www.ignou-ac.

in

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

N
1
www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in1

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

ASSIGNMENT SOLUTIONS GUIDE (2014-2015)

M.P.S.E.-4
Social and Political Thought In Modern India
Disclaimer/Special Note: These are just the sample of the Answers/Solutions to some of the Questions given in the
Assignments. These Sample Answers/Solutions are prepared by Private Teacher/Tutors/Auhtors for the help and Guidance
of the student to get an idea of how he/she can answer the Questions of the Assignments. We do not claim 100% Accuracy
of these sample Answers as these are based on the knowledge and cabability of Private Teacher/Tutor. Sample answers
may be seen as the Guide/Help Book for the reference to prepare the answers of the Question given in the assignment. As
these solutions and answers are prepared by the private teacher/tutor so the chances of error or mistake cannot be denied.
Any Omission or Error is highly regretted though every care has been taken while preparing these Sample Answers/
Solutions. Please consult your own Teacher/Tutor before you prepare a Particular Answer & for uptodate and exact
information, data and solution. Student should must read and refer the official study material provided by the university.
SECTION I
Q. 2. Write an essay on state and sovereignty in Ancient India.
Ans. State and Sovereignty in Ancient India: In lineage society during the mid-first millennium BC, the basic unit
was family under the control of the senior most male member. The head person exercised his authority over the clans
through kinship and rituals. The families were tied together because of the genealogical relationships. The kin connections and wealth led to differentiations between the ruler and the ruled in the society. The state system emerged because
of the population growth, shift from pastoral to peasant economy, socio-cultural heterogeneity and various other factors.
Romila Thaper in her seminal work on social formation (History and Beyond, collection of essays) says extensive trade,
the fall of political elite and democratic process resulted in the shift towards state system. With the formation of state, the
issue of governance became a major concern of the society. In Mahabharata, there is reference to Matsyanyaya, a condition in which small fishes become prey to big fishes. It happens in a society where there is no authority. To avoid such a
crisis, people agreed to have a set of laws and they selected a person to become the ruler or appealed to the God for a king
who will maintain law and order in the society. There are thus references to both Divine Origin of Kingship and Social
Contract Theory of Kingship. Various studies however, suggest that the polity emerged as an independent domain. Monarchy was the dominant form of government in the early Indian polity. As mentioned in the Shanti Parva of the Mahabharata,
there were seven constituents of the State
(i) Swamin or the Sovereign: The king is considered as the head of this structure.
(ii) Amatya or the Officials: They come next to the king. Through the officials, the king governs the state.
(iii) Janapada or the Territory: It includes agricultural land, mines and forests.
(iv) Durga or the Fort: It refers to the fortification of the capital.
(v) Kosa or the treasury: It is the place where collected revenues are kept.
(vi) Danda or the Army: It refers to the power of law and of authority.
(vii) Mitra or the Allies: They are friendly states.
These are considered as the natural organs of the state.
Manusmriti was in favour a political authority. It advocated that without a political authority, there would be disorder
in society. The Kings duty is to ensure justice in the society and protect the weak. Manu advocated for social hierarehy
and caste system. Justice for him was based on the customs and practices of different castes. He said the king derived his
authority from God, but he should be guided in practice by the brahmanas. His view was that brahmanas have knowledge
and knowledge should rule. The state, according to Manu, should have villages, districts and provinces. The structure
resembles the present day structure of administration. His system was based on the principle of decentralisation of authority.
He said an assembly of the learned and the officers of the state should advise the king. Members should be objective and
fearless while taking decisions on the basis of dharma. Village and district authorities should function independently and
the king should interfere or help only when there was any requirement. The kings major concerns should be welfare of
the people. The king should show them compassion to the best of his power. He should help the distressed, the helpless
and the old.

