the beginning and end of social analysis.

The Hungarian Marxist Georg Lukács (1885–1971) was one of the first to present Marxism as

a humanistic philosophy. He emphasized the process of ‘reification’, through which capitalism

dehumanizes workers by reducing them to passive objects or marketable commodities. In his

Prison Notebooks, written in 1929–35, Antonio Gramsci emphasized the degree to which

capitalism was maintained not merely by economic domination, but also by political and

cultural factors.
 While early critical theorists were primarily concerned with the analysis of discrete societies,

later theorists have tended to give greater attention to uncovering inequalities and asymmetries

in world affairs. This has been evident in an emphasis on the hegemonic power of the USA and

the analysis of capitalism as a ‘world-system’.

Hobbes concept of leviathan

 According to Hobbes, life of man in the state of nature is one of continuous warfare on

account of the essentially selfish nature of man. In his own words, the life of a man is

‘solitary’, ‘poor’, ‘nasty’, ‘brutish’, and ‘short’.

Therefore, man thought of getting the source of all pleasures i.e. power.

Hence, according to Hobbes, man is engaged in a perceptual struggle to acquire more and

more power that ceases only with death as power is the ultimate source of happiness.

So, men to escape from this horrible state of nature, enter into a contract among themselves.

By this contract, everybody surrendered their natural rights – Right to life, Liberty and

Property, to an entity called Leviathan.

So, the hallmark of this contract was that it was a one- way contract. Sovereign is the protector

of common wealth and he is not accountable to the people as he is not party to the contract.

No separate laws were needed to be coded. His obligation was obligatory and people had no

right to revolt. So, people could revolt only when this right is violated, they otherwise, had

to render unquestionable obedience.

Hobbes prefers monarchy, but all his abstract arguments are equally applicable to all forms of

govt in which there is one supreme authority not limited by the legal rights of other bodies. He

could tolerate Parliament alone, but not a system in which governmental power is shared

between king and parliament. This is the exact antithesis to the views of Locke and

Montesquieu.

The English Civil War occurred, says Hobbes, because power was divided between King,

Lords, and Commons. The supreme power, whether a man or an assembly, is called the

Sovereign. The powers of the sovereign, in Hobbes’s system, are unlimited. He has the right

of censorship over all expression of opinion. It is assumed that his main interest is the

preservation of internal peace, and that therefore he will not use the power of censorship to

suppress truth, for a doctrine repugnant to peace cannot be true. (A singularly pragmatist view!)

The laws of property are to be entirely subject to the sovereign; for in a state of nature there is

no property, and therefore property is created by government, which may control its creation

as it pleases. It is admitted that the sovereign may be despotic, but even the worst despotism is

better than anarchy. Moreover, in many points the interests of the sovereign are identical with

those of his subjects. He is richer if they are richer, safer if they are law-abiding, and so on.

Rebellion is wrong, both because it usually fails, and because, if it succeeds, it sets a bad

example, and teaches others to rebel.

The image of the state as a ‘leviathan’ is one associated in modern politics with the New Right.

The New Right, or at least its neoliberal wing, is distinguished by a strong antipathy towards

state intervention in economic and social life, born out of the belief that the state is a parasitic

growth that threatens both individual liberty and economic security. In this view, the state,
instead of being, as pluralists suggest, an impartial umpire or arbiter, is an overbearing ‘nanny’,

desperate to interfere or meddle in every aspect of human existence.

NOW ADD WHATEVER U WISH. I DUNNO HOW TO EXPAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Plato theory of justice

Introduction

The question of justice has been central to every society, and in every age, it surrounds itself

with debate. Justice has been the most critical part of a person's morality since time

immemorial. Perhaps, it is for this reason that Plato, the ancient Greek philosopher, considered

it crucial to reach a theory of justice.

Finding out the principles of justice is the main concern in Plato's Republic, to the extent that

it is also subtitled as ‘Concerning Justice’.

Ethics and Justice

In the Greek tradition of philosophy, political science was formulated after ethics. Ethics is

referred to as a branch of learning that associates itself with good conduct. Ethics is, thus, that

branch of philosophy that studies morality and deals with the questions of right and wrong.
The Greeks have considered ethics to be the foundations of Politics and Justice. According to

Greek philosophy, the state comes into existence for the sake of life and continues for the sake

of a good life, which makes it essential to have a "just society and a just state."

Plato, who can also be called the pioneer of Western Political Thought, viewed justice as a

central question when dealing with politics (here, politics denote the subject of political

science).

Plato and his thoughts

Greek political thought originates from Socrates. Plato was one of the most brilliant disciples

of Socrates. Plato is considered the pioneer of Western Political thought today. It is because

his mentor, Socrates, did not produce any writing, and we know of his thoughts only from the

writings of Plato.

Plato, whose original name is Aristocles, was interested in pursuing philosophy and searching

for the "truth". After the tragic death of Socrates, Plato produced various works on questions

of State, Law, Justice, Politics and Philosophy. The Republic, in particular, is one of his most

famous works. It deals with a wide range of ideas, and many of those ideas are relevant and are

studied to date.

PLATO’S THEORY OF JUSTICE:

The Greek word for justice is dikaiosyni has a wider implication than the English word justice

and come closer to the English word ‘righteousness’ and ‘morality’. It represents a disposition
to do the right thing. Plato saw in justice as the only remedy against the political and social ills

of the city state.

Use of Large letters

- Plato uses the analogy of large letters to begin. If a person is asked to read small letters

from a distance, he may not make them out easily. But if the same person is now shown

the same letters in large and bold font, he will understand them better. And when he

again tries to read the small letters now, it becomes more clear to him. Plato says that

letters that are large and bold are understood clearly and they will help in understanding

small letters easily. In a similar manner, the idea of justice can be better understood first

from the point of a state and then applied to the individual. This is because Plato

believed that ‘State is the individual writ large’.

- He says that a first political community came into existence, when a farmer, a

craftsman, a blacksmith came together. They realize that each of them cannot fulfill

their own needs, but can mutually benefit each other from their own skills. That meant

a farmer produced crops for himself along with other non farmers, a blacksmith made

tools for others and so on. This lead to specialization of their work and later exchange

of goods and services each of them specialized.

- As such communities grew further, and needs also grew accordingly, there arose

conflict between communities. Protection of this city states against external attack and

maintaining of law and order internally became necessary. Thus emerged a new class

of people called guardians. Again, among the guardians the people with higher intellect

were to be the rulers of the city state.

Organic nature of the state

- Plato gives the organic nature of a state. State is a social organism. It consists of three

classes. These are the ruling class, auxiliary class and the producer class. Like the

various organs of a human being must work in coordination for the human being to

exist, the three classes of the state must work in perfect harmony to achieve justice in

the state.

- The ruling class consisted of the philosopher kings who possess the character of reason

and Plato calls them the men of gold.

- The auxiliary class or the warrior class consisted of the soldiers who possess the

character of spirit and Plato calls them the men of silver.

- The producer class consisted of the peasants and the artisans who possess the character

of appetite and Plato calls them the men of iron.

- Plato gave important to reason and therefore, the people who possessed reason were

supposed to rule. Their rule was to the advantage of all the three classes in the state.

CONCLUSION:

Plato's theory of Justice is famously known as the Architectonic Theory of Justice. He explains

that as during the construction of a building, each part is assigned to different artisans, but the

architect combines it to contribute to the final outlay of the building and add to its splendour.

Similarly, the three cardinal virtues, namely Temperance, Courage, and Wisdom, would be

cultivated by Traders, Soldiers and Philosopher class, respectively, and Justice, the fourth

virtue, would act as the architect establishing a perfect state. Due to this inference between
architecture and the organisation of society, his theory is also called the Architectonic Theory

of Justice.

Machiavelli as the child of his times

Machiavelli belonged to the region which is presently known as Italy. He belonged to the time

when medieval age was coming to an end and modern age was about to begin. Machiavelli is

called as the child of Renaissance. The most famous book of Machiavelli is “The Prince”. In

Machiavelli’s times, we see the separation of Church and State. Thus, he is the originator of

the concept of European model of secularism. Reason led to the scientific revolution which in

turn led to the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution led to the rise of capitalism, which

gave birth to materialism, individualism, utilitarianism. Capitalism also led to the emergence

of nationalism.

Every thinker represents the interest of a particular section of the society. Machiavelli

represents the interest of the emerging Bourgeoisie class or capitalist class. Machiavelli was

the champion of nationalism.

He believes that matter is real. He believes that man is materialist by nature.

Machiavelli is elitist. He makes difference between the prince and the common man.
If Plato believes that King should have knowledge of philosophy, Machiavelli believes that

prince should Have the knowledge of Human psychology and The knowledge of History.

Machiavelli belonged to the time when nation states had started emerging in Europe. He

belonged to the region known as Italy. Italy had not emerged as a nation state. Italy was divided

among the five principalities or feudal states. They were fighting among themselves. Hence

Italy was vulnerable to the external attacks. Hence Machiavelli wanted the consolidation of

Italy and emergence of Italy as a nation state. There was impact of the corruption of church on

the people. Machiavelli had a first hand experience of politics. He was a great patriot and he

wanted that his motherland should regain its glory.

If Plato deals with the philosophy of the state, Machiavelli deals with the art of politics.

Statecraft is the management of power. Since Machiavelli gives the power view of politics, he

is known as father of political realism.

The prince contains set of instructions for any enterprising person. Who wants to come to power

and consolidate his power.

Machiavelli was against feudalism. Machiavelli represents the psychology of the emerging

capitalist class.

According to Machiavelli, Politics is not ethics. Politics is uninspiring, yet it is the fact. In

politics, prince will meet such people who are not good, hence prince should not try to find

goodness in every profession. If prince will try to find goodness in politics, he is bound to be

disappointed and may get hurt. Hence prince should know, how to be bad, rather than how to

be good.

Criticism.
Machiavelli is one of the most criticized figure in the history of the western philosophy. It is

irony that he was criticized for telling the truth. According to Dunning, it is a paradox that

everyone is Machiavellian in politics but no one accepts himself to be Machiavellian. One of

the major critic of Machiavelli is Sabine. According to Sabine, Machiavelli’s thoughts are

‘narrowly dated and narrowly located.’ Thus, according to Sabine, Machiavelli gives a very

pessimistic view of politics because of his experience of the conditions prevailing in Italy

during his time. Had he belonged to some other time and space, his views would have been

different. It is true that Machiavelli’s ideas were the product of his times but it would not be

correct to say that Machiavelli’s ideas lack universalism or transcendentalism.

Man is selfish, coward, fickle minded, ungrateful, fearful and avaricious. It is based on the

analysis of what he observed and the understanding of history.

Politics should be based on understanding of human nature. Since prince has to deal with

humans, he must understand the human nature as it is rather than as prince think it should be.

Basis of Machiavelli’s views on human nature.

According to Machiavelli, history is the best guide to politics. On the basis of observations

from his times and as found in history, he gives his views on human nature. According to

Machiavelli, throughout human history human nature has remained constant. The elemental

characteristics of the human nature are:

Since man is selfish, man will always give primacy to his own interest, over the interest of the

prince. Since man is selfish by nature, man is ungrateful by nature. It means man will forget

the favors done to him by the prince, in case his interests demand so. Since man is selfish, man

is fickle minded, it can easily change the sides.

Above analysis show that the prince cannot take the support of any person for granted. Prince

should always be careful because anyone can betray him anytime.

Since man is coward by nature, man is also fearful by nature. Man is fearful or insecure.

Though the qualities like selfishness go against the interest of the prince, the qualities that man

is coward and fearful can be manipulated by the prince to his own advantage. So long prince

is able to convince that only prince can provide security of life, people will remain obliged to

prince.

Man is materialist by nature. Man has a love for property. Hence if prince create conditions

where people make money or earn property, then also they will remain loyal to prince e.g.

China’s cheque book diplomacy.

Machiavelli also suggests prince that a ‘wise prince’ never confiscates he rather execute. It

means prince should never take the property of the other person. It is better to kill that person

than to take his property. “Man can forget the loss of his father, but will never forget the loss

of his patrimony.”

Prince should be clever like fox and brave like lion. Prince must understand that politics is not

a profession of goodness. Hence prince should know how to be bad than to be good.

Prince should be clever like fox to understand the traps, he should be brave like lion to defend

himself against wolfs.

Analysis.

Since the time of Plato, reason and courage are the qualities of the ruling class. There is a

continuity in Plato, and Machiavelli. What Plato tells, in rather ambiguous sense, Machiavelli

tells in explicit sense. Similar views were represented by Kautilya (Chanakya) regarding inter-
state relations. According to Kautilya relations between states are like jungle where the strength

of lion prevails. In modern times all states need intelligence and defense to protect themselves.

According to Sabine, Machiavelli is narrowly dated and located. It is true that Machiavelli was

child of his times, yet it would not be rational, if we ignore Machiavelli’s advices. Machiavelli

is a realist, who brings forth the reality of world of politics and his advices cannot be ignored.

“It is better for prince to be feared than to be loved.”

According to Machiavelli statecraft is the management of power. Prince should know the

proper use of power.

According to Machiavelli, prince should be ‘a cold blooded man’. He should not act with

passions. His actions should be based on the calculated options. According to Machiavelli,

power has two dimensions, force and love. According to him, prince should choose the option

of force only after proper calculation. Force should not be the first option. However prince has

to ultimately rely on force. Force should not be the first option because it requires lot of

resources. When prince decides to use force, he should use the force completely, to crush the

enemy. Not leave him alive to take the revenge.

In politics, prince has to take decisions which are not only correct, but also timely. While taking

decisions, he may face ethical dilemma. It may harm the national interest. Hence he suggests

that prince should not worry about ethics. Politics is not ethics, political actions to be judged

not by the standards of ethics or religion, but ethics of politics. Action may be ethically wrong,
but politically correct. The ethics of politics is ability of the prince to secure the national

interest.

If prince has sacrificed ends for the purity of means, no one will excuse the prince. However if

prince has achieved his aims, it itself justify the means.

Machiavelli is often criticized for the above advice. He was specifically criticized by Gandhi

who believed in purity of means. In his book Hind Swaraj, Gandhi says “It is illogical to believe

that a rose flower will grow by sowing the seed of Babul.” Sabine also says that “Machiavelli’s

views are narrowly dated and located.” Machiavelli is accused of preaching immorality,

Machiavelli is not immoral rather amoral. He does not want prince to be immoral in personal

life. He invents the concept of dual morality means the morality of a prince will be different

from the common man.

Today the statement has become most defining element of Machiavellianism. In the history of

western political philosophy, no other thinker has been as criticized as Machiavelli. Because

the separation he makes between politics and ethics.

Machiavelli is not against religion, he was against church. He was against church only because

church was corrupt at that time. Church was interfering in politics and was proving as an

obstacle in achieving the national interest.

Machiavelli believes religion can be useful for prince. Thus, Machiavelli has utilitarian

approach towards religion. What is the utility of religion? Religion is a disciplinary force which

can be of great help to the prince. Many persons do not commit wrong things out of the fear of

god. He suggests prince to appear religious in public, even if prince has no faith in religion.
Thus, for Machiavelli religion should not use the prince, but prince should be in opposition to

use religion for the national interest.

VARIOUS THEORIES OF THE ORIGINS OF STATE

DIVINE THEORY, FORCE THEORY AND SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY ALREADY

EXPLAINED AS SEPARATE ANSWERS….

