POLITICAL SCIENCE-II INDIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM

MODULE-1
Indian Federalism and its Dynamics

The term ‗federation‘ is derived from a Latin word foedus which means ‗treaty‘ or ‗agreement‘.
Thus, a federation is a new state (political system) which is formed through a treaty or an agreement between
the various units. The units of a federation are known by various names like states (as in US) or cantons (as in
Switzerland) or provinces (as in Canada) or republics (as in Russia). A federation can be formed in two ways,
that is, by way of integration or by way of disintegration. In the first case, a number of militarily weak or
economically backward states (independent) come together to form a big and a strong union, as for example,
the US. In the second case, a big unitary state is converted into a federation by granting autonomy to the
provinces to promote regional interest (for example, Canada). The US is the first and the oldest federation in
the world. It was formed in 1787 following the American Revolution (1775–83). It comprises 50 states
(originally 13 states) and is taken as the model of federation. The Canadian Federation, comprising 10
provinces (originally 4 provinces) is also quite old—formed in 1867.
Political scientists have classified governments into unitary and federal on the basis of the nature
of relations between the national government and the regional governments. By definition, a unitary
government is one in which all the powers are vested in the national government and the regional
governments, if at all exist, derive their authority from the national government. A federal government, on the
other hand, is one in which powers are divided between the national government and the regional
governments by the Constitution itself and both operate in their respective jurisdictions independently.
Britain, France, Japan, China, Italy, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Spain and so on have the unitary model of
government while the US, Switzerland, Australia, Canada, Russia, Brazil, Argentina and so on have the
federal model of government. In a federal model, the national government is known as the Federal
government or the Central government or the Union government and the regional government is known as the
state government or the provincial government.
1. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT OF 1935
The Act marked a second milestone towards a completely responsible government in
India. It was a lengthy and detailed document having 321 Sections and 10 Schedules.
Features of the Act
1. It provided for the establishment of an All-India Federation consisting of provinces
and princely states as units. The Act divided