N
2

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in2

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

Kautilys Arthashastra gives a more detailed picture of statecraft. Arthasastra deals with various functions and the
methods of running the state. Kautilya was in favour a strong monarchy, but he did not support the idea of absolute
monarchy. In the earlier tradition, the king was guided by brahmanas, but in Arthasashtra the king is considered as the last
word in every thing. Arthasastra suggested how a king should control his senses and discharge his duties, how he should
protect himself various threats on his life and the importance of selection of right priests and counsellors. It also talks
about the civil law with various measures for an effective administration and criminal law for dealing with those people
who are considered as a threat. Kautilya suggested that the king should be vigilant about the motives and integrity of his
ministers. He also talked about bribery and corruption in administration. He said through reward and punishment, the
king should set a standard for others to follow. The king is above others but not above dharma, which means obeying
customary and sacred law and protection of his peoples life and property. Kautilya considered this as the basic duty of a
king. On friendly and hostile neighbours, he recommended organization of armies and spies to keep a watch on internal
and external developments. He said the army should be placed under a divided command. The king should protect
farmers from oppression and take care of the orphans, the aged and the helpless. A good king should take up welfare
activities in the interest of all. The king should concern about the happiness of his people, otherwise he would lose
peoples support.
Danda is another important concept which is found in the ancient political tradition. Danda is the sense of coercion
or punishment. Danda is meant for discipline. The king has every right to punish the guilty if the rules of the state are not
obeyed by any individual or if anybody is involved in an activity which goes against the interest of the state, The Buddhist
canonical literature advocated that a monarch should rule as per the law of truth and righteousness. The ruler should not
permit any wrong doing in his territory and should look after the poor. A king was a chosen leader of the people and his
main duty was to punish the wrongdoers and to protect his people.
Tiruvalluvars Tiru-k-Kural, composed during the second century A.D., is one of the famous classics of Tamil literature.
On polity, it suggested that essentials of a state include an adequate army, an industrious people, resources, ample food,
alliance with foreign powers and dependable fortifications. It has also discussion about kings qualities and duties, ministers
responsibilities, importance of spies to keep watch on various activities within the state and diplomacy. It said statecraft is
getting support without letting your weakness be known.
In the ancient Indian polity, there were references to republic even as monarchy was predominant. According to
Greek and Roman accounts of India, since 327-324 B.C. when Alexander invaded India, there were many places governed
by oligarchies. The Buddhist Pali canon also talks about the existence of many republics, mainly in the foothills of the
Himalayas and in North Bihar. These republics were mostly tributary to the greater kingdoms but enjoyed internal autonomy.
The Sakyas who were on the borders of modern Nepal and to whom the Buddha himself belonged is an example. The
Vrijjian confederacy of the Lichhavis who resisted the great Ajatasatru is another example. In north India, between the
Himalayas and the Ganges, during the 6th and 5th centuries B.C. a number of Janapadas existed. The Janapadas were
managed independently by Sanghas or Ganas. Democratic values and public opinion were very much respected in ancient
political tradition despite monarchical government. Both in Brahmanical and Buddhist literature have the details about
the working of assemblies. They also talk about the process of decision making through election. In the Buddhist literature,
there are rules related to the voting in monastic assemblies, their membership and quorums.
Q. 5. Compare the Moderate and the Extremist ideologies in colonial India.
Ans. Defining Moderates and Extremists: Contribution of Moderates and Extremists to the freedom movement in
its early phase was significant even as their view points were contrasting. Moderates including Dadabhai Naoroji,
Pherozeshah Mehta, Surendranath Banerji, M. G. Ranade and Gopal Krishna Gokhale were uncritical admirers of Western political values. Their view was equality before law of freedom of speech and press. They had also the view that
representative government is superior to their traditional Hindu polity which they defined as Asiatic despotism. They
supported the British rule with a view that its introduction in India was A providential mission for eradicating the misrule of the past. On the Crowns reluctance to introduce representative institutions in India, Dadabhai Naoroji said that the
British government in India was More Raj and less British. It meant that though the colonial ruler fulfilled the basic
functions of Hindu kingship in preserving law and order in India, yet they were reluctant to introduce the principle of
representative government.
Moderate-Extremist Comparison: (i) The moderates and extremists had serious differences in their approaches to
the British Empire. The Moderates appreciated the British rule as most beneficial compared to what India had witnessed
before the British rule. Until the 1905 Bengal partition, the Moderate philosophy was based on loyalty to the Empire. In
contrast, the extremists always took the British rule as a curse. They believed the colonial ruler could never render justice