PATRIARCHAL THEORY OF THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE:

The key exponents of this theory were Aristotle, Mac Liver, Henry Maine, Leacock and Duguit.

They believed that unlike the Divine theory of the origin of state, which was based on faith,

this theory is based on SOCIOLOGICAL FACTS.

Sir Henry Maine defined it as the theory of the origin of society in separate families, held

together by the authority and protection of the eldest male descendant. The patriarchal theory

traces the origin of the state in a patriarchal family.

A patriarchal family is one in which descent is traced through males. Father or patriarch

occupies a dominant position in the family. All the members of the family pay due homage to

him. His authority is recognized by all of them. A patriarchal family, according to this theory,

is the most ancient social organization.

The primitive men were organized in patriarchal families. Such a family began to expand by

the process of marriages and re-marriage. It developed into ‘Gen’ or a household. A Gen

expanded into a ‘Clan’. A clan expanded in to a ‘Tribe’. All the members of the tribes were

united by a sort of blood relationship.

The tribes united by ties of blood acted together for common purposes particularly in defending

themselves against the aggression of other tribes. This also necessitated the recognition of some

common authority which could maintain discipline among the tribes.

The influential member of the tribe came to be known as the tribal chief. A combination of the

various tribes resulted in a commonwealth and a commonwealth was a full-fledged state.

The state was headed by a king. So the family place was taken by the state and the father’s

position was occupied by the king.

In support of his statement, Sir Henry Maine cited the patriarchs of the old testament ‘families’

and ‘brotherhood’ of Athens, the Patriapotestos in Rome and the Hindu Joint family system in

India.

According to Edward Jenks the patriarchal society which according to this theory was the

foundation of modern slate was characterized by three features, viz., male kinship, permanent

marriages and paternal authority. In other words the descent was traced through the father and

not the mother.

Permanent marriage implied that one man was permanently married to one or more women as

patriarchal society allowed both monogamy and polygamy. The eldest male member of the

family had undisputed control of life and death over all the members of the family
The theory also found its support, first of all, at the hands of Aristotle He held that “just as men

and women unite to form families, so many families unite to form villages and the union of

many villages forms the state which is a self-supporting unit”.

The theory is further supported by historical evidence and scriptural account. The ancient Jews

were a nation of twelve tribes which trace their origin to the first father Jacob. In Rome there

were three tribes with one common origin and there was the “Patria Potestas” which recognized

the unlimited authority of father over the members of the family.

Criticism against Patriarchal theory regarding the origin of the State:

The patriarchal theory has been criticized by seven writers on the following grounds:

1.The theory is incorrect as the primary social unit was a matriarchal family:

It has been established by certain writers that the theory is not supported by history. Meclennan,

Morgan and Edwa Jenks who are staunch advocates of the matriarchal theory, claim that

polyandry and the matriarchal family were the primary social facts and that polyandry later

developed into the monogamous family, and the matriarchal family, in the patriarchal state.

3. Order of social development is wrong:

The order laid down by Sir Henry Maine in which state ultimately was formed out of family

which was alleged to be the original unit, has been criticized by Edward Jenks.

Jenks holds that the tribe was the earliest primary group, then came the clan, and finally came

the family. He quotes historical evidences of certain societies among the primitive races of

Australia, Malay Archipel-ago, etc., in support of his contention.

4. State has not grown out of family alone:

There are essential points of difference between the two. The authority of the patriarchal family

is natural whereas that of the state is one of the choice.

Further the domination of the father over the children of his family almost ceases to exist as

soon as the children come of age. The domination of political authority in the state is, on the

contrary, perpetual.

MATRIARCHAL THEORY OF THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE:

The matriarchal system was prior to the patriarchal system and tribe. There was no permanent

institution of marriage. A woman had more than one husband and because of the uncertainty

of male parentage, kinship was reckoned through woman that is from mother to daughters.

People in the primitive age were organized in tribes, hordes or bands. Edward Jenks illustrates

this process from his studies of primitive tribes in Australia. The Australian tribes, he says,

were organized in some sort of tribes known as totem group.

The totem groups were not organized on the basis of blood relationship but they were united

by a common symbol like a tree or an animal. People belonging to a totem will not inter-marry

within the totem. They would always marry the woman of another totem group.

Men of one totem group would marry all the women of their generation belonging to another

totem group. Thus, the system of mar-riage would include polygamy as also polyandry.

Kinship and paternity in such cases cannot be determined. Maternity is a fact.

With the passage of time and beginning of pastoral stage in human civilization, matriarchal

society evolved into patriarchal one. In pastoral age, men recognized the value of women’s

labor in tending sheep and cattle and so gradually realized the value of permanently retaining

women at home for the purpose and thus arose the institution of permanent marriage.
Even today we find traces of Matriarchal society among the ancient people of Australia,

Malaysia, Indonesia, Madagascar.

With the institution of permanent marriages, the permanent families were founded. It was in

the pastoral age again that the tribes broke up into clans which broke up into gens and finally

gens broke up into individual families.

Criticism..

History does not prove adequately the universality of such families among the primitive people.

Both the types of family, i.e., patriarchal and matriarchal prevailed simultaneously.

It is difficult to conclude that the state developed out of the primitive family. Other forces and

elements besides patriarchal and matriarchal relations also played their role in the evolution of

political organization.

Thus, both the patriarchal and the matriarchal theories undertake to perform too huge a task.

They try to probe into the origin of human society.

Both the theories try to explain the origin of the family, rather than of the state. It is wrong to

assume that the state is the family writ large. The state and the family are, as a matter of fact,

quite distinct. This theory is more sociological rather than political theories, seeking really to

explain the beginning of human society and the process of its development.

It is wrong to assert that matriarchal family was the original social unit. Both types of a family

existed side by side but mostly there was patriarchal society in the world.
HISTORICAL/EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE:

The main exponents of this theory explained that the state is the product of growth, a slow and

steady evolution extending over a long period of time and ultimately shaping itself into the

complex structure of a modern state. This theory is more scientific.

The state is neither the handiwork of God, nor the result of superior physical force, nor the

creation of evolution or convention, nor a mere expansion of the family. The state is not a mere

artificial mechanical creation but an institution of natural growth or historical evolution says

professor Garner.

There were a number of factors which helped the evolution of the state. They were social

instinct, kinship, religion, war, migration economic activities and political consciousness. The

important factors which contributed to the growth of the state are

1. Social Instinct

2. Kinship

3. Religion

4. Property and defense

5. Force

Social Instinct:
Aristotle simply stated a fact when he remarked: “Man is by nature a social animal.” The germs

of social life are laid in the very nature of man. It is this elemental instinct which prompted

primitive people to live together in groups.

The state is thus primarily based on the gregarious instinct of man. According to Aristotle, state

is even primary to family. Its origin lies in the basic instinct of sociability of man. State is thus

natural outcome of very social nature of man.

Kinship

Kinship is the most important and was based upon blood relationship and kinship was the first

strongest bond of unity. Family constituted the first link in the process of the evolution of the

state with the expansion of the family arose new families and the multiplication of families led

to the formation of clans and tribes. Kinship was the only factor which bound the people

together.

Earliest kingship to be recognized was probably through the mother rather than the father. As

authority developed, organization grew, men gained dominance largely through physical

superiority.

The patriarch had complete control over the lives and persons of his descendants in male line.

This community went on growing and developing till it became a nation. It broke up into

several patriarchal groups, all recognizing some form of alliance to original group. The heads

of these groups or clans probably formed a council of elders assisting the patriarch, who later

became the tribal chieftain, and this chieftain combined military, judicial and religious

authorities.

Religion:
Religion provided the bond of unity in early society. It also affected all walks of life. The

worship of a common ancestor and common goods created a sense of social solidarity. There

was fear in the hearts of men as far as religion was concerned. Even today we see religious

practices, affairs and faith in uniting people. In the early days a number of races are united by

religion and unity was essential for the creation of state.

War and Force

War and force also played an important role in the development of the state. Wherever force is

used there is a definite purpose for it. In the beginning force was used to capture animals,

wealth and land of the neighboring tribes. So, we can say that the wars in the beginning were

for economic purposes. War changed the tribes into political entity. As a result, there came into

being a permanent leadership. During the time of war, the tribal chose their leaders who led

them in the war. Since war became a permanent feature of tribal life, leadership also became

permanent. With the passage of time a powerful tribal leader after many successful wars

became the king. In this way a tribal state was changed into kingdoms and in this way the

modern state came into being.

Property and Defense

Property and defense played a vital role in the evolution of state in ancient times particularly

among the people who were nomads and vagabonds and tribals.

In the beginning people roomed from place to place in search of pasture and water. They did

not know what agriculture was and how crops were cultivated. As a result of this they did not

occupy a particular territory and lead a settled life. With the passage of time population

increased and man was compelled to lead a settled life. This compelled them to occupy land

with this there arose the need to have an authority to define and enforce the rights of the families
or individuals within the territory of the settled community. This authority was also supposed

to defend the wealth, which consisted mainly of land and domestic animals. In other words, a

common authority was needed to define property rights and property relations and to decide

issues like inheritance, theft, exchange of goods etc.

This led to making adjustments in the social system and relationship between the members of

different groups.

Features of parliamentary govt

parliamentary form of government is that system in which the real executive, the cabinet or the

ministry is legally responsible to the legislature or one branch of it, usually the more popular

chamber for its political policies and acts and the nominal executive, the chief of the state

occupies the position of irresponsibility.

Features of parliamentary form of government

- parliamentary form of government has a nominal head. There should be a head of the

state endowed with nominal authority. In India, it’s the president and all powers are

formally vested to him and exercised by the ministers accountable to the parliament.

He appoints the PM, the head of the govt. and may even sack him in case he forfeits his

pleasure.
 - The PM in the parliamentary set up is the real executive of the state.

The PM is the chief spokesman of the govt. and the leader of the house.

- PM is the leader of the party enjoying a clear majority in bulk of the cases in the

parliament or in the popular house in case of a Bicameral legislature.

All ministers belong to the same party as of the PM wherein there is no coalition govt.

- All ministers hold office as long as they hold the majority in the parliament. If a vote

of no confidence is passed against one minister, the whole team must resign. Thus, they

work as a team. They swim and drown together.

- Opposition is imperative in order to exercise restraint over govt’s arbitrary rule and

acting as a watchdog against misuse of its power. However, the opposition should be

constructive, loyal, and vigilant to point out govt’s act of omission and commission.

That is very much applicable to opposition party. Opposition is always healthy to ensure that

the ruling party does not get complacent and also do course corrections mid- way as well.

- In parliamentary form of govt., the members of the executive i.e., the PM and his

cabinet colleagues are also the members of the legislature. Thus, they can pass, amend,

repeal any type of law with the support of subservient majority in the legislature.
 - Executive in parliamentary form of govt is responsible to the legislature. Legislature

can remove a cabinet whenever it desires.

- According to law, all powers are vested in the chief executive head who may be the

president in India. But, in reality the powers are exercised by the cabinet created out of

the majority party in Legislature.

BAKI EXPAND KAR LENA INHI POINTS KO IN YOUR OWN WORDS BY

EXAMPLES..

 MERITS OF THIS SYSTEM:

1. Because Executive is the part of the legislature, there is a proper coordination between

the executive and the legislature.

2. If the same party controls the Executive and the legislature, it will lead to the same

policies. In presidential form, two different parties can control the executive and the

legislature, at times leading to the formulation of policies which could lead to chaos.

3. Prevents authoritarianism: since the executive is responsible to the legislature and can

vote it out in a motion of no confidence, there is no authoritarianism. Also, unlike the

presidential system, power is not concentrated in one hand.

 4. Representing diverse groups: In this system, the parliament offers representation to

diverse groups of the country. This is especially important for a country like India.

5. There is flexibility in the system as the PM can be changed easily if needed. During the

Second World War, the British PM Neville Chamberlain was replaced by Winston

Churchill. This is unlike the presidential system where he/she can be replaced only after

the entire term or in case of impeachment/incapacity.

 DEMERITS OF THIS SYSTEM:

1. In the cases of emergency, this system is not very efficient in administrative matters

since it has to face the parliament and undergo all the cumbersome processes.

2. Political corruption and instability is the order of the day because of coalition form of

govt. this neglects the development.

3. There is a problem of unqualified legislators. The system creates legislators whose

intention is to enter the executive only. They are largely unqualified to legislate.

4. Control by the bureaucracy: Civil servants exercise a lot of power. They advise the

ministers on various matters and are also not responsible to the legislature.
 Types of democracy

The origins of the term ‘democracy’ can be traced back to Ancient Greece. It is derived from

two words, Demos meaning people and kratos meaning power or rule, thus, it means rule by

people.

Amongst the meanings that have been attached to the word ‘democracy’ are the following:

- a system of rule by the poor and disadvantaged

- form of government in which the people rule themselves directly and continuously,

without the need for professional politicians or public officials

- a society based on equal opportunity and individual merit, rather than hierarchy and

privilege

- a system of welfare and redistribution aimed at narrowing social inequalities

- a system of decision-making based on the principle of majority rule

- a system of rule that secures the rights and interests of minorities by placing checks

upon the power of the majority

- a means of filling public offices through a competitive struggle for the popular vote a

system of government that serves the interests of the people regardless of their

participation in political life.

Types of democracies:

1. Direct Democracy- a direct or pure democracy is a type of democracy where the people

govern directly. It requires wide participation of citizens in politics. Athenian or

 classical democracy refers to a direct democracy developed in ancient times in the

Greek city- state of Athens.

 A popular democracy is a type of direct democracy based on referendums and

other devices of empowerment and concretization of popular will.

2. Representative democracies- a representative democracy is an indirect democracy

where sovereignty is held by the people’s representatives.

 A liberal democracy is a representative democracy with protection for

individual liberty and property by rule of law.

A liberal democracy is a political regime in which a ‘liberal’ commitment to

limited government is blended with a ‘democratic’ belief in popular rule.

Its key features are: (1) the right to rule is gained through success in regular and

competitive elections, based on universal adult suffrage;

(2) constraints on government imposed by a constitution, institutional checks

and balances, and protections for individual and minority rights; and

(3) a vigorous civil society including a private enterprise economy, independent

trade unions, and a free press.

The terms liberal democracy and pluralist democracy are often used

interchangeably.

 An illiberal democracy has weak or no limits on the power of the elected

representatives to rule as they please.

Types of representative democracy include:

o Electoral democracy- type of representative democracy based on election, on electoral

vote, as modern occidental or liberal democracies.

o Dominant-party system – democratic party system where only one political party can

realistically become the government, by itself or in a coalition government.

o Parliamentary democracy – democratic system of government where the executive

branch of a parliamentary government is typically a cabinet, and headed by a prime

minister who is considered the head of government.

Westminster democracy – parliamentary system of government modeled after that of

the United Kingdom system.

o Presidential democracy – democratic system of government where a head of

government is also head of state and leads an executive branch that is separate from the

legislative branch.

Jacksonian democracy – a variant of presidential democracy popularized by U.S.

President Andrew Jackson which promoted the strength of the executive branch and the

Presidency at the expense of Congressional power.

o A demarchy has people randomly selected from the citizenry through sortition to either

act as general governmental representatives or to make decisions in specific areas of

governance (defense, environment, etc.).

 o A non-partisan democracy is system of representative government or organization such

that universal and periodic elections (by secret ballot) take place without reference to

political parties.

o An organic or authoritarian democracy is a democracy where the ruler holds a

considerable amount of power, but their rule benefits the people. The term was first

used by supporters of Bonapartism.