N
3

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in3

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

to the governed in India. They challenged the British government for its evil design and also criticized the moderates for
their approach which is defeating. The Extremists adopted an uncompromising anti-imperial stance which also triggered
the revolutionary terrorist movement in the late 19th and early part of the 20th century.
(ii) The moderates and extremists had differences in the approaches to the outcome of the nationalist intervention.
The moderates stood for the attainment of self government through gradual reforms, while the Extremists demanded
complete Swaraj. Tilaks slogan was Swaraj is my birthright. He said without Swaraj there could be no social reform,
no industrial progress, no useful education, no fulfillment of national life. Bipin Pal also categorical stated that the
principal objective of the extremist struggle was the abdication of the right of England to determine the policy of the
Indian Government, the relinquishment of the right of the present despotism to enact whatever law they please to govern
the people of this country.
(iii) The extremists even adopted violence to advance the cause of the nation, while the moderates favoured
constitutional and peaceful methods to achieve their goal. The extremists thus resorted to boycott and Swadeshi which
never got support from the Moderates. Justifying boycott, Tilak asserted that It is possible to make administration
deplorably difficult and to create conditions impossible for the British bureaucracy by fighting for our rights with
determination and tenacity and by boycott and strike.
Tilak urged Indians to boycott government offices and said with the withdrawal of the Indians from the administration,
the entire machinery would collapse. They also propagated for boycott of foreign goods and promotion of Swadeshi. This
strategy was effective in creating and sustaining the nationalist zeal. The economic boycott caused consternation among
the British industrialists more than the other types of boycott.
(iv) The moderates appeared to be happy under the colonial rule presumably because of their belief that Indians were
not capable of self-rule. This belief prompted them to support the British rule uncritically. The Extremists were diametrically
opposite. Articulating his opposition to the Moderates idea, Tilak asserted that We recognise no teacher in the art of selfgovernment except self-government itself. It values freedom for its own sake and desires autonomy, immediate and
unconditional regardless of any considerations of fitness or unfitness of the people for it.
(v) The moderates supported a loyalist discourse, while the extremists rejected the stance in its articulation of antiimperialism.
(vi) In the extremist conceptualisation of struggle against imperialism, the ideal of self-sacrifice, including the supreme
sacrifice figured prominently, while in the moderate scheme, this idea appeared to have received no attention.
(vii) The strategies of boycott, swadeshi and strike were pursued to articulate the nationalist protest and the sudden
violent attack was encouraged to terrorise the British administration that was rattled following the incessant violent
interventions by those who preferred underground militant operation.
(viii) The moderates drew upon the British variety of liberalism, while the Extremists were inspired by the writings of
Bankim Chandra Chatterjee and the teachings of Vivekananda. The moderates who drew upon the ideas of Gladstone,
Disraeli and Burke to refine their political strategy, whereas the Extremists found Bankims Anandamath, a historical
novel that narrated the story of the rise of the Hindu Sannyasis vis-a-vis the vanquished Muslim rulers and Vivekanandas
interpretation of Vedanta philosophy. The poem Bande Mataram in Anandamath clearly set the tone of the Extremist
philosophy in which the notion of Mother seemed to be prominent. Mother representing simultaneously the divine
motherland and the mother-goddess, Durga, conveyed both patriotic and religious devotion. This was an articulation that
generated mass emotional appeal which the moderate form of constitutional agitation failed to arouse.
SECTION II
Q. 6. (a) Swami Vivkananda on social change
Ans. Renaissance of Hinduism and the Role of Sri Ramakrishna Mission: Ramakrishna Mission, established by
Swami Vivekananda, played a key role in the renaissance of Hinduism. Named after his teacher Sri Ramakrishna
Paramhamsa (1836-86), the objective was to offer selfless service of the people, ceaseless efforts to find truth and thereby
for reawakening of the spirit of India. Paramhamsa preached self-less devotion of God and ultimate absorption in him. He
asked his disciples to live pure life, free of passions, desires, hatred and pride. He saw good in all. His firm belief was that
all the religions were not contradictory but were various phases of one eternal religion.
Swami Vivekananda on Social Change: Vivekananda wanted eradication of poverty and an overall development of
India. He was against aristocracy and feudalism. He wanted to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor. He wanted
that the toiling masses of the country should awake. He also held the view the Shudras or lower caste people would
become the rulers of India in future. He said the socialist and anarchist movements in the Western countries indicated this.
He developed his own theory of social change to explain this.