The strengths of representative democracy include the following:

- It offers a practicable form of democracy (direct popular participation is achievable

only in small communities).

- It relieves ordinary citizens of the burden of decision-making, thus, making possible a

division of labour in politics.

- It allows government to be placed in the hands of those with better education, expert

knowledge, and greater experience.

- It maintains stability by distancing ordinary citizens from politics, thereby encouraging

them to accept compromise.

Some other types of democracies include:

 Cosmopolitan democracy: A form of democracy that operates at supranational levels

of governance and is based on the idea of transnational or global citizenship.

 There are also models of democracy that are built on the principle of ‘Government for

the people’, and that allow little scope for public participation of any kind, direct or

indirect. The most grotesque example of this was found in the so-called ‘totalitarian

democracies’ that developed under fascist dictators such as Mussolini and Hitler. The

democratic credentials of such regimes were based on the claim that the ‘leader’, and

the leader alone, articulated the genuine interests of the people, thus implying that a

‘true’ democracy can be equated with an absolute dictatorship. In such cases, popular

rule meant nothing more than ritualized submission to the will of an all-powerful leader,

orchestrated through rallies, marches and demonstrations. This was sometimes

portrayed as plebiscitary democracy.

 In radical democracy, democracy is seen not as a means of laying down a framework

within which individuals can go about their own business but, rather, as a general

principle that is applicable to all areas of social existence. People are seen as having a

basic right to participate in the making of any decisions that affect their lives, with

democracy simply being the collective process through which this is done. This position

is evident in socialist demands for the collectivization of wealth and the introduction of

workers’ self-management, both of which are seen as ways of democratizing economic

life.

 Instead of endorsing mere political democracy, socialists have therefore, called for

‘social democracy’ or ‘economic democracy’. Economic democracy is a broad term

that covers attempts to apply democratic principles to the workplace, ranging from

profit-sharing and the use of workers’ councils to full workers’ self-management.

 Feminists, similarly, have demanded the democratization of family life, understood as

the right of all to participate in the making of decisions in the domestic or private sphere.

From this perspective, democracy is regarded as a friend of liberty, not as its enemy.

Only when such principles are ignored can oppression and exploitation flourish.

 Plebiscitary democracy

Plebiscitary democracy is a form of democratic rule that operates through an

unmediated link between the rulers and the ruled, established by plebiscites (or

referendums). These allow the public to express their views on political issues directly.

However, this type of democracy is often criticized because of the scope it offers for

demagoguery (rule by political leaders who manipulate the masses through oratory, and

appeal to their prejudices and passions). This type of democracy may amount to little

more than a system of mass acclamation that gives dictatorship a populist gloss.

MODELS OF DEMOCRACY:

All too frequently, democracy is treated as a single, unambiguous phenomenon. It is often

assumed that what passes for democracy in most Western societies is the only, or the only

legitimate, form of democracy. Sometimes this notion of democracy is qualified by the addition

of the term ‘liberal’, turning it into liberal democracy. In reality, however, there are a number

of rival theories or models of democracy, each offering its own version of popular rule. This

highlights not merely the variety of democratic forms and mechanisms, but also, more

fundamentally, the very different grounds on which democratic rule can be justified. Even
liberal democracy is a misleading term, as competing liberal views of democratic organization

can be identified.

Four contrasting models of democracy can be identified as follows:

- classical democracy

- limited or ‘protective’ democracy

- developmental democracy

- people’s or ‘socialist’ democracy.

Classical democracy

The classical model of democracy is based on the polis, or city-state, of Ancient Greece, and

particularly on the system of rule that developed in the largest and most powerful Greek city-

state, Athens. The form of direct democracy that operated in Athens during the fourth and fifth

centuries BCE is often portrayed as the only pure or ideal system of popular participation.

Nevertheless, although the model had considerable impact on later thinkers such as Rousseau

and Marx, Athenian Democracy developed a very particular kind of direct popular rule, one

that has only a very limited application in the modern world.

Athenian democracy amounted to a form of government by mass meeting. What made

Athenian democracy so remarkable was the level of political activity of its citizens. Not only

did they participate in regular meetings of the Assembly, but they were also, in large numbers,

prepared to shoulder the responsibility of public office and decision-making.

The most influential contemporaneous critic of this form of democracy was the philosopher

Plato. Plato attacked the principle of political equality on the grounds that the mass of the

people possesses neither the wisdom nor the experience to rule wisely on their own behalf. His

solution, advanced in The Republic, was that government be placed in the hands of a class of

philosopher kings, Guardians, whose rule would amount to a kind of enlightened dictatorship.

Nevertheless, the classical model of direct and continuous popular participation in political life

has been kept alive in, for instance, the township meetings of New England in the USA, the

communal assemblies that operate in the smaller Swiss cantons, and in the wider use of

referendums.

Limited or ‘protective’ democracy

In particular, democracy was seen less as a mechanism through which the public could

participate in political life, and more as a device through which citizens could protect

themselves from the encroachments of government, hence ‘protective democracy’. This view

appealed particularly to early liberal thinkers whose concern was, above all, to create the widest

realm of individual liberty. The desire to protect the individual from over-mighty government

was expressed in perhaps the earliest of all democratic sentiments, Aristotle’s response to

Plato: ‘who will guard the Guardians?’ This same concern with unchecked power was taken

up in the seventeenth century by John Locke, who argued that the right to vote was based on

the existence of natural rights and, in particular, on the right to property. If government,

through taxation, possessed the power to expropriate property, citizens were entitled to protect

themselves by controlling the composition of the tax-setting body: the legislature. In other
words, democracy came to mean a system of ‘government by consent’ operating through a

representative assembly.

The more radical notion of universal suffrage was advanced from the late eighteenth century

onwards by utilitarian theorists such as Jeremy Bentham and James Mill. The utilitarian case

for democracy is also based on the need to protect or advance individual interests. Bentham

came to believe that, since all individuals seek pleasure and the avoidance of pain, a universal

franchise (conceived in his day as manhood suffrage) was the only way of promoting ‘the

greatest happiness for the greatest number’.

However, to justify democracy on protective grounds is to provide only a qualified

endorsement of democratic rule. In short, protective democracy is but a limited and indirect

form of democracy. In practice, the consent of the governed is exercised through voting in

regular and competitive elections. This thereby ensures the accountability of those who govern.

Ultimately, protective democracy aims to give citizens the widest possible scope to live their

lives as they choose. It is therefore compatible with laissez-faire capitalism and the belief that

individuals should be entirely responsible for their economic and social circumstances.

Protective democracy has therefore particularly appealed to classical liberals and, in modern

politics, to supporters of the New Right.

Developmental democracy

Although early democratic theory focused on the need to protect individual rights and interests,

it soon developed an alternative focus: a concern with the development of the human individual
and the community. This gave rise to quite new models of democratic rule that can broadly be

referred to as systems of developmental democracy. The most novel, and radical, such model

was developed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

In many respects, Rousseau’s ideas mark a departure from the dominant, liberal conception of

democracy, and they came to have an impact on the Marxist and anarchist traditions as well as,

later, on the New Left. For Rousseau, democracy was ultimately a means through which human

beings could achieve freedom or autonomy, in the sense of ‘obedience to a law one prescribes

to oneself’. In other words, citizens are ‘free’ only when they participate directly and

continuously in shaping the life of their community. This is an idea that moves well beyond

the conventional notion of electoral democracy and offers support for the more radical ideal

of direct democracy.

Rousseau’s theories have helped to shape the modern idea of participatory democracy taken up

by New Left thinkers in the 1960s and 1970s. This extols the virtues of a ‘participatory society’,

a society in which each and every citizen is able to achieve self-development by participating

in the decisions that shape his or her life. This goal can be achieved only through the promotion

of openness, accountability and decentralization within all the key institutions of society.

People’s or ‘socialist’ democracy:

The term ‘people’s democracy’ is derived from the orthodox communist regimes that sprang

up on the Soviet model in the aftermath of World War II. It is here used, however, to refer

broadly to the various democratic models that the Marxist tradition has generated. Marxists

have tended to be dismissive of liberal or parliamentary democracy, seeing it as a form of

‘bourgeois’ or ‘capitalist’ democracy. Nevertheless, Marxists were drawn to the concept or

ideal of democracy because of its clear egalitarian implications. The term was used, in

particular, to designate the goal of social equality brought about through the common

ownership of wealth (‘social democracy’ in its original sense), in contrast to ‘political’

democracy, which establishes only a façade of equality.

Marx believed that the overthrow of capitalism would be a trigger that would allow genuine

democracy to flourish. In his view, a fully communist society would come into existence only

after a transitionary period characterized by ‘the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat’.

In effect, a system of ‘bourgeois’ democracy would be replaced by a very different system of

‘proletarian’ democracy.

What are the main features of the constitution (73rd) Amendment Act? What

are the problems faced by the Panchayati Raj Institutions as of now?

The 73rd Amendment 1992 added a new Part IX to the constitution titled “The Panchayats”

covering provisions from Article 243 to 243(O); and a new Eleventh Schedule covering 29

subjects within the functions of the Panchayats.

Significance of the amendment

This amendment implements the article 40 of the DPSP which says that “State shall take steps

to organise village panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be
necessary to enable them to function as units of self-government” and have upgraded them

from non-justifiable to justifiable part of the constitution and has put constitutional obligation

upon states to enact the Panchayati Raj Acts as per provisions of the Part IX. However, states

have been given enough freedom to take their geographical, politico-administrative and other

conditions into account while adopting the Panchayati Raj System.

Salient Features

a) Gram Sabha

Gram Sabha is a body consisting of all the persons registered in the electoral rolls relating to a

village comprised within the area of Panchayat at the village level. Since all the persons

registered in electoral rolls are members of Gram Sabha, there are no elected representatives.

Further, Gram Sabha is the only permanent unit in Panchayati Raj system and not constituted

for a particular period.

b) Three Tiers of Panchayati Raj

Part IX provides for a 3 tier Panchayat system, which would be constituted in every state at the

village level, intermediate level and district level. This provision brought the uniformity in the

Panchayati Raj structure in India.

All the members of these three level are elected.

c) Reservation in Panchayats
There is a provision of reservation of seats for SCs and STs at every level of Panchayat. The

seats are to be reserved for SCs and STs in proportion to their population at each level. Out of

the Reserved Seats, 1/3rd have to be reserved for the women of the SC and ST.

d) Duration of Panchayats

A clear term for 5 years has been provided for the Panchayats and elections must take place

before the expiry of the terms. However, the Panchayat may be dissolved earlier on specific

grounds in accordance with the state legislations. In that case the elections must take place

before expiry of 6 months of the dissolution.

e) Disqualification of Members

Article 243F makes provisions for disqualifications from the membership. As per this article,

any person who is qualified to become an MLA is qualified to become a member of the

Panchayat, but for Panchayat the minimum age prescribed is 21 years. Further, the

disqualification criteria are to be decided by the state legislature by law.

f) Finance Commission

State Government needs to appoint a finance commission every five years, which shall review

the financial position of the Panchayats and to make recommendation on the following:

• The Distribution of the taxes, duties, tolls, fees etc. levied by the state which is to be divided

between the Panchayats.

• Allocation of proceeds between various tiers.

• Taxes, tolls, fees assigned to Panchayats

• Grant in aids.

This report of the Finance Commission would be laid on the table in the State legislature.

Further, the Union Finance Commission also suggests the measures needed to augment the

Consolidated Funds of States to supplement the resources of the panchayats in the states.

g) Powers and Functions: 11th Schedule

The state legislatures are needed to enact laws to endow powers and authority to the Panchayats

to enable them functions of local government. The 11th schedule enshrines the distribution of

powers between the State legislature and the Panchayats.

h) Audit of Accounts

State Government can make provisions for audit of accounts of the Panchayats.

I) Elections

Article 243K enshrines the provisions with respect to elections of the Panchayats. This article

provides for constitution of a State Election Commission in respect of the Panchayats. This

State Election Commission would have the power to supervise, direct and control the elections

to the Panchayats and also prepare the electoral rolls.

This article also maintains the independence of the election commission.

So, the positive impact of the 73rd Amendment in rural India is clearly visible as it has changed

power equations significantly. Elections to the Panchayats in most states are being held

regularly. Through over 600 District Panchayats, around 6000 Intermediate Panchayats and 2.3
lakh Gram Panchayats, more than 28 lakh persons now have a formal position in our

representative democracy.

ISSUES FACED BY PANCHAYATI RAJ INSTITUTIONS AS OF NOW:

- The grey area is the lack of adequate funds. There is a need to enlarge the domain of

panchayats to be able to raise their own funds.

- The interference of area MPs and MLAs in the functioning of panchayats also adversely

affected their performance.

- The 73rd amendment only mandated the creation of local self-governing bodies, and

left the decision to delegate powers, functions, and finances to the state legislatures,

therein lies the failure of PRIs.

- The transfer of various governance functions—like the provision of education, health,

sanitation, and water was not mandated. Instead the amendment listed the functions that

could be transferred, and left it to the state legislature to actually devolve functions.

There has been very little devolution of authority and functions in the last 26 years.

- Because these functions were never devolved, state executive authorities have

proliferated to carry out these functions. The most common example is the terrible state

water boards.

- The major failure of the Amendment is the lack of finances for PRIs. Local

governments can either raise their own revenue through local taxes or receive

intergovernmental transfers.

- The power to tax, even for subjects falling within the purview of PRIs, has to be

specifically authorized by the state legislature. The 73rd Amendment let this be a choice

open to the state legislatures—a choice that most states have not exercised.
- A second avenue of revenue generation is intergovernmental transfers, where state

governments devolve a certain percentage of their revenue to PRIs. The constitutional

amendment created provisions for State Finance Commissions to recommend the

revenue share between state and local governments. However, these are merely

recommendations, and the state governments are not bound by them.

- Though finance commissions, at every level, have advocated for greater devolution of

funds, there has been little action by states to devolve funds.

- PRIs are reluctant to take on projects that require any meaningful financial outlay, and

are often unable to solve even the most basic local governance needs.

- PRIs also suffer from structural deficiencies i.e. no secretarial support and lower levels

of technical knowledge which restricted the aggregation of bottom up planning .

- There is a presence of adhocism i.e. lack of clear setting of agenda in gram sabha, gram

samiti meetings and no proper structure.

- Though women and SC/STs has got representation in PRIs through reservation

mandated by 73rd amendment but there is a presence of Panch-Pati and Proxy

representation in case of women and SC/STs representatives respectively.

- Accountability arrangements remain very weak even after 26 years of PRIs

constitutional arrangement.

- The issue of ambiguity in the division of functions and funds has allowed concentration

of powers with the states and thereby restraining the elective representatives who are

more aware and sensitive to the ground level issues to take control.
 LEGISLATURE

- Introduction

- Functions

- Direct Legislation and its techniques + Indirect Legislation

- Arguments for and against Bicameralism

INTRODUCTION:

State is a mere abstraction. It is the govt which expresses the will of the state. Every govt. has

to perform 3 functions:- Making laws, executing laws and adjudicating laws. Therefore, there

are 3 organs which correspond to these functions- The Legislature, the Executive and the

Judiciary.

the relationships between the three organs of the govt. are such like the legislative authority

forms the major premise, the Judiciary the minor premise and the Executive the conclusion. As

the major premise is more important than the minor and the conclusion, the Legislature is more

important than the Executive and the Judiciary.

CAN SIMPLY EXPLAIN THEIR FUNCTIONS IF U WISH TO EXTEND YOUR ANS

A LIL..

However, this definition is valid for states where democratic form of govt. prevails. Here

legislature is the most potent organ since it represents the will of the community. This analysis

is inadequate for totalitarian states.

The term ‘Legislature’ is a generic term meaning a body that legislates. It is derived from 2

words- ‘Legg’ means ‘law’ and ‘lature’ means ‘place’. So, Legislature means a place for law

making.

Laws enacted by legislatures are usually known as primary legislation. In addition, legislatures

may observe and steer governing actions, with authority to amend the budget involved.

The members of a legislature are called legislators. In a democracy, legislators are most

commonly popularly elected, although indirect election and appointment by the executive are

also used, particularly for bicameral legislatures featuring an upper chamber.

FUNCTIONS OF THE LEGISLATURE:

The main functions of Legislature as follows:

- Legislature is responsible for making, amending and repealing the laws and since

modern state is a welfare state, the work of legislature has increased manifold.

Welfare state has the duty to take care of the weak and the meek i.e., the lesser mortals,

the oppressed and the suppressed.

1. a. No money can be spent or raised without parliamentary approval.

b. No withdrawal can be done from the consolidated Fund of India without the

authority of the Parliament.

 (v) Every year, the budget is passed in 2 parts- Demand programmes and Finance bill.

(vi) The exercise of the supreme control over financial administration via 2 imp

committees- PAC (Public Accounts Committee) and the Estimates Committee.

- Parliament has share in constitutional amendments. It dominates the share in those areas

where simple majority is required. For eg- Article 3, article 169, schedule 5 and 6 of

the Indian constitution.

- Parliament is also there when special majority is needed for amendment of constitution

like in Articles 54, 55, 73, chapter 1 of part 11, article 368 etc of the constitution of

India.

- Parliament is a place where every opinion can have its case presented.

- House of Lord in UK was the highest court of appeal in UK till 2009. Now it’s the Supreme

Court of UK.

Regarding Judicial duties of USA, Senate is the highest court of impeachment for high

public officials.

- Parliament participates in the election of the president.

In Switzerland, members of the Federal Assembly elect members of the Federal

Council, judges, General of the Army and also determines the dates of the elections

including the mid- term elections.

 Since 1991, ever since we embrace the new economic policy, we have made a turn

around from comprehensive planning to indicative planning. The state is performing 3

functions. Initially it was a provider of goods and services, thereafter it was a regulator

and now, also a facilitator.

- Legislature appoint Committees of enquiries and investigations and also establish research

institutions.

DIRECT LEGISLATION:

In modern times we have indirect democracy, under this system the people elect their

representatives and give them the authority to make the law and implement them. Actually

in democracy sovereignty belongs to people but under normal circumstances it becomes

difficult for the people to legislate directly. So sometimes the people make the laws directly.

This is called Direct Legislation.

Methods of Direct Legislation

 REFERENDUM

It is a device in which public opinion can be ascertained by a direct reference to people.

It could be in either ordinary or constitutional matters that the people can approve or

disapprove the measures taken by the legislature.

There are basically two types of referendum:

Compulsory Referendum and Optional Referendum

o MERITS OF REFERENDUM:

They are as follows:-

1. It is based on the sovereignty of the people.

2. It is a source of political education because it promotes responsibility and patriotism,

as people are directly involved in the legislative process.

3. It gives greater legitimacy to laws as people are ready to obey the self- made laws.

4. It invokes the responsibility amongst the legislatures. Legislature becomes more

conscious it knows that its actions have to undergo public scrutiny.

o DEMERITS OF REFERENDUM:

1. It is a source of delays in legislation. It leads to retardation and inefficiency in

administration.

2. It lowers the prestige, morale and the sense of responsibility of legislation.

So, Parliament becomes more of a consultative committee and people get swayed by

emotions, as a result, they are not able to take right decisions and democracy becomes

mobocracy. This is unsuitable for big states.

 INITIATIVE
It is a positive device whereby people have the right to initiate measures of legislation.

It is more comprehensive than the referendum since it entails referendum also.

So, in this a fixed portion of the population puts forward a proposal of law making

which may be formulated or unformulated. The legislature has to then compulsorily

deliberate upon the measure and give its verdict either in favour or against it. So, bill

becomes the law if approved by an electorate even if disapproved by the legislature.

Advantages

It is argued that the simple existence of the initiative mechanism acts as a check on the

activities of the legislature. This is because legislators are more likely to introduce

certain reforms and measures if the initiative mechanism exists, because it is likely that

if they do not, an initiative on the issue will be launched. One example is that US

researchers have shown that US states that use the initiative process are more likely

than those that do not, to have introduced governance reform policies (e.g., term limits,

campaign finance controls). Another indication of this is the number of initiatives that

are introduced but subsequently withdrawn in Switzerland, because the introduction of

the initiative has in itself forced the legislature to address the issue. It is therefore

claimed that the initiative process makes legislatures more responsive.

Disadvantages

One often cited disadvantage of citizens’ initiatives is that they result in badly drafted

law, since (except in the case of indirect initiatives) the wording of the measure as

initially proposed ends up as statute if the measure is passed. It is argued that the failure
 to use the expertise provided by government lawyers and officials who are familiar with

the drafting process leads to laws that can be meaningless or ineffective, or have to be

re-drafted, because the individuals or lawyers who draft the measures are not

experienced in legislative drafting. Additionally, in some cases, statute created by the

initiative process is found to be unconstitutional.

A further disadvantage is the sheer number and complexity of issues that voters are

expected to vote on. It is argued that it is impossible for voters to make informed

decisions when there are a substantial number of initiatives on the ballot. A related

argument is that citizens cannot be expected to make decisions on complex issues that

they, unlike elected representatives, do not have the time to learn about.

 RECALL

This is a device, whereby voters may remove a public official from office before the

expiration of his or her term. One of the correctives which has been floated by

authorities to checkmate the malaises plaguing the parliamentary form of govt is that

people should have the right to recall those they elect. The ruling ministers must be

answerable for all the acts. If the vote is in favour of removal, the legislature has to give

up his office.

Advantages:
 The people can exercise their sovereign power only when they are given the right to

recall their elected representatives or the official, if they fail to perform their

responsibilities in a proper manner. If the people are not given the right to recall their

representatives, they are apt to act arbitrarily and the people will have no control

whatsoever over their elected representatives.

- This system is a symbol of direct democracy:

Recall is the best system of the preservation of direct democracy. If the people have no

control over their elected representatives or officials, democracy will become

meaningless, and the representatives and the officials will act arbitrarily.

Disadvantages:

- There is possibility of a wrong judgment:

Mostly the people are not aware of the diplomatic tactics of the political leaders and

sometimes wrong decisions are given against honest and sincere officials.

When an official or a representative is recalled, charges are leveled against him. The

official or the representative against whom charges are leveled tries to level counter-

charges against his complainants. With charges and counter-charges the entire

atmosphere is poisoned.

Independence of the officers is curtailed.

 Because of the fears of recall, the officers do not take such decisions as may not be

liked by the political leaders. If they take any such decisions, they face a severe criticism

and adverse propaganda. Thus, the officers sometimes try to flatter the political leaders.

This curtails their freedom of action.

- Serious consequences may occur if the judges are recalled:

The system of the recall of the Judges destroys, the liberty of the judiciary, the judges

will not be able to take any decision independently and fearlessly because of the fear of

being recalled.

BICAMERALISM:

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF BICAMERALISM:

1. Modifying influence on legislation- the 2 chambers are a break against hasty, ill

considered and rash legislation passed by the lower chamber.

According to Lecky, the 2nd chamber exercises controlling, modifying, retarding and

steadying influence on legislation.

A single chamber constituted on the basis of Universal Adult Franchise is radical for

men. By interposing delay between the introduction and final passage of bill, the 2 nd

chamber permits time for further reflection and deliberation.

So, modifying influence on legislation is the first argument given by those who support

bicameralism.
 2. Representative to minorities- special interests are represented in Indian Rajya Sabha. It

has 12 members nominated by the president who have excellence in Art, Literature,

science and social service. They represent the minorities.

3. Representation of intellectuals- there are many intellectuals who are election shy and

want to avoid the elections since they are not very comfortable and therefore, the 2 nd

chamber is made of reservoir of knowledge.

4. Revisory functions- Bagehot believed that ‘2nd chamber is a 2nd filter bed. Bill passed

by the lower house is revised and technical faults are removed. Since Lok Sabha (lower

house) is the popular chamber in India, it is likely to play to the gallery and plug in the

loopholes.

5. Delaying Function- it provides time for proper reflection and deliberation. Delay is

beneficial for the people.

6. Utility in federation- it represents units of federation. The lower chamber represents

national interest, and the upper chamber represents local and specific interest.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST BICAMERALISM:

1. Those who criticize bicameralism believe that lower chamber is elected by popular

vote and upper chamber should not choke the voice of the lower chamber.

Democracy denotes speaking in 2 voices.

2. Upper chamber is mostly conservative. It is housed by veteran politicians and those

quiet people who are resistant to change. They don’t want to initiate measures which

are revolutionary.

3. There is no importance to federation, experts believe because political parties

dominate the entire political life in a federation and local interests are not

represented as everything is on the party basis.

4. Misuse of the delaying part- in some countries, upper chamber checks the enactment

of progressive legislation. So, Laski believed that ‘The power to postpone is the

power to defeat. The changes regarded as necessary by the party chosen by the

electorate’.

5. Possibility of a deadlock- the will of the electorate is repeated and Bicameralism is

like a cart with horses hitched to each end, the 2 horses pulling in each other’s

direction.

6. There is no recognized method for constituting the 2nd chamber. Different countries

have different methods of constituting the 2nd chamber. In England, members of the

House of Lord are nominated on hereditary basis.

In Canadian state, they are nominated by the Governor General.

 Challenges before civil servants in age of LPG and bureaucracy

The term ‘Civil Servants’ refer to the career bureaucrats who are the permanent executive

branch of the Republic of India. Civil services are considered to be the steel frames of India,

which have a long legacy, strong impact on the administration, much respect from the common

people, and vital roles to play in various verticals of the Indian govt.

In India’s parliamentary democracy, the ultimate responsibility for running the administration

rests with the people’s elected representatives- cabinet ministers. But a handful of ministers

cannot be expected to deal personally with the manifold problems of modern administration.

Thus, the ministers lay down the policy and it is for the civil servants, who serve at the pleasure

of the President of India, to carry it out.

but, nowadays, civil servants are facing various challenges.

PROBLEMS PLAGUING INDIAN BUREAUCRACY:

 (A) CORRUPTION

(B) MAXIMISATION OF BUDGETS

(C) IMPLEMENTING PARKINSON’S LAW

(D) COMMITTED BUREAUCRACY

Explanations:

a. Corruption is an age-old phenomenon. It can be seen everywhere now a days. It is like

a cancer in public life, which has not become too rampant and perpetuated overnight,

but is course of time. The word corruption means destruction, ruining or spoiling a

society. A corrupt society is characterized by immorality and lack of fear or lack of

respect for the law. It is the abuse of public power for private gain. Corruption comes

under many different guises like bribery, extortion, fraud, embezzlement,

misappropriations of public goods, nepotism, and cronyism.

Civil servants nowadays are taking huge bribes in exchange of performing something

which is not a healthy way to run the administration.

b. Budget maximisation refers to an economic model which tries to depict the typical

behaviour of bureaucrats who work for the government. A govt. bureaucrat, according

to this model, will constantly try to expand the amount of money and other resources

under his control. The greater the amount of resources under his control, the greater the

chances of him wielding power over people who are dependent on these resources.

c. Parkinson’s law is the adage that work will expand to fill the time allotted for its

completion. The projects given to the bureaucrats have long gestation periods.
 Deadlines can cause procrastination or even prompt them to fill their time with trivial

matters. This results in wastage of precious time and inefficient workflows.

So, this is another hurdle in the proper and timely administration by bureaucrats.

d. Committed bureaucracy means personal commitment to men in political authority. This

is in contrast with the need for political neutrality expected of the civil servants. It has

wreaked havoc with moral professionalism and the tradition of political neutrality.

Neutrality depicts that public officials are not slaves to either the politicians or any other

authority other than the moral authority of the Constitution.

If bureaucracy won’t be neutral then it cannot lend its whole- hearted support to the

existing political system, and to the economic and political system if any radical

changes are introduced.

This committed bureaucracy has increased in recent years not on the basis of ideological

or political reasons, but because of Functional reasons (i.e., because of the dependence

of ministers or their needs upon their political masters).

6 BROAD REASONS WHY BUREAUCRATS HAVE TO DANCE ON THE

ORDERS OF THE POLITICIANS, (I AGREE SIR):

1. Frequent Transfers

People join civil services to occupy the prominent positions like DM, SP or

Commissioners. They get all their recognition, perks and privileges only on these posts.
 However, they don’t know how long they can continue in these postings and changing

their job every month and year. That is what the average IAS officer life once he tries,

to be honest. The transfer malaise is all-pervasive. Everything relies on the impulses of

the minister and sometimes an honest to goodness necessity. Sometimes transfers are

so often that in a year one can get transferred to as many as 5-6 different places.

Transfer, unquestionably it is a major issue when the life partner is likewise working

and cannot change the urban areas so every now and again. This also affects the family,

kids, etc. If a politician doesn’t like a bureaucrat in a particular department, he/she does

not have the power to remove them from the job, but can transfer them to some other

department.

2. No Recognition for Excellence

All civil servants get their promotions based on their seniority. One’s destiny is fixed

by his/her relationship with seniors. Initially, when brilliant students join civil services,

they work very hard to deliver results and change the system. However, soon they

realize that there are several colleagues, who don’t work even half and get all the (legal)

benefits as them. They also realize that the more one work, the more chances of one’s

committing a mistake and more chances of punishment. Hence gradually they too

become slow. According to Aristotle, the excellence is an art won by training and

habituation. It is not mandatory that one’s work will be recognized and appreciated

every time. When one works in civil services, there is nothing that one can achieve

without the cooperation of one’s team and the goodwill of the people. Honest and brave

officers are threatened with suspension and humiliation.

3. Political Interference

Most of the civil servants have to have political godfathers. The politicians use them to

get their work done and the officers use them to get their postings and also protect them

in case of any problems. Often they have to do illegal things to keep the bosses and

politicians happy and thus get trapped forever in their clutches. They can neither leave

them nor live with them. There may not be much political interference in Central

Services, but then they are also not helped by politicians when they need them. One of

the dark sides of being a civil servant is that if they do not comply with the politicians

in that area (who are way much powerful), they are exposed to the risk of getting

transferred, which can include difficult postings.

The political interference led to substantial inefficiency where the vital positions are

not held by the best officers and ultimately this can lead to institutional decline. They

have to bear with dirty politics and political intervention.

4. Promotion or Demotion

While in other jobs, one gains importance as one gets more and more experienced.

Unfortunately, it is just opposite in IAS, IPS. A civil servant is the most important

person when he/she is a SP or a DM. Even the CM is directly in touch with that civil

servant. This happens within just 3-5 years of his/her joining the cadre after training.