N
4

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in4

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

On the basis of law of change and with the help of historical evidences from the history of Greece, Rome and India,
Vivekananda held that in every individual, there prevailed three qualities of Sattva (Knowledge) Rajas (Valour) and
Tamas (ignorance) and in every society and in every civilization, there existed four classes of the people. All societies
which had developed division of labour had four classes of Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras. He explained
that on the basis of historical examples and law of nature, each of this class in every society governed the country, one
after another in succession.
Vivekananda had view that in almost all ancient civilisations, in the first stage of human development the Brahmin or
a priest had the power. Later on the Kshatriyas or warriors took over and formed monarchical or oligarchic governments.
In the next phase, the Vaishyas or traders took over. In most of the modern nations, such as England, the power of
controlling society was in the hands of Vaishyas. He said the conquest of India was not the conquest by Christianity but it
was a conquest by the commercial classes. Vivekananda said that the power of the Vaishyas would be overthrown by the
Shudras.
Vivekananda held that as per the law of nature a new and stronger life took the place of the old and the decaying.
Nature favoured the dying of the unfit and the survival of the fittest. He said that the real power of the society rested with
the Shudras who produced wealth with the help of their labour power. He believed the Shudras would become great by
retaining their own qualities as producers of wealth. In the Western world, we had seen that the ranks of the Shudras were
growing and with the increase in their awakening, they would capture power. The last phase of social change was the
victory of Shudras and the capture of political power by them. The rise of Socialists in Europe proved this.
(b) Sri Aurobindo on passive resistance
Ans. Sri Aurobindo on Passive Resistance: The radicals in the Congress wanted to adopt new methods against the
colonial authority to secure political rights for the Indians. Aurobindo believed that passive resistance, which was used by
the Irish nationalists, would be ideal for India. Hence, he developed theory of passive resistance in a series of articles
published in the weekly called Bande Mataram.
Theory of Passive Resistance: Sri Aurobindo said the getting political independence was its highest goal for a
subject country. He said there are three alternative means available to win Swaraj. They were as follows: (i) prayers and
petitions, (ii) armed revolt, and (iii) self-development and passive resistance.
Sri Aurobindo contended that prayers and petitions method has already failed in the Indian context. The method of
armed revolt or resistance was not possible or desirable in India. Hence, he said Indians had only to take recourse to selfdevelopment which was expressed in the methods of Swadeshi and boycott. The programme of self help and selfdevelopment challenged their authority and it would be opposed by bureaucracy and government. He said in such a
situation, the people should adopt passive resistance to the government. Passive resistance meant the resistance to authority
through peaceful means and in an organized manner.
Sri Aurobindo said the goal of passive resistance was the securing political freedom. The programme of selfdevelopment included Swadeshi, national education, boycott and establishment of arbitration courts. Aurobindo argued
political freedom could only be secured by organized passive resistance conducted on a large scale.
Methods of Passive Resistance: The objective of passive resistance was to challenge the authority through nonviolent means. Aurobindo said that passive resistance required more universal endurance and those who were agitating
should be ready for sufferings and sacrifices. One of the major benefits of passive resistance was that people could be
involved and allowed them learn methods of struggle and sufferings. It would train the Indians to endure the struggle and
boost their morale. It would put pressure on the colonial authority.
Aurobindo said passive resistance worked on two levels: (i) it encouraged the people to follow the methods of selfdevelopment such as Swadeshi and national education; (ii) it sought to exert pressure on the government to concede the
demands of the people. In the passive resistance, Aurobindo suggested the following measures would be undertaken to
achieve success:
(i) Not to assist the government.
(ii) Not to pay taxes to the government.
(iii) Boycotting foreign-manufactured products.
(iv) Boycotting the government educational institutes and courts of laws.
(v) Starting own schools, colleges and arbitration courts.
Sri Aurobindo suggested that for effective passive resistance, a well-knit political organization, linking province to
province and district to district, needed to be developed. This organization should represent the national will of the
people. In passive resistance, keeping the struggle within the bounds of law was not its pre-condition. Sometimes, it had