However, as one gets promoted to DIG, IG or Commissioner/Secretary, one’s

importance declines. There are several dozen IG, ADG and even DG sitting in the state

capital, and no one knows them. The IAS officers also become just a glorified babu
 when they become secretaries after promotion. Most people don’t even know that such

posts exist in their cadre.

5. The society’s ethos is changing as materialism and wealth is being respected above

everything else. Civil servants, as a result, are either feeling pressurized or choosing to

earn immense amount of wealth through corruption.

6. Judicial activism is working against many officers; some high-profile cases against civil

servants got a lot of publicity, which has maligned the views of the general public as

well as the judiciary against civil servants. There is increasing the pressure of advocacy

groups and RTI activists on civil servants, which often poses challenges in taking swift

action.

How can these problems be overcome?

- The dependence of civil servants on politicians for transfers and postings should be

removed, and the process should be made transparent based on predetermined logic.

This will allow civil servants to carry out their duties without any fear.

- The Supreme Court has directed that civil servants should get an assured minimum

tenure and should avoid acting on verbal instructions given by politicians. These

directions regarding civil servants should be strictly adhered to in order to ensure

independence, transparency, and greater accountability in the civil services.

- Civil servants perform many tasks in dynamic situations. As a result, a certain level of

discretionary power should be given to civil servants, the decisions taken under which

should not be scrutinized under the RTI, given their utility.

- In order to reduce corruption in the services and pressure on honest civil servants,

transparency in decision-making should be encouraged. Further, honest civil servants

should be duly recognized and credited for their work by the concerned government.

Conclusion:

The civil services in India have a long legacy and an important role to play. However,

civil servants, especially honest ones, face many challenges in carrying out their duties.

Some of the major challenges are corruption nexuses between politicians and civil

servants, deeply entrenched corruption systems that sideline honest civil servants,

pressure on civil servants from the judiciary and advocacy groups, etc.

The best way to deal with these challenges is to ensure freedom of civil servants from

their political bosses in postings and transfers, encouragement of honest officers,

promotions based on clear and logical assessments of the work done by civil servants,

etc. Bureaucrats have to be committed to the constitution of India, its people and the

goal and objectives of the organization where he works.

Overall, the challenges facing the Indian civil servants should be used as opportunities

to mend the broken and outdated practices in the country.

 Rise of PMO

PMO is a staff agency meant for providing secretarial assistance and crucial advice to the PM.

In a democracy, Presidential or Parliamentary, the PM or the President along with the members

of the cabinet are supposed to be in charge of running the govt. but over the years, in India as

well as in USA, the role of executive or the Council of ministers is getting diminished, and the

powers are absorbed by the so called special advisory aids of the members of PMO.

BODY

FUNCTIONS:

- Acting as the ‘think- tank’ of the PM.

- Faster decision making : it helps in faster decision making as it involves experienced

and powerful decision makers assisting the PM in respect of his overall responsibilities

as the head of the govt.

- It acts as the residual legatee of the central govt. i.e., it deals with all such subjects

which are not allotted to any ministry or department.

- Certain functions like RAW, CBI, ISRO etc report directly to them and they need to be

kept out of the politics of the day.

- It is not concerned with the responsibilities of PM as the chairman of the Union Cabinet.

- Specialists: Certain functions need specialists and also need to be done away from

public eyes for greater good. Example- Pokhran II, External intelligence etc.
 TRANSFORMATION OR EVOLUTION OF PMO:

The PMO came into existence in 1947 by replacing the secretary to the Governor

General. Till June 1977, it was called as (PMS) Prime Minister’s Secretariat. The

evolution of PMO has a distinct stamp of incumbent prime ministers.

 During Nehru’s period, secretariat was a low-key affair manned by officer of

the rank of Joint secretary. Cabinet Secretariat was the apex body in that era.

 Lal Bahadur Shastri enlarged the role and first time the body came to be known

as Prime Minister’s Secretariat.

 The post of the Principal Secretary to PM was created during the tenure of Indira

Gandhi as the PM.

 In 1977, PM Morarji Desai renamed the PM’s Secretariat as the PM’s Office.

He also circumscribed its roles and functions significantly.

 During the period of Vajpayee, it was by any reckoning an active PMO in the

triple area of economy, foreign policy and security framework.

 After a subdued tenure under last PM Manmohan Singh, it has again gained its

vigour under the incumbent PM Narendra Modi.

Now, PMO has become a necessity in the last 2 decades due to following reasons-

- Governance has increased in its complexity and scope.

- The International situation is more complicated.

This office is the mirror to the incumbent’s character, personality and style of functioning.

Like in current govt., PMO is more powerful due to influence of PM over political party

internally, full majority in the lower house and dominating personality characteristics.

MERITS OF PMO RISE:

- It comes handy in a coalition group when the PM has to interact with different people

which may lead to mediocracy, but PMO brings merit, efficiency and quick decision

making.

- It allows the PM to be at ease amongst his selected bureaucrats who walk in the same

direction as him. So, the political power is shifted from a group of undisciplined and

unruly ministers to a group of wise and enlightened men who provide him good counsel.

DEMERITS OF PMO RISE:

- If PMO is given too much leeway, it would open the floodgates for unlimited power.

Unlimited power often leads to misuse of power.

- Excessive power in PMO is both unconstitutional and undemocratic. This can lead to

the disturbance of balance between different wings.

 - Under the UAPA govt, led by Manmohan Singh, the PMO became a low-key affair

working on only its direct orders. But under the present NDA govt, the PMO is alive

and kicking again.

Function of state in LPG

YAAR I M CONFUSED I HAVE SOME MATERIAL IN MY

REGISTER+ SOME HAS TO BE EXTRACTED FROM PREVIOUS

QUESTIONS AS WELL .

Corruption in India and ways to cure it

Corruption

Corruption is an age old phenomenon. It can be seen everywhere now a days. It is like a cancer

in public life, which has not become to rampant and perpetuated overnight, but is course of

time. The word corruption means destruction, ruining or spoiling a society. A corrupt society

is characterized by immorality and lack of fear or lack of respect for the law. It is the abuse of

public power for private gain. Corruption comes under many different guises like bribery,
extortion, fraud, embezzlement, misappropriations of public goods, nepotism, and cronyism.

Corruption has been defined in many different ways, each lacking in some aspect.

According to the definition given by World Bank, “Corruption is the abuse of public power

for private benefit”. From this definition it should not be concluded that corruption cannot exist

within private sector activities. Especially in large private enterprises, this phenomenon clearly

exists, as for example in procurement or even in hiring. It also exist in private activities

regulated by the government.

Corruption is a financial terrorism, it is anti-poor, anti-national and anti-development. (Mr.

Vitthal)

A country’s ratio of political to economic opportunities affect the nature of Corruption, if the

former outweighs the latter, being particular India – increase in public health. (Samuel P.

Huntington)

Average income and assets of India’s 100 topmost richest legislatures grew by 745% between

consequent elections and individual legislators saw their assets grow their upto 25 fold.

(Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR): Data -1370 Re-elected MLAs and 200 re-elected

MPs)

Problem with India is spiritual sterility and moral illiteracy. (Nani Palkhivala)

Causes of Corruption in India

Corruption is a global phenomenon. It has progressively increased and is now rampant in our

society. Corruption in India has wings, not wheels. As the nation grows, the corrupt also grow

to invent new methods of cheating the government and public. The cause of corruption are

many and complex. Corruption is a phenomenon that takes place due to the presence of a

number of factors. The following are some Administrative Causes of Corruption:

 1) Political Patronage

2) Administrative labyrinth

3) Red Tapism

4) Obsolete Rules

5) Cushions of Legal Safety

6) Biradri

7) Lack of Punishment and Poor Conviction Rate

Political Patronage

The biggest cause of corruption in today’s life India is undoubtedly the political leadership at

the helm of affairs in the country. From this fountainhead of corruption flow various streams

of corrupt practices which plague the political economic and social activities in the country.

The post-independence political leadership has risen from the grassroots level in the form of

regional, caste, linguistic and other protest movements. They have transformed the nature of

politics and administration. Amoral politics, self-aggrandizement, disregard of the

constitutional norms in the pursuit of power, political survival at any cost is their rules of the

game. They interfere with the administration of justice and have bent bureaucracy to do their

bidding. Political patronage is the dispensation of favours or rewards such as public office,

jobs, contracts, subsidies, prestige by a patron to a client. The patron is usually an elected

official or empowered to make such grants. In return, the client supplies the patron with some

valued service, such as voting for the patron’s party or providing money or labour for

electoral campaigning.

Administrative labyrinth

Cumbersome and dilatory administrative procedures and practices are other major causes of

corruption in India. India’s legal and administrative system was designed in the middle of the
nineteenth century to serve the interests of colonial administration. The Indian Penal Code, the

main instrument for controlling crime and administering criminal justice, was enacted in 1860.

The organization and functions of the police are governed by the India Police Act of 1861. The

Indian Evidence Act came into force in 1872. Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules,

the financial Bibles for all government financial transactions, were framed in the twenties when

the government’s financial transactions and commitments were simple. The focal point of

colonial justice was the individual and the protection of individual property rights whereas the

emphasis of a welfare state is on the right of the society and social justice.

Elution time is a time when corruption is at its peak. Big industrialists fund politicians to meet

high cost of election and ultimately to seek personal favour. Bribery to politicians buys

influences and bribery by politicians buys votes. In order to get elected, politicians bribe poor,

illiterate people.

Red Tapism

Red tape is an idiom that refers to excessive regulation or rigid conformity to formal rules that

is considered redundant or bureaucratic and hinders or prevents action or decision-making. It

is usually applied to governments, corporations, and other large organizations.

Collection or sequence of forms and procedures required to gain bureaucratic approval for

something, especially when oppressively complex and time-consuming".

Red tape generally includes filling out paperwork, obtaining licenses, having multiple people

or committees approve a decision and various low-level rules that make conducting one's

affairs slower, more difficult, or both. Red tape can also include "filing and certification

requirements, reporting, investigation, inspection and enforcement practices, and procedures.

Obsolete Rules
The 248th Report of Law Commission on ‘How to simplify our laws’, recommended 261

Statutes should be revised, 72 should be straight away be repealed.

According to Professor Raghuram Rajan, the license raj was replaced by resource raj in which

the politically connected industrialists build empires by gaining access to public goods such as

coal, minerals, land and telecom spectrum.

Legal Safety

To provide Legal Safety to the corrupt people is also one of the main causes of corruption

which encourages the corrupt practices in future.

Biradri

Favouring relatives (nepotism) or personal friends (cronyism) of an official is a form of

illegitimate private gain. Kinship and caste groups do not consider that behaviour which

deviates from the formal duties of a public role as ‘deviation’ or ‘corruption’ but view it as a

‘family obligation’. This explains corrupt actions of many a public servant both at the lower as

well as the higher levels.

Lack of Punishment and Poor Conviction Rate

A contributory factor to the growth of corruption in India is that the cases relating to corruption

are often handled in a casual and clumsy manner. Those in hierarchy vested with disciplinary

powers shirk duty and so unwillingness to use their powers against corrupt practices. This may

be due to different reasons like political or trade union pressure, vested interests or sheer

ineptitude in handling criminal investigation. The result is that the corrupt are rarely caught

and even if caught are let off with minor or no politics. The Government officials entrusted

with the responsibility of dealing with corruption does it in a most inefficient and lethargic

manner and this suits the political leadership which patroness corruption.
Socio-Psycho Causes of Corruption

The following are the some Socio-Psycho Causes of Corruption:

1) Social and Public Acceptance

2) Rise of Consumerism

3) Emulative Consumption

4) Cultural Essentialism

5) Low Salaries and Wages

6) Insecurity about the Future

SOLUTIONS FOR CORRUPTION:

Corruption is a cancer, which every Indian must strike to cure. Many new leaders declare their

determination to eradicate corruption but soon they themselves become corrupt and start

amassing huge wealth. Many people become materialistic and money oriented, there is no

importance of ethics and morals in business dealing. This is because these kinds of people have

no moral accountability to anybody. To combat the corruption, the six broad categories are as

follows:

1. Information/ Bottom up monitoring

Information is seen as a basic pillar of the fight against corruption worldwide. According to

Transparency International, “access to information and a strong civil society are essential for

good governance and public accountability.” Remarkably, India’s RTI Act (RTIA) that was

passed in 2005 is ranked as the second best right to information law in the entire world.

Public awareness is must to combat corruption in India. It is also important to improve our

education system because education is the best mean to understand fundamental and legal

rights.

2. Technology
Technology is one of the basic pillars of fight against corruption. Technological approaches to

tackling corruption are appealing but face their own set of challenges. Technological

innovations still rely on higher levels of government to monitor and enforce punishments for

malfeasance, which they may be loathe to do for political economy reasons. In addition, the

logistical details of last-mile delivery can severely hinder effectiveness. Technology-based

solutions work best with concerted institutional support, and when they decentralise

enforcement, circumvent middlemen bureaucrats, and empower ordinary citizens. For

example, a technologically innovative programme in Andhra Pradesh used biometrically

authenticated smartcards to decentralise payment-making authority for the rural jobs guarantee

scheme and social security pensions, resulting in a more than 40% reduction in leakage.

3. Finance Management

Reforms focussing on improving financial management and strengthening the role of auditing

agencies have in many countries achieved greater impact than public sector reforms on curbing

corruption.

One such reform is the disclosure of budget information, which prevents waste and

misappropriation of resources.

4. Electoral Reforms

Funding of elections is at the core of political corruption. Electoral reforms are crucial in this

regard. Several reforms like state funding of election expenses for candidates, strict

enforcement of statutory requirements like holding in-party elections, making political parties

get their accounts audited regularly and filing income-tax returns, denying persons with

criminal records a chance to contest elections, should be brought in. Responsiveness,

accountability and transparency are a must for a clean system. Bureaucracy, the backbone of

good governance, should be made more citizen-friendly, accountable, ethical and transparent.
More and more courts should be opened for speedy and inexpensive justice so that cases don’t

linger in courts for years and justice is delivered on time.

5. Legal Reforms

Many cases of corruption take years to be given verdict. This delay in cases creates lack of fear

for being corrupt and also huge time span for court trials gives sufficient time to make

alterations in the witness. Establishing fast track courts and giving severe punishment for

corruption practice will keep a control on corruption.

ILLS PLAGUING INDIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM IN CURRENT TIMES (NOT IN

SYLABUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

There are 6 Cs via which I want to explain the ills plaguing Indian political system: -

1. Corruption

2. Criminalization of politics

3. Casteism

4. Communalism

5. Covid damage

6. Cancer of both the body politic and its soul.

CORRUPTION:

Corruption is the misuse of entrusted public power (by elected politician or appointed civil

servant) for private gain. It is an issue which affects the economy of central, state and local

govt agencies in many ways. A study conducted by Transparency International in 2005

recorded that more than 62 % of Indians had at some point or another paid a bribe to a public
official to get a job done. Our country is ranked 86 th out of 180 countries in the Corruption

Perception Index, 2020.

Corruption is that bane which is sucking the very energy of development. It erodes the trust we

have in the public sector to act in our best interests. It also wastes our taxes or rates that have

been earmarked for important community projects- meaning we have to put up with poor

quality services or infrastructure, or we miss out altogether.

Causes of corruption in India:

- Low pay scales and wages

- Lack of strict and fast punishments

- Lack of unity in public

- Lack of transparency in deals and affairs

- Lack of independent detective agency

- Lack of enough powers to the judicial system in India

- Lack of accountability

- Lack of autonomy

- Lack of effective management and implementation

- Vast size of population in India is the biggest cause of corruption in India

- Emergence of political elite who believe in interest-oriented rather than nation-oriented

programmes and policies is Another Big reason of Corruption in india .