N
5

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in5

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

to break the unjust and oppressive laws which required a high degree of truthfulness and courage. If the movement
succeeded in getting the support of the people, the repression by the government would increase. The purpose was to
make law unworkable by a general and organized disobedience.
The Irish home rule movement against the British rule had influenced Aurobindos theory of passive resistance.
Aurobindos ideas on passive resistance was precursor to the Gandhian theory of Satyagraha. He held the opinion that
with the development of passive resistance movement, the aspirations of the people would grow and they would be able
to actualise national self-consciousness and national will in their various activities.
Q. 7. (a) Hindu nationalism of V.D. Savarkar.
Ans. Hindu Nationalism of V. D. Savarkar: Savarkar was considered as the first systematic exponent of the Hindu
nationalism. In his book, Hindutva (1924), he described his theory of Hindutva in detail. In favour of Hindu nationalism by
that time, he abandoned his concept of Indian nationalism that he learnt from Joseph Mazzini. He also rejected some of the
arguments of territorial nationalism, holding that the existence of a mere territory did not make nation. He argued nation was
made by the people who organised themselves as a political community, bound by traditions and cultural affinities.
Hindutva as Cultural Nationalism: Savarkar supported cultural nationalism. He held that identity formation was
the essence of nationalism. The Hindu religion has given such identity to India. The Hindus were internally bound
together by religious, social, cultural, linguistic and historical affinities despite having outward differences. Through the
process of assimilation and association of countless centuries, these affinities were developed. It changed the Hindus into
a homogeneous and organic nation and above all induced a will to a common national life. This homogeneity was important
because other sections in the society had divergent cultural traditions.
He held the opinion that cultural, racial and religious unity counted more in the formation of the nation. Savarkar
defined nation as a political community which had occupied a contiguous and adequate territory and developed independent
national identity. This community was organized internally and was bound together by racial and cultural affinities. The
Hindus had become nation since they had all these features.
Savarkar believed that Hindus built a nation because they had developed close affinities with the land bound by
Himalayas to the Indian Ocean and the Indus River. Hindus considered India as their fatherland and holy land. Savarkar
argued that those people who constituted nation who accepted India as fatherland and holy land. Savarkar excluded those
people who did not accept India as their holy land. Hindu nationalism for Savarkar stood for the unity of all Hindus. He
said Hindu society came first and not Hindu religion. Hindus were a nation because they were a self-enclosed community
which was internally organised on the basis of racial, religious and linguistic affinities. The Hindus shared a common
historical past. Savarkar also held that nationalism was a psychological feeling and it was necessary to cultivate national
consciousness among the Hindus. The common affinities should be used to strengthen the national consciousness. He
asked the Hindus to cultivate the affinities that encouraged national consciousness.
Hindu Nation and Indian State: Savarkar advocated that the Hindu nation should be strong and powerful so that it
could survive as an independent strong nation. He held that nation had been recognized as the only viable political entity
in the modern times and all the societies of the world had been organised on the basis of nation. Thus, everybody had to
think about his national policies in the context of nation only. He said there was nothing parochial or sectarian in such
thinking.
Savarkar argued that Hindus as a community formed nation and laid stress on the principle of exclusion. His argument
was that Muslims and Christians should be excluded from the Indian nation since they did not consider India as a holy
land as their sacred religious places were situated outside India. He thus laid emphasis on the difference between Hindus
and Muslims. He said Hindus were continuously fighting against Non-Hindus to save their community. Thus, he introduced
the Shuddhi movement to reconvert the converted Hindus to Hinduism and to clear Marathi language of Arabic and
Persian words. He also wrote that the Muslims were not assimilated in India even as they tried to absorb Hinduism but
they failed in their efforts. Besides, the prolonged resistance of the Hindus to Muslim invasions has made them stronger.
While writing about the rights and positions of minorities, Savarkar differentiate between nation and state. He held
that nation was a cultural category, but state was a political category. He said all Hindus were the members of the nation,
whereas non-Hindus might not become members of the nation but they were members of the Indian state. He maintained
that Hindus did not advance any claims, privileges and rights over and above non-Hindu sections. He also wrote that Let
all citizens of the Indian state be treated equally according to their individual worth irrespective of their racial and
religious percentage in the general population. He was ready to provide all rights to the minorities but did not think it
necessary to concede the demands of special interests advanced by Muslims. Savarkar made a difference between Hindu
nation and the Indian state and considered the Hindu nation as a part of the Indian state.