- Tolerance of People Towards Corruption is a Another big reason for Corruption In

India.

Consequences of Corruption

- Rise in Unemployment
- Rise in Hunger and poverty

- Loss of Indian Economy Wealth

- Fall in growth of Indian Economy

- Power and Authority in Wrong hands

- Brain Drain is Biggest Consequence for India

- Psychological And Social Disorder

- Corruption is also the main cause of Poverty as Rich are getting richer & poor are

getting poorer. Not all the packages, compensation announced by government reach the

minorities and backward communities.

How can We Cure Corruption in India?

- Give Good salary to Government Employees

- Bring transparency In Indian Economic System

- Try To make Indian Society Cashless

- Bring Political parties Under RTI

- Set Eligibility For Indian Politician

- Increase in Digital And E Governance

- Transparent tax structure by clean and clear enforcement

- More Police reforms and Power Full Judiciary

- Blacklist Corrupt Businessmen

- Bring More Transparency In Govt Job Recruitment

- Keep Inflation low

- Speed up the judgement and increase the courts

- Citizenship cancellation could be a highest level of punishment if their crime score

reaches a certain extent.

- Disrespecting the dishonest

Steps taken by Indian government

- The biggest step is demonetization i.e. banning 500 and 1000 rs notes which is the route

of all evil, be it Corruption, Black Money, Terrorism.

- Under “Right to Information Act (RTI)“, citizens can now ask government about how

that money is spent.

- With “Jan Dhan yojana” & “Direct Benefit Transfer” schemes, bank accounts of

millions of people were opened so that they can get subsidies and benefits directly into

their account.

- E-Auctions for spectrums and natural resources is a good step towards a corruption less

India.

- Government is focusing more on Digitizing, which will lead to more transparency in

functioning of government.

- Government introduced self-attestation of certificates and has removed interviews from

lower posts, so no one can bribe their way through interview to jobs.

- Another potent check on corruption is Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). It was

setup by the Government to advise and guide Central Government agencies in the areas

of vigilance.

CONGRATS!!!THIS IS NOT COMING!

 Difference between Political and Permanent executive

Political executive- with each change in govt, there is a change in the environment.

Permanent executive- they are unaffected by changes in govt.

 FROM ANDREW HEYWOOD

INTRODUCTION:

The executive is, technically, the branch of government that is responsible for the execution or

implementation of policy. A distinction can be made between the political and the permanent

or bureaucratic executive. This distinction is most clear-cut in the case of parliamentary

executives, where differences in recruitment, responsibility, status and political orientation can

be identified. In parliamentary systems, the political executive comprises elected politicians,

ministers drawn from, and accountable to, the assembly: their job is to make policy, in

accordance with the political and ideological priorities of their party, and to oversee its

implementation. The permanent executive comprises appointed and professional civil servants

whose job it is to offer advice and administer policy, subject to the requirements of political

neutrality and loyalty to their ministers.

Nevertheless, in parliamentary systems such as those in Australia, Canada, India and the UK,

the political/bureaucratic distinction is blurred by the fact that senior civil servants often make

a substantial contribution to policy-making and because use is commonly made of temporary,

politically committed advisers. The overlap is usually even greater in presidential executives.

In the USA, for example, the president is the only elected politician in the executive. Cabinet

members are, in effect, appointed officials, and all the senior and many middle-ranking civil

servants are politically partisan and temporary. In communist executives, for example in China

and the USSR of old, the distinction is rendered virtually redundant by the all-pervasive reach

of the ‘ruling’ communist party. Chinese bureaucrats are thus ‘political’, in the sense that they

are, in all cases, ideologically committed supporters, and usually members, of the Chinese

Communist Party.
AFTER WRITING DOWN THE DIFFERENCES IN TABLE FORMAT(FROM ABOVE

SOURCES) WRITE DOWN THE BELOW STUFF.

Functions of political executives

At its most simple, the task of the political executive is to provide leadership. In this sense, the

executive functions as the ‘commanding heights’ of the state apparatus, the core of the state

itself. This role extends over a variety of areas, and this means that the members of the political

executive have to carry out several functions, sometimes simultaneously.

The most important of the areas are the following:

- ceremonial leadership

- policy-making leadership

- popular leadership

- bureaucratic leadership

- crisis leadership.

ceremonial leadership

Heads of state, chief executives and, to a lesser extent, senior ministers or secretaries ‘stand

for’ the state. In giving state authority personal form, they represent the larger society and

symbolize, accurately or otherwise, its unity. This role is largely formal and ceremonial, and

covers, for example, state occasions, foreign visits, international conferences, and the

ratification of treaties and legislation.

The role is, nevertheless, of broader significance for two reasons. First, it provides a focus for

unity and political loyalty, and so helps to build legitimacy. Second, it allows those at the top
of the executive to portray themselves as ‘national leaders’, which is vital to the maintenance

of public support and electoral credibility.

policy-making leadership

The key function of the political executive is to direct and control the policy process. In short,

the executive is expected to ‘govern’. This role was substantially expanded during the twentieth

century in response to then broadening responsibilities of government. The political executive

is looked to, in particular, to develop coherent economic and social programmes that meet the

needs of more complex and politically sophisticated societies, and to control the state’s various

external relationships in an increasingly interdependent world. One important consequence of

this has been the growth of the executive’s legislative powers, and its encroachment on the

traditional responsibilities of them parliament or assembly.

Not only do political executives usually initiate legislative programmes and help, by persuasion

or direction, to make the legislative process work, but, in many cases, they also exercise a wide

range of law-making powers, using decrees, orders and other instruments. However, it is

misleading to imply that the political executive always dominates the policy process.

Much policy, for instance, is initiated by political parties and interest groups. Moreover, by

virtue of their expertise and specialist knowledge, bureaucrats or civil servants may play a

crucial role in policy formulation; at best, leaving the political executive to establish the overall

direction of government policy.

popular leadership
The popularity of the political executive is crucial to the character and stability of the regime

as a whole. At a policy level, it is the ability of the executive to mobilize support that ensures

the compliance and cooperation of the general public. Quite simply, without support from the

public, or from key groups in society, policy implementation becomes difficult, perhaps

impossible. More importantly, the political executive’s popularity is linked to the legitimacy

of the broader regime.

bureaucratic leadership

Its task of overseeing the implementation of policy means that the political executive has major

bureaucratic and administrative responsibilities. In this sense, chief executives, ministers and

secretaries constitute a ‘top management’ charged with running the machinery of government.

This work is organized largely along departmental lines, senior ministers having responsibility

for particular policy areas and for the bureaucrats engaged to administer those areas. At a higher

level, there is a need for policy coordination, which is usually accomplished through some kind

of cabinet system.

crisis leadership

A crucial advantage that the political executive has over the assembly is its ability to take swift

and decisive action. When crises break out, in either domestic or international politics, it is

invariably the executive that responds, by virtue of its hierarchical structure and the scope it

provides for personal leadership. It is therefore common for assemblies to grant political

executives near-dictatorial powers in times of war, and for executives to seize ‘emergency
powers’ when confronted by domestic crises such as natural disasters, terrorist threats,

industrial unrest and civil disorder.

IT’S PENDINGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!

Briefly discuss the problem of Naxalites in India. Suggest some solutions

Naxalites or Naxalism

1) Concept

2) Features

3) Linkages

4) Communist Parties of India

5) Analysis

6) Solutions

Concept

In the year 1967, revolutionary and violent activities started from the village “Naxalbari” in

the Darjeeling District of West Bengal. Hence, it is called Naxalism and the supporter are called

Naxalites.

In Naxalbari
CPI (Marxist) led by Charu Majumdar, initiated the violent uprising. In the Siliguri Kisan

Sabha, they declared their readiness to adopt armed struggle to redistribute land to the landless.

Maoists in Eastern States hideouts in China declared as terrorist organization under the

unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Naxalism is considered to be one of the biggest

internal security threats India faces.

Features

[PAP-LOC]

 Power Vacuum created by inadequacy of political and administrative institutions.

 Alternative form of governance, Parallel government which provides emancipation of the

subaltern (oppressed and suppressed or the weak & the meek) from the barrel of gun (resort to

violence). Mao Zedong, “Power from the barrel of the gun”.

 Protracted war by Guerilla war tactics, the ratio of conventional and unconventional soldier

is 1:10.

 Local Demands. (espoused)

 Oppose government policies.

 Classless society. (supported)

Linkages

National Linkages

 Jammu & Kashmir terrorist groups

 North-Eastern insurgent groups like ULFA & NSCN.

International Linkages

 CCOMPOSA: Co-ordination Committee of the Maoists Parties of South Asia), includes

Maoists parties of four countries i.e. India, China, Nepal and Sri-Lanka.
 Want to establish Compact Revolutionary Zone (CRZ).

Communist Parties of India

 Communist Party of India joined electoral democracy in 1951. They believe in the

Parliamentary system.

 Communist Party of India (Marxist) was formed in 1964. Some of the radical elements from

CPI broke away and they formed CPI (M). During that time there was a rift between Russia

and China.

 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist), 1969: Supported violence

 People’s War Group, 1980: Responsible for substance of Naxalism in India, running parallel

government in alternative and red corridor.

 Maoist Communist Centre, 2003

 Communist Party of India (Maoist) was formed in 2001 after the merger of People’s War

Group (PWG) and Maoist Communist Centre (MCC). They don’t believe in Parliamentary

democracy. They believe in the ideology of Mao who said, “Power flows through the barrel of

the gun.”

Analysis

In 2006, Manmohan Singh states that Naxalism is the single biggest internal security threat to

the country.

Times of India, 2011, Chidambaram Naxalism is a bigger threat to India than terrorism, more

people have been killed due to Naxalism than terrorism & insurgencies support. It’s is a case

of India fighting with itself and while terrorist and separatist insurgencies project India as an

outsider, the Maoist justify their fight as being against a state which has failed to meet the

aspirations of the dispossessed, especially the tribal population.

50-60 million people were forcibly evicted from their hearth and home, PAP – Project affected

people, tribals constituted 40%, only 28-30% were properly rehabilitated. (Yojana Magazine,

Walter Fernandez, Data between 1951-2005)

Solutions

According to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Maoist influence has been gradually shrinking. A

report released in April, 2018 the Ministry of Home Affairs redrew the red corridor and brought

down the no. of districts affected with Naxal violence from 106 to 90, spread across 11 states.

In order to comprehensively dissolve the Naxalite threat, the government has to address its root

causes.

1) Socio-economic development

2) Multi-lateral Dialogue

3) Security forces or Military forces

Socio-economic development

As the Naxalites are fuelled by discontent from the marginalized and the poor, a large

percentage of national budget must be allocated to address the needs of these regions. More of

the national expenditure needs to be focused on developing these poorer regions through

initiatives regarding health, education, social welfare and rural and urban development.

Government service delivery should be improved in these tribal areas. Both state and

government must ensure that things such as statutory minimum wages, access to land and water

sources initiatives are implemented. In coming up with strategies for national economic

growth, the government must always bear in mind the possible effects of fast growth for all

socio-economic groups in a country as large and diverse as India. If the social needs of these
marginalized people are addressed, there will be no discontent to fuel the Naxalites’

movements.

Multi-lateral Dialogue

The government should initiate sincere dialogue with these marginalised groups, the Naxalites

and state leaders. The popularity of Naxalites with the Adivasis is a reflection of the fact that

the government has been unaware or “unapologetically indifferent to their plight”. By

communicating and starting a dialogue between these stakeholders, these groups will feel that

they are being listened to. By opening dialogue, the government can give opportunity for the

rebels to join the mainstream by showing them that solutions can be created together with the

government, by being part of the political system in a legitimate way. They no longer need to

resort to violence to get the state’s attention. For example, the former director-general of AP

concluded that as a result of the ceasefire and dialogue with Maoists in 2004, the violence in

the state decreased by 80-90 percent in the region. As David Pilling noted, the challenge for

India’s leaders will be to allow the necessary development in these poverty-stricken areas while

acknowledging the rights of a neglected indigenous group.

Security Forces or Military Forces

Currently, the main instrument employed by the government to address the Naxalite threat is

the increasing use of the military. While some military force is still needed to combat against

the Maoist guerrillas, it should not be the only solution. By only addressing the issue by brute

force, government risks alienating civilians who are caught in the middle. Coercion of the state

will only encourage people to rally against it.

Governance

The growing Naxalite insurgency also reflects a flaw in the federal structure. Because law and

order is seen as a state responsibility, the central government is unable to be implementing a

coherent national strategy to address the threat. Ganguly notes that “in the absence of a near
complete breakdown of public order or without the express request of the afflicted state, the

central government cannot intervene.” The government has the overall responsibility of

mobilizing development, but it cannot do so without the support of the states. The central

government and the states need to cooperate together to solve the internal security threats and

co-ordinate the implementation of this multi-dimensional approach. Both organizations must

complement and support each other’s initiatives and strategies.

Classical public administration and New public administ

ration

Classical Public administration is based on the works of Max Weber, a sociologist who look

favourably towards Bureaucracy as a mode of organization in public affairs.

Bureaucracy is comprised of 2 words- Bureau (office) and Cracy (Rule). So, Bureaucracy is

the implementation wing of the govt.

According to Max Weber, Bureaucracy lends legitimacy to the ruler by providing what he

termed as “Rational Legal Administration” (i.e., a govt. based on reason and law).

Max Weber not only gave the characteristics and criteria for modern bureaucracy, but also

outlined the terms of employment in the bureaucratic organization.

 Officials are personally free and are appointed on the basis of a contract.

Officials are appointed, not elected. Weber argues that election modifies the strictness of

hierarchical subordination.

Officials are appointed on the basis of professional qualifications.

Officials have a fixed money salary and pension rights.

The official’s post is his sole or major occupation.

A career structure exists with promotion based on merit (though pressure to recognize

seniority may also exists).

The official is subject to a unified control and disciplinary system in which the means of

compulsion and its exercise are clearly defined.

Modern public administration commenced from 1980s- it shook itself of the bureaucratic

mould in 1880s amidst certain political and intellectual trends.

 ‘FUNTERNARSA’ factor

FUNTERNARSA factor is the short form of the following factors:

1) Fundamentalism

2) Terrorism

3) Narcotic Smuggling

4) Small Arms Proliferation

Fundamentalism

In the broader sense, Fundamentalism is an extreme adherence to the core rules of any set of

beliefs. However, we often use this term referring to religious fundamentalism. Religious

fundamentalism is a form of extremism. Its adherents are often told that their religious views

must be obeyed to the absolute letter of the law, and any violation of the law is unforgivable.

It makes people of other religious beliefs inferior in the eyes of fundamentalists, and the results

tend to be very violent.

Terrorism
Terrorism is the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population

and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by

political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious

groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services,

and police.

Narcotic Smuggling

The drug smuggling is consider as s serious problem internationally. It is a global black

market dedicated to the cultivation, manufacture, distribution and sale of drugs that are subject

to drug prohibition laws. Most jurisdictions prohibit trade, except under license, of many types

of drugs through the use of drug prohibition laws.

There are two main sources of drug production:

1) The Golden Crescent

2) The Golden Triangle

The Golden Crescent

It is located in south-west Asia, comprising of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran.

The Golden Triangle

It is located in South-East Asia, comprising of Laos, Thailand and Myanmar.

Small Arms Proliferation

The small arms market or trade includes both authorized transfers of small arms and light

weapons, and illicit transfers of such weapons. Small arms and light weapons are those that

can be transported by one or two people such as pistols and light machine guns, mortars,

and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs). The trade occurs globally, but is concentrated in areas
of armed conflict, violence, organized crime. In terms of actions that are illicit, this trade

involves the illegal trafficking of small arms, and the exchange of money and drugs for small

arms which are all commodities that cross borders around the globe. These weapons are not

only the choice for a majority of regional conflicts today, but also for many terrorist groups

operating around the world. Legal transfers are generally defined as those approved by the

involved governments and in accord with national and international law. Black market (illegal)

transfers clearly violate either national or international law and take place without official

government authorization. Gray (or grey) market transfers are those of unclear legality that do

not belong in either of the other categories.

Small arms proliferation is a related term used to describe the growth in both the authorized

and the illicit markets. In 2003, various international organizations such as Amnesty

International, and domestic groups committed themselves to limiting the trade of small arms

around the world. They said that roughly 500,000 people are killed each year by the use of

small arms.

Seno-nomics

KYA HAI YAAR YE, KHI NHI MIL RHA

Rule of Law
Rule of law is a philosophy which states that the administration of the state should be based

on the principles of law, as opposed to the discretion, whims, and caprices of the person or

persons in power. It implies that no one is above law and that all are subject to the law on an

equal footing. The concept of rule of law was introduced in India by the British, although it

was implemented in letter and spirit.

Principles of Rule of Law:

According to legal experts, rule of law is characterized by the following basic principles,

- An absence of the arbitrary exercise of power - every person in the state, even those

within the government, are governed by the same principles of law. It also implies that

a person cannot be punished for breach of a law which was not in force at the time of

committing such an act. The courts of law responsible for judicial administration

decide whether an act or rule is ultra vires i.e., beyond the scope of the government

agency which has framed such a rule.

- Equality before the law - the law is applicable to a person irrespective of gender, class,

race, religion etc. An important aspect of this principle is 'fair trial'. This implies that

every accused person is provided a reasonable opportunity to defend himself/herself.

- Independence of Judiciary and Separation of Powers - this is paramount to ensure that

there are adequate checks and balances on the exercise of government's power, and

there is no concentration of power in the hands of a single organ. Such a concentration

of powers increases the scope for their abuse. An independent judiciary is necessary
 for a judge to decide on matters before him without any fear, pressure, favour or

inducements.

- Accountability of the government - the executive is accountable to other organs of the

government viz., the legislature and judiciary (known as internal accountability), as

well as to the ordinary citizens (known as external accountability).

- The absence of unjust laws - the laws must ensure the protection of the fundamental

rights such as the right to life, liberty, freedom of speech, protection of property etc.

The laws must also be clear and unambiguous.

- Open government - there must transparency in the government processes i.e.,

enactment of laws, their administration and grievance redressal must be open, fair,

accessible, and efficient.

The above principles elucidate the importance of rule of law. Rule of law is essential in a

modern state which is often a welfare state, which guarantees certain fundamental rights to

its citizens.

How is it different from 'Rule by Law'?

Rule by law indicates that the state is governed by a set of laws. It is a situation where the law

is made by the supreme law-making body of the land. Rule by law can also refer to a

monarchical or dictatorial rule where one person, or a group of persons, has/have the power

to pass laws and enforce them. In rule by law, there is no guarantee that there would be

fairness and predictability in the application of laws. It can also lead to an authoritarian rule,
where the subjects/citizens may not have any means to extract accountability from the ruling

elite.

Rule of Law stands out, in contrast, to rule by law, where the former has adequate checks and

balances to prevent any authoritarian tendencies, ensure accountability from the ruling elite.

Rule of law also means that no one is above law, not even the ruling elite. On the other hand,

in an authoritarian rule, the laws can be such that they grant certain privileges to certain

sections, placing them above the law, distinct from the ordinary people. Such a situation can

be termed as rule by law but not rule of law.

Evolution of Rule of Law in India

Pre -British era

The previous rulers of India had carried out their rule in accordance with the customs and

traditions of those times and according to principles laid out in Manusmriti.

For instance, Arthashastra by Kautilya talks about the roles and responsibilities of the ruler

towards his subjects.

It also mentions that the ruler should ensure the welfare and happiness of his subjects, in

order for the rule to be legitimate.

However, there were no means to ensure that the rulers were bound by such traditions.

The rulers always had the right to take any executive/legal steps they wanted. There existed

no authority before whom such acts by the rulers could be challenged if they were felt to be

arbitrary, excessive or even unjust.

Arbitrariness in the exercise of power was an option also available to the local chiefs, like

zamindars, only limited by the authority of the King.

The British, upon their arrival, found a diverse judicial system operating in accordance with

Hindu Shastras and Koranic injunctions.

Colonial Period

The British had introduced an administrative system which was by and large carried out

according to the laws framed by the British Parliament.

The administration was accountable to the courts, which interpreted the laws and limited

their actions if they were found to be ultra vires. The system tried to protect the liberties of a

person to a certain extent.

The laws were codified for the first time in Indian history, under the British.

Lord Cornwallis furthered judicial reforms by separating revenue and judicial functions. He

also carried forward the task of codification of laws through the Cornwallis code.

Further, on the recommendations of the Law Commission headed by Lord Macaulay, Laws

were codified into the Code of Civil Procedure, Indian Penal Code, and the Criminal Procedure

Code. This ensured that there was some predictability in the application of laws. The

aggrieved subjects could approach the courts and seek redress for any violation as provided

for in such written laws.

Rule of Law and Indian Constitution

The Preamble of the Constitution itself prescribes the ideas of Justice, Liberty and Equality.

These concepts are further enunciated in Part III of the Constitution and are made
enforceable. All three branches of the government are subordinate i.e. the Judiciary,

Legislature and the Executive are not only subordinate to the Constitution but are bound to

act according to the provisions of the Constitution. The doctrine of judicial review is embodied

in the Constitution and the subjects can approach the High Court and the Supreme Court for

the enforcement of fundamental rights. If the Executive or the government abuses the power

vested in it or if the action is mala fide, the same can be quashed by the ordinary courts of

law.

The Supreme Court of India in Chief Settlement Commissioner Punjab v. Om Prakash observed

that in our constitutional system, the central and most characteristic feature is the concept

of the rule of law which means, in the present context, the authority of the law courts to test

all administrative action by the standard of legality. The Court added that the doctrine of rule

of law rejects the conception of the dual state in which government action is paced in a

privileged position of immunity from control by law.

Exceptions to Rule of Law

Some exceptions to the concept of the rule of law are discussed below.

‘Equality of Law’ does not mean that the powers of private citizens are the same as the powers

of public officials. e.g. a police officer has the power to arrest which the private citizen does

not have.

The rule of law does not prevent certain classes of persons from being subject to special rules,

for example, the armed forces are governed by military laws.

Ministers and other executive bodies are given wide discretionary powers by the statute.
Certain members of the society are governed by special rules in their professions like lawyers,

doctors and nurses.

Conclusion

The founding fathers of India accomplished what the rest of the world thought impossible –

establish a country that would follow the letter of the law and implement the Rule of Law. In

all matters such as the protection of the rights of the people, equal treatment before the law,

protection against excessive arbitrariness, the Constitution of India has provided enough

mechanisms to ensure that the Rule of Law is followed. Through its decisions, the Courts have

strived to reinforce these mechanisms and ensure smooth justice delivery to all citizens.

Problems such as outdated legislation and overcrowded courts are but small hindrances and

bodies such as the Law Commission of India work towards ironing out these problems with

the aim of achieving a system where there are no barriers to the smooth operation of the

Rule of Law.

Separation of powers

MA’AM NE NHI KARAYA ABHI + WHEN DONE, TAKE THE NOTES FROM THAT ANOTHER

WORD DOC TOO……

https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-6034-separation-of-powers-in-india.html

Main tenets of China's foreign policy. What is Chongqing model?

Chinese Foreign Policy

The foreign relations of the People's Republic of China (PRC), commonly known as China,

guides the way in which China interacts with foreign nations and expresses its political,

economic and cultural strengths and values. As a great power and emerging

superpower, China's foreign policy and strategic thinking are highly influential. China

officially states it "unswervingly pursues an independent foreign policy of peace. The

fundamental goals of this policy are to preserve China's independence, sovereignty and

territorial integrity, create a favourable international environment for China's reform and

opening up and modernization of construction, and to maintain world peace and propel

common development." An example of a foreign policy decision guided by "sovereignty and

territorial integrity".

China is not engaging in diplomatic relations with any country that recognizes the Republic of

China (Taiwan), which the PRC does not recognise as a separate nation.

China is a member of many international organizations, holding key positions such as a

permanent membership on the United Nations Security Council. The PRC's diplomatic goals

were expansionist for achieving international communist revolution before the Cultural

Revolution ended. In the early 1970s, the PRC replaced the ROC as the recognised government
of "China" in the UN following Resolution 2758. As a nuclear power, China signed the Treaty

on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in the United Nations. China's foreign policy

today is summarized as strategic relations with neighbouring countries and the world's

superpowers to strive for China's national interest, and to create a favourable environment for

China's domestic development for perpetual competition in the world in the long-run.

China portrays itself as a Third World country that pursues ‘an independent foreign policy of

peace’. Third World means that China is a poor, developing country and not part of any power

bloc such as that around the United States or the socialist bloc formerly associated with the

Soviet Union. China says that it does not align itself with any other major power. China says

its decisions on foreign policy questions derive from the Five Principles of Peaceful

Coexistence:

1) Mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity,

2) Mutual non-aggression,

3) Mutual benefit and equality,

4) Non-interference in each other's internal affairs, and

5) Peaceful coexistence. The Chinese leadership originally enumerated these principles in

1954 when China, with a communist government, was trying to reach out to the non-

communist countries of Asia.

Chinese Foreign Policy in Recent Years

In recent years, China's leaders have been regular travellers to all parts of the globe, and it has

sought a higher profile in the UN through its permanent seat on the United Nations Security

Council and other multilateral organizations.

Closer to home, China has made efforts to reduce tensions in parts of Asia; its relations with

its Asian neighbours have become stable during the last decades of the 20th century. It has

contributed to stability on the Korean Peninsula, cultivated a more cooperative relationship

with members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and participated in

the ASEAN Regional Forum. In 1997, the ASEAN member nations and China, South Korea

and Japan agreed to hold yearly talks to further strengthen regional cooperation, the ASEAN

Plus Three meetings. In 2005, the "ASEAN Plus Three" countries together

with India, Australia and New Zealand held the inaugural East Asia Summit (EAS). Relations

have improved with Vietnam since a border war was fought with the one-time close ally in

1979. A territorial dispute with its Southeast Asian neighbours over islands in the South China

Sea remains unresolved, as does another dispute in the East China Sea with Japan. These

conflicts have had a negative impact on China's reputation in many parts of the world.

China has improved ties with Russia. Vladimir Putin and Jiang Zemin, in large part to serve as

a counterbalance to the United States, signed a Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation in July

2001. The two also joined with the Central Asian countries

of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan to found the Shanghai Cooperation

Organisation (SCO) in June 2001. The SCO is designed to promote regional stability and

cooperate to combat terrorism in the region.

Relations with India have also improved considerably. After years of competition, general

distrust between the two (mostly over China's close relationship with Pakistan and India's with

the former Soviet Union) and a border war, relations in the 21st century between the world's

two most populous states have never been more harmonious, as they have started to collaborate

in several economic and strategic areas. Both countries have doubled their economic trade in

the past few years, and China became India's largest trading partner in 2010. The two countries

are planning to host joint naval exercises. In 2003, China and India held negotiations for the
first time since the Sino-Indian War of 1962 on a major border dispute: however, the dispute

over Aksai Chin (formerly a part of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir) and South

Tibet (China) or Arunachal Pradesh (India) is not settled and plagues Sino-Indian relations.

While New Delhi has raised objections to Chinese military-aid to arch-rival Pakistan and

neighbouring Bangladesh, Beijing similarly objects to India's growing military collaboration

with Japan, Australia and the United States.

China has border and maritime disputes, including with Vietnam in the Gulf of Tonkin and

with Japan. Beijing has resolved many of these disputes. Notably on 21 July 2008, Russia

finally resolved the last remaining border dispute along the 4300 km border between the two

countries by ceding a small amount of territory to China. China also reached a 2000 agreement

with Vietnam to resolve some differences over their maritime borders, though disagreements

remain over some islands in the South China Sea.

During the late 1990s and early 21st century, Chinese foreign policy appeared to be focused on

improving relations with Russia and Europe to counterbalance the United States. This strategy

was based on the premise that the United States was a hyper power whose influence could be

checked through alliances with other powers, such as Russia or the European Union. This

assessment of United States power was reconsidered after the United States intervention

in Kosovo, and as the 20th century drew to a close, the discussion among think tanks in China

involved how to reorient Chinese foreign policy in a unipolar world. This discussion also

occurred in the context of China's new security concept, which argued that the post–Cold War

era required nations to move away from thinking in terms of alliances and power blocs and

toward thinking in terms of economic and diplomatic cooperation.

China had long been a close ally of North Korea but also found a valuable trading partner

in South Korea and eventually took a role in the early 2000s as a proponent of "six-party talks"
(North Korea, South Korea, Russia, Japan, the United States, and China) to resolve tensions on

the Korean Peninsula. China was instrumental at brokering talks with North Korea over its

nuclear program, and in 2003, there was a concerted effort by China to improve relations with

the ASEAN countries and form a common East Asian market. These foreign policy efforts

have been part of a general foreign policy initiative known as China's peaceful rise. On 15

November 2005, Hu Jintao visited Seoul and spoke of the importance of both countries'

contributions for regional peace and cooperation in economic development.

However, China's opposition to the bid of two of its important neighbours—India and Japan—

to become permanent members of the United Nations Security Council has proved to be an

irritant in their respective relationships. Japan, with its large economic and cultural influences

in Asia, is seen by China as its most formidable opponent and partner in regional diplomacy.

The two sides established diplomatic relations in 1972, and Japanese investment in China was

important in the early years of China's economic reforms and ever since.

At a national meeting on diplomatic work in August 2004, China's paramount leader Hu

Jintao reiterated that China will continue its "independent foreign policy of peaceful

development," stressing the need for a peaceful and stable international environment,

especially among China's neighbours, that will foster "mutually beneficial cooperation" and

"common development." This policy line has varied little in intent since the People's Republic

was established in 1949, but the rhetoric has varied in its stridency to reflect periods of domestic

political upheaval.

In 2005, there was talk of the European Union lifting its arms embargo imposed in

1989, however the United States has objected to this.

In 2007, foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang made a statement about the eight-point

diplomatic philosophy of China:

China will not seek hegemony. China is still a developing country and has no resources to seek

hegemony. Even if China becomes a developed country, it will not seek hegemony.

1) China will not play power politics and will not interfere with other countries' internal
affairs. China will not impose its own ideology on other countries.

2) China maintains all countries, big or small, should be treated equally and respect each
other. All affairs should be consulted and resolved by all countries on the basis of equal

participation. No country should bully others on the basis of strength.

3) China will make judgment on each case in international affairs, each matter on the merit
of the matter itself and it will not have double standards. China will not have two

policies: one for itself and one for others. China believes that it cannot do unto others

what they do not wish others do unto them.