N
6

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in6

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

Hindu Nationalism of V. D. SavarkarA Critical Study: Savarkar was considered as the first Indian thinker who
was in favour of forming a separate nation for Hindus in India. Throughout his life, he wanted to promote the Hindu
nationalism with the help of the Hindu Mahasabha.
Savarkars Hindu nationalism has some inconsistencies. The concept of nationalism was not properly defined because
Hindus, Muslims and Christians in Indian shared common traditions and affinities even in the religious field. His advocacy
of reason, science and technology was justified in the sense that for him they were useful because they helped him forge
strong Hindu nation. Reason and science could be used to fight against religious prejudices and superstitions.
On religious nationalism, the use of the word reason was deplorable because rationally speaking the whole of
communities could not be excluded from the definition of the nation on the grounds of loyally and patriotism because the
betrayers of the national interest could come from any community.
Also, his distinction and notion of the nation and the state was not convincing because both of the nation and state
could not be separated and they came together as nation state. He conceded all the citizenship rights to non-Hindus except
the membership of the nation. This would definitely create distinctions among the people and destroy national unity.
Growth of Hindutva and the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS): The leaders of the RSS carried forward
Hindutva ideology or Hindu nationalism after Savarkar. Dr. Keshav Baliram Hedgewar established the RSS in 1925 to
protect the interests of the Hindus. Dr. Hedgewar, a follower of Lokmanya Tilak, was close to Dr. B. S. Munje. Dr.
Hedgewar participated in the non-cooperation movement in 1920-21. Hedgewar saw that due to the disorganised nature
of Hindu society, the Hindus were suffering losses in the communal riots. Thus, he decided to set up a strong organisation
of the Hindus to protect their interests.
In 1925, he established the RSS as a cultural organization in the sense that it did not directly participate in politics.
The RSS had three objectives. They are:
(i) Organizing the Hindus to protect their interests and to bring unity among themselves through their activities.
(ii) Articulate opposition to British militant and communal Muslim politics and the Congress policy of appeasement
of Muslims.
(iii) Enhancing the influence of the RSS in all walks of life by undertaking organizational work and by inculcating
the spirit of patriotism.
According to Dr. Hedgewar, the basic purpose of the RSS was not to capture political power but to enhance the
influence of Hindus in the public life of the country.
The white collar middle classes were involved with the RSS aduring Dr. Hedgewars time. The RSS did not participate
in the civil disobedience movement of 1930 and also did not directly take part in the political activities of the Hindu
Mahasabha. In 1940, Dr. Hedgewar nominated a young university Professor Madhav Golwalkar as the chief of the RSS.
The RSS also did not join the tumultuous Quit India Movement of 1942. Golwalkar remained the chief of the RSS up to
1973. M. S. Golwalkar expounded the RSS concept of Hindu nationalism. His enunciation of the Hindu nationalism was
popular among the young people.
(b) Polictical ideas of M.S. Golwalkar
Ans. Political Ideas of M. S. Golwalkar: Golwalkar held that nationalism and politics on the Indian perspective
was spiritual and Indians stood for peace and non-violence. However in changed conditions, Hindus should acquire
strength of arms including atom bombs to safeguard their national interests. In the past, Hindus faced defeats because
they did not have latest weapons and well-prepared militarily. He agreed with Savarkars view that there was a struggle
for dominance among different countries. Thus, he argued that India should try to become a strong nation. His view was
that only cowards accept non-violence methods. He said the strength was necessary to protect the good and to eradicate
the evil from the world.
Three World Views of Change: According to Golwalkar, there were three world views of change capitalism,
communism and Hindu spiritualism. The Hindu perspective of change, he argued, was superior to the other two perspectives.
Holding critical view against capitalism, he argued that capitalism was based on greed and exploitation. He believed
that in the name of equality of opportunity and individual freedom, the more powerful and intelligent people had exploited
the weaker and poorer sections of society and set up their own monopoly over others. He argued that the capitalist classes
exploited the right to vote to win political power. The capitalist system reduced millions of people to poverty and penury
and caused untold miseries to the working classes.
The Communist system which emerged as a reaction to the capitalist system gave materialist interpretation of history.
Golwalkar argued that the materialist interpretation of Marx proved wrong because his prediction of inevitability of
revolution did not materialise. The Communists held political power in the name of working classes and promised them

N
7

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in7

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

that they would be given freedom, peace and prosperity, but instead of fulfilling these promises, they imposed a worst
type of dictatorship on the people. He argued that they had not been in a position to solve the basic problems of bread and
shelter both in Russia and China. He said both the systems failed to solve the basic problems of the people because they
were the fruits of the same seed and shared many things in common. He claimed their attitude was materialistic since they
tried to measure pleasure in fulfilling basic physical needs.
Golwalkar said the Hindu spiritualism was superior to communism and capitalism. For Hindus, the satisfaction of
material requirements and physical needs was not the objective of life. Hindus aimed not to optimize their pleasures and
powers but to help others. Hindus believed in harmony, mutual help and accord in relations with others. The goal of life
was the establishment of a society where people would protect each other by the principles of Dharma.
Golwalkar held the view that the Western models of social organisation and change could succeed since they laid
more emphasis on the system than on the individual. In the Hindu spiritualism, development of the individual was the
objective of Hindu social life because individual was the basis of the society.
Negative and Positive Hindutva: Golwalkar said there are two types of Hindutva negative Hindutva and positive
Hindutva. The negative Hindutva, Golwalkar contended, was based on hatred as it developed in response to the Muslim
communalism, or the Congress secularism. Golwalkar argued that we should not build our social system in contrast to the
Muslims and the British. Leaders those who followed negative Hindutva remained firm supporters of Hindutva, but in
their minds culturally they became Muslims as because of their fierce opposition to Muslims. Negative Hindutva was a
means to capture political power.
Positive Hindutva was not developed as a reaction to any adversary. Golwalkar contended that positive Hindutva
organised Hindus as a social force in the society, which would remain steadfast and resolute in the most difficult
circumstances. The objective of positive Hindutva was not to seize political power. Hindus built their social and political
organizations on the basis of Dharma. The national regeneration of Hindus was brought about by great sages, like
Sankaracharya and Chaitanya.
Golwalkar held that positive Hindutva aimed to remain outside the seat of political power and control it so that it
would work in the interest of the society. Thus, the goal of the RSS was to develop individual and society so that it could
become strong, united and powerful.
Hindu Nationalism of M. S. Golwalkar A Critical Study: Golwalkar is a philosopher of Hindutva. He wanted to
develop Hindutva with the Indian spiritualism or non-dualistic monism of Sankaracharya as basis. The Vedanta did not
differentiate between Hindu and non-Hindu souls. There was unity between the individual soul and the supreme soul and
the unity pervaded all human beings including the Hindus and Muslims. Golwalkar rejected territorial nationalism, but
his concept of cultural nationalism was based on territoriality of motherland. His cultural nationalism also excluded onHindu communities on the grounds of their loyalties. There are many examples to prove that both Hindu and Muslim
communities had produced traitors to nation. The entire community cannot be blamed for the betrayal of a few.
Golwalkars positive Hindutva was not convincing because he was a supporter of strong natives and strong nation
state. The RSS remained outside political power, but organisations of the Sangha Parivar could pursue political goal.
Thus, Golwalkars critique of political power was interesting but it did not fit into his overall orientation of the militant
nationalism. There were also differences in the ideologies of Savarkar and Golwalkar. Savarkar was a modernist and he
wanted to set up modern Hindu society. He was opposed to both Varna and caste system. For him, state power was crucial
in the protection of the country. Golwalkar was against Westernisation. He was of the opinion that negative Hindutva
would not be in a position to solve our basic problems. He also supported Varna and caste system. Golwalkar wanted to
develop a very strong nation state in India, but at the same time, he wanted to stay away from political power.
Q. 9. (a) Pandita Ramabai on contesting patriarchy
Ans. Pandita Ramabai (1858-1922): Pandita Ramabai was the only woman in the male-dominated world of
gender reforms.
She spoke for the womens rights and social reform. Exceptionally learned, Ramabai transgressed the boundaries.
and contested patriarchy in her educational and missionary activities, she understandably became the most controversial
upper-caste woman of her times.
Early Life: Non-conformist Background: Ramabai was against the Brahminic tradition even as she was born in a
Chitpavan Brahmin family. She was influenced by his father, Anant Shastri Dongre. A non-conformist, he invited the ire of
his conservative community members when he decided to teach Sanskrit to his wife. Sanskrit was considered as language
only for the upper-caste men. Thus, Ramabais family lived outside the community and took to wandering the country with
his family. Her father had rejected some of the core principles of Hinduism. Ramabai learnt Sanskrit and Puranas.