4) China advocates that all countries handle their relations on the basis of the United
Nations Charter and norms governing international relations. China advocates stepping

up international cooperation and is against unilateral politics. China should not

undermine the dignity and the authority of the U.N. China should not impose and set

its own wishes above the U.N. Charter, international law and norms.

5) China advocates peaceful negotiation and consultation so as to resolve its international

disputes. China does not resort to force, or threat of force, in resolving international

disputes. China maintains a reasonable national military build up to defend its own

sovereignty and territorial integrity. It is not made to expand, nor does it seek invasion

or aggression.

6) China is firmly opposed to terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass

destruction. China is a responsible member of the international community, and as for

international treaties, China abides by all them in a faithful way. China never plays by

a double standard, selecting and discarding treaties it does not need.

 7) China respects the diversity of the civilization and the whole world. China advocates
different cultures make exchanges, learn from each other, and complement one another

with their own strengths. China is opposed to clashes and confrontations between

civilizations, and China does not link any particular ethnic group or religion with

terrorism.

 China’s secret strategy of displacing US as the sole Superpower.

 Why Chinese Education system is best in the world.

1. PISA: Program for International School Assessment - to check the level of 15 – 10 year

Maths, Science, Collaborative Problem solving, Reading, Financial Literacy.

2. Keju – Chinese Imperial Examination – Hans dynast, Sui Dynasty tries to test the

knowledge of student in confusion classics, only 5% pass.

 Why Chinese Education system is the worst in the world:

1. O2C2H: Order, Obedience, Conformity, Compliance, Homogenous Thinking.

Chongqing Model

There is a wide range of policies that made up the Chongqing model, stretching from public

housing to anti-corruption campaigns. In 2008 Chongqing municipality announced the ‘Five

Chongqing’s plan’. This included policies aimed at housing, transport, safety, the environment

and public health. Furthermore, the municipality experimented with reforms of the hukou and

rural land rights systems. Some of these policies were experimental, but sanctioned by the

central party leadership.

The Chongqing model refers to a series of social and economic policies adopted in

the municipality of Chongqing. It was executed by the Bo Xilai, who served as the

city's Communist Party secretary from 2007 to 2012.

The Chongqing model was characterized in part by increased state control and the promotion

of a neo-leftist ideology. It involved a sweeping and sometimes extrajudicial campaign against

organized crime, and increased the security and police presence in the city. As a means of

addressing declining public morality, Bo launched a ‘red culture’ movement to

promote Maoist-era socialist ethics. On the economic front, he actively courted foreign

investment and focused on manufacturing for domestic consumption. The Chongqing model

was also characterized by massive public works programs, subsidized housing for the poor,

and social policies intended to make it easier for rural citizens to move to the city.

The Chongqing model represented an alternative model of development which diverged from

the policies favoured by the reformist faction led by Party general secretary Hu Jintao and

Premier Wen Jiabao. When Bo Xilai was removed from his posts in the spring of 2012,

authorities began a campaign to reverse several of the policies that characterized the Chongqing

model, including by cracking down on expressions of ‘red culture’. Individuals, who believed

they had been wrongly persecuted under the anti-corruption campaign, also began seeking legal

redress.

Bo used his leadership of Chongqing to pioneer the ‘Chongqing Model’: a systematic set of

social and economic policies intended to address diverse challenges facing modern China.

Crackdown on Organised Crime

Bo's tenure in Chongqing was dominated by a protracted war ostensibly against organized

crime and corruption known as "Striking Black". Since 2009, an estimated 5,700 people were

arrested in the sweeping campaign that ensnared not only criminals, but also businessmen,

members of the police force, judges, government officials, and political adversaries who were

accused of corruption or criminal collaboration.

The ‘Striking Black’ campaign earned Bo national recognition and widespread popularity in

Chongqing. The apparent success of Bo's campaign raised Bo's national and international

profile and resulted in calls for a nationwide campaign based on his experiences in Chongqing.

Through the campaign, Bo gained the support of a number of powerful members of the

Politburo Standing Committee.

Bo's measures were criticized for neglecting due process and contributing to the erosion of

the rule of law. Individuals targeted in the campaign were arbitrarily detained by the

authorities. Lawyers for the accused were reportedly intimidated; one lawyer was sentenced to

18 months in prison. Allegations also surfaced over the use of torture to extract

confessions. Moreover, many of those targeted in the campaign were not criminals, but

businessmen and political rivals whose assets were reportedly seized in order to help pay for

Bo’s popular social housing programs. The Wall Street Journal reported estimates that $11

billion was seized through the campaign. The campaign to combat crime and maintain political

stability also involved the launch of a major electronic surveillance operation in the city.

Social Policies

A cornerstone of Bo’s Chongqing model was a series of egalitarian social policies aimed at

lessening the gap between rich and poor and easing the rural-urban divide. Bo promoted the

notion of pursuing ‘Red GDP’—an economic model embodying communist egalitarianism.

To that end, the city reportedly spent $15.8 billion on public apartment complexes for use by

recent college graduates, migrant workers, and low-income residents. Bo aimed to provide

housing for 2.4 million residents by 2012. Residents whose incomes were under 3,000 Yuan

($480) per month would be eligible to rent apartments for three years, with an option to buy

thereafter. The Chongqing model also involved a major campaign to "green" the city through

a tree-planting initiative.
Economic Policies

Another major component of Bo’s Chongqing model concerned the city’s economic policies.

Bo ambitiously pursued foreign investment in the city, lowered corporate income tax rates, and

sought to stimulate rapid urbanization and industrialization. He also carried on policies which

focused on domestic consumption, rather than export-led growth. The Chongqing model also

placed emphasis on the importance of state-owned enterprises. In 2010, Bo stressed that China

“needs to have things that are state-owned.”

Red Culture Movement

During his time in Chongqing, Bo initiated a series of Maoist-style campaigns to revive ‘red

culture’. Prior to the 60th Anniversary of the People's Republic of China celebrations, Bo sent

out "red text messages" to the city's 13 million cell-phone users, which included phrases such

as ‘I like how Chairman Mao puts it: The world is ours, we will all have to work together’ and

‘responsibility and seriousness can conquer the world, and the Chinese Communist Party

members represent these qualities.’

Bo also raised new Mao statues in Chongqing, while providing social housing to the city's less

well-off. Some scholars have characterized this as an example of the revival of Maoism in the

Chinese Communist ethos. In 2011, Bo and the city's Media Department initiated a "Red Songs

campaign" that demanded every district, government department, commercial enterprise,

educational institution, and state radio and TV station begin ‘singing red songs’ praising the

achievements of the Communist Party of China.

Rent raj
 KYA LIKHU MAI, NOT ABLE TO UNDERSTAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CONGRATS!! NOT IN THE SYLLABUS!

Types of Rent

1) Regulatory Rent

2) Extractive Rent

3) Political Rent

4) Terrestrial Rent

5) Subterranean Rent

6) Ethereal Rent

Regulatory Rent

It is the rent which the State takes in areas where the State plays a domineering role or where

the state has opened up the sector but failed to institute sound regulatory institutions in wake

of liberation. This has led to some suggest that what India suffers from is ‘Crony Socialism’

rather than ‘Crony Capitalism’.

Extractive Rent

It involves rents stemming from the natural resources or extractive industries such as mining.

Here corruption is involved in extractive rents. The discretionary allocation of public resources

to private or other public players for their development and refinement.

Political Rent

It is related to the two aspects of political system:

 1. The nature of Political finance in India is opaque and is highly dependent on undented

cash.

2. The extent to which the criminality intersects with & resides within the political sphere.

Politicians associated with criminal activities are tide in corruption on two accounts:

(a) They acquire political status on the basis of their ability to manipulate the state to

divert benefits to a narrowly defined community.

(b) Such politicians cultivate their own criminal reputations and perpetuate the

corruption and subversion of the state to consolidate their own political successes.

E.g. Politician Raghu Raj Pratap Singh.

Terrestrial Rent

It is derived from the allocation of land or resources located above the ground.

Subterranean Rent

It is derived from the allocation of rights to three things: Coal mining, Oil and Gas exploration,

which take place below the ground.

Ethereal Rent

It is derived from the allocation of telecommunication spectrum.

Gross national happiness

Gross National Happiness Index- INTRODUCTION:

Gross National Happiness is a term coined by His Majesty the Fourth King of Bhutan, Jigme

Singye Wangchuck in the 1970s. The concept implies that sustainable development should take

a holistic approach towards notions of progress through the inclusion of the social, spiritual

and cultural needs of future generations and give equal importance to non-economic aspects of

wellbeing. The Gross National Happiness Index is a single number index developed from 33

indicators categorized under nine domains. The GNH Index is constructed based upon a robust

multidimensional methodology known as the Alkire-Foster method.

The concept of GNH has often been explained by its four pillars: good governance, sustainable

socio-economic development, cultural preservation, and environmental conservation (DRAW

A DIAGRAM TO REPRESENT THESE 4 PILLARS OF GNH) . Lately the four pillars

have been further classified into nine domains in order to create widespread understanding of

GNH and to reflect the holistic range of GNH values. The nine domains are: psychological

wellbeing, health, education, time use, cultural diversity and resilience, good governance,

community vitality, ecological diversity and resilience, and living standards. The domains

represent each of the components of wellbeing of the Bhutanese people, and the term wellbeing

here refers to fulfilling conditions of a "good life" as per the values and principles laid down

by the concept of Gross National Happiness.

The limitations of GDP as a measure of progress include the fact that it does not make a

distinction between GDP made from good development and GDP made from bad development;

that it does not value natural, human, and social capital; and it does not value free time, leisure,

or unpaid work. Gross National Happiness policies take into account equality, family integrity,

health, gender equity, and satisfying jobs, among other things. The policy envisions a person

to be bonded deeply to a safe and supportive community in which trustworthiness of the people
is high, and fear of victimization by other human beings is ideally non-existent. The community

envisioned in Gross National Happiness is set deeply in nurturing ecology, just as an individual

is deeply bonded to a community.

In Bhutan, the policy of Gross National Happiness has created new norms of official decision

making and new institutions and has helped the country strike a balance between modernity

and tradition. A major success of the policy is that Bhutan has remained a reasonably equitable

and sustainable society where the proportion of happy people is high despite a relative low

level of per capita income.

Now, I would like to explain some ways by which governments can invest in happiness:

1. Flexible Workplaces- what we do gives us purpose and happiness in life. Investments in

improving working conditions produce huge returns for businesses, in terms of increasing

productivity and profitability, and for individual’s happiness. Simple changes like

increasing workplace flexibility and boosting access to paid leave lead to performance

improvements and increases in worker satisfaction.

2. Social inclusion- Happier societies tend to be those in which all share in the benefits of

economic development, social capital, education, and political power. Universal access to

public services including health and education and equal treatment under the law is

absolutely essential but are not sufficient in themselves. Govts need to get creative to

ensure all are brought into the fold and are satisfied and fulfilled.

3. A new education system- experts discuss how improvements to our curricula to focus

more on social engagement and life skills such as perseverance and resilience not only
 significantly improve standardized test scores but also improve young people’s emotional

well- being. Bhutan is pioneering new positive education interventions that produce

academic success and greater happiness.

4. Climate Crisis: The growing climate crisis is making it harder for governments to keep

their people happy. Land degradation, growing pollution, and the increasing frequency and

severity of natural disasters such as droughts, heat waves, and floods are sapping people’s

happiness, and in some cases, even forcing them from their homes. Governments need to

do more to ameliorate the impacts of climate change. Over the short term, that means better

storm and disaster infrastructure and more access to insurance and programs to help

families relocate if needed. Over the long term, action is needed to slow the pace of climate

change.

5. 21st Century Skills: The modern economy requires new skills for workers to thrive. The

digital revolution has sadly left millions of workers behind, as their skills, jobs, and even

entire industries have been eliminated or automated. Governments need to find new ways

to ensure the livelihoods and dignity of these workers. Around the world, policymakers

are exploring options ranging from skills retraining programs to a universal basic income.

6. Income Inequality: High-income capitalist countries face the unique problem of

inequality. Studies show that the absolute level of one’s wealth tends to matter less to their

happiness than their economic status relative to others. People in low- or middle-income

countries with greater economic equality tend to be happier, therefore, than those with the

same incomes in more unequal societies. Access to high-quality public services (health

care, childcare, and education, for example) help reduce the cost of living, while a living
 minimum wage can ensure a greater degree of economic justice. Govt should create job

opportunities for the poor and marginalized in the form of public work to increase their

incomes.

7. Physical Health: Physical health problems place a major weight on the economy, because

of non-employments, absenteeism, and increased health care costs. It also is one of the

greatest sources of citizens’ unhappiness, particularly in high-income countries, according

to surveys. Spending more on preventative health is lowest-hanging fruit, in terms of

making people happier while also boosting the economy and lowering costs.

8. Busting Corruption: Corruption kills social trust and happiness. Lack of trust in one’s

community and in government are devastating for personal happiness – when one feels as

if they cannot fairly compete in the economy or in the political system, resignation and

defeat sets in. Corruption not only erodes social trust and happiness, it leads to poorer

provision of services that lead to further dissatisfaction. Quality of government is also

strongly associated with longevity and positive health measures. Stronger anti-corruption

laws, investigative authorities, greater transparency all go far to improving trust and

happiness.

How is GNH relevant to India or to other countries?

The philosophy underlying GNH is universal. The King of Bhutan stated, at the Madhavrao

Scindia Memorial Lecture in New Delhi a few years ago that, “GNH signifies simply –

“Development with Values” – where we strive for the benefits of economic growth and

modernization while ensuring that in our drive for economic progress we do not forget to
nurture that which make us united, harmonious and secure as Bhutanese … GNH is the bridge

between the fundamental values of kindness, equality and humanity and the necessary pursuit

of economic growth … GNH acts as our national conscience guiding us towards making wise

decisions for a better future. It ensures that … the human dimension, the individual’s place in

the nation, is never forgotten.”

So essentially GNH provides a reminder that economic progress is not the ultimate or sole aim.

The overriding objective is to create the conditions for happiness and well-being, of which

economic growth is a part but just as important are communal harmony, rule of law, mitigating

the effects of climate change, disaster prevention and management, equality of opportunity,

cultural resilience, safety, women’s rights, welfare services, well-functioning democracy and

so on – all combining to provide comfort, security, confidence and a more wholesome

experience of citizenship to all the people.

India is an ancient civilization and a reservoir of the world’s major religions, cultures and

environmental heritage. It also has tremendous scientific, technological and economic strength.

As India transforms into a superpower, the changes that are likely to come in the next decades

are unimaginable. When this happens, the use of traditional measures for progress and growth

for a nation of such diversity, vast area and population may not be adequate. The pockets of

people, who are disaffected, isolated or caught in cycles of extreme poverty and hardship may

remain concealed even as India ascends the global economic pedestal. India may need her own

version of GNH that incorporates the unique character and composition of her people. Such a

measure will help to ensure that India’s immense diversity is addressed, so that the rewards of

development will be shared equally, social capital preserved, environmental and cultural

heritage strengthened, and the nation becomes stronger and more united, even as she undergoes
an explosion of rapid economic growth and change. No region or group or people are left

behind as India surges forward.

Indo- Pak relations

AB ISKE BAAD SE KUCH NHI AA RHA IN EXAM!!!!!!