N
8

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in8

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

In 1878, Ramabai arrived in Calcutta after the death of her parents. In Calcutta, she studied the Vedas and Upanishads
despite the prohibition on women to do so. The religious elite of the city was impressed with her mastery over Sanskrit
language and texts, they gave her the title of Pandita (Scholar) and Saraswati (Goddess of Learning). Ramabai travelled
widely in Bengal and addressed women on the need for their education and emancipation,
Contesting Patriarchy: Hinduism and Christianity: Ramabai was aware of the contempt with which women of all
castes and men of the lower caste were treated. Ramabai rejected the discrimination after she decided to accept the
marriage proposal from a Bipin Behari, a Shudra, thereby decisively breaking with the tradition. Just after two years of
their marriage, Bipins death forced widowhood on Ramabai at the age of twentyfour. Ramabai After experienced of
oppressive widowhood, refused to be confined to the domestic space and catapulting herself into the public arena.
She returned to Maharashtra and set up the Arya Mahila Samaj in 1882 in Poona to mobilise women. She published
a book in Marathi, Stree Dharma Niti (Morals for Women) to counsel the helpless and ignorant women. Ramabai set up
a home for high-caste Hindu widows and requested the Hunter Commission to provide training facilities to women to
become teachers and doctors so that they could serve other women.
However, she could not link with the women in Maharashtra and felt alienated. Later she tried to find solace in
religion and God converted to Christianity.
In the Anglican Church also, she faced the harsh reality. When she was offered a professorship which would involve
her teaching to male students, the Bishop of Bombay protested. He said that her influence will be ruined forever in India
if she is known to have taught young men. In response, Ramabai said, It surprises me very much to think that neither my
father nor my husband objected [to] my mothers or my teaching young men while some young people are doing so.
Ramabai had profound disagreements with its philosophical premises, particularly with regard to women, and later as
a Christian convert who rebelled against Christian dogma. Her life thus was a narrative of complex contestations-that of
a woman against male hegemony both in Hindu society as well as Anglican Church.
(b) Jaipal Singh and Adivasi movement.
Ans. Jaipal Singh (1903-1970): A multi-faceted personality, Jaipal Singh alias Pramod Pahan was a leader of the
Adivasis, a champion sportsman, a distinguished parliamentarian, an educationist and a powerful orator and above all,
the leader of the Adivasis. Born at the Takra village of Khunti in present Jharkhand state, in childhood, his job was to look
after the cattle herd. With his admission to St. Pauls School, Ranchi, in 1910, his destiny had a turn around. Jaipal
graduated from St. Johns College, Oxford, London, with Honours in Economics. He was selected in Indian Civil Service
but he later resigned. In 1928 Amsterdam Olympics, he captained the Indian hockey and won the gold medal. In 1934,
Jaipal joined teaching at the Prince of Wales College at Achimota, Gold Coast in Ghana. In 1937, he returned to India as
the principal incumbent of the Rajkumar College, Raipur. In 1938, he joined the Bikaner princely State as foreign secretary. Jaipal thought that with his varied experience he could be more useful to the country through the Congress. His met
Rajendra Prasad at the Sadaaquat Ashram in Patna. He was offered to nominate him to the Bihar Legislative by then
Governor of Bihar Sir Maurice Hallet. He declined the offer and decided to go to Ranchi and assess the situation for
himself.
Upon his return to Ranchi, the united Adivasi forum called Adivasi Sabha, formed in 1938, made him the president of
the organisation. On January 20, 1939, about 65,000 people gathered to listen to Jaipals presidential speech. His oratory,
simultaneously in four languages English, Hindi, Sadani and Mundari, mesmerised the masses.
He declared that the Adivasi movement stands primarily for the moral and material advancement of Chhotanagpur
and Santhal Parganas. He became the peoples Marang Gomke their Supreme Leader. Jaipal worked ceaselessly for a
better future for his fellow Adivasis everywhere, even beyond the limits of south Bihar.
Later on the Adivasi Sabha became All India Adivasi Mahasabha. In the national political arena, Jaipal had separated
from the Congress. In 1940, he played an active role in the anti-Compromise Congress Conference at Ramgarh in close
alliance with Subhash Chandra Bose. Going against the Congress, he supported the British during the World War II and
recruited people from Chhotanagpur for the British army.
He was elected as a member of the Constituent Assembly, the Provisional Parliament in 1946. He was elected to the
Parliament four times until his death in 1970. Supported by Ambedkar, he led his struggle to establish the Adivasi identity.
With the creation of the Jharkhand Party and the induction of non-Adivasis into it in 1950, he changed the emotive
cultural movement in Jharkhand into a regional political movement.
The Jharkhand Party was the first legitimate political party and gave the direction to the future of Jharkhand politics.
The party also played a vital role in the formation of the government in Orissa in 1957.

N
9

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in9

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

Championing Adivasi Identity: Jaipal raised the issue of Adivasi identity in the Constituent Assembly. The dominant
view in the Assembly showed a patronizing attitude towards the tribals. The view was that discontentment in the tribal
areas existed because of their exclusion from the mainstream development. It was emphasised that a civilizing mission
and assimilation of tribals into the national mainstream could help them.
Participating in the debate on the Draft Constitution on August 24, 1949, Jaipal Singh countered the dominant view.
In a speech on Adivasi identity, he emphasised that the tribal people were the true and original inhabitants of India. He
said they had a claim to the whole of India. He also held that reservation of seats for tribals in the legislatures was
necessary. He made attempts to separate the case of Scheduled Castes from that of the Scheduled Tribes.
He pointed out that Adivasi community always emphasised on equality and democracy. He said I do not wish that
people should get away with the idea that by writing this constitution and operating it we are trying to put a new idea
into the Adivasi societyAdivasis are the most democratic people and they will not let India get smaller or weaker. ... I
would like the members [to] not be so condescending.
He said that the backward groups should be enabled to stand on their own legs so that they could assert themselves.
In the debate, he asserted that it is not the intention of this Constitution, nor do I desire it, that the advanced community
should be carrying my people in their arms for the rest of eternity. All that we plead is that the wherewithal should be
provided ... so that we will be able to stand on our own legs and regain the lost nerves and be useful citizens of India I
may assure non-Adivasis that Adivasis will play a much bigger part than you imagine, if only you will be honest about
your intentions and let them play a part they have a right to play.

N
10
www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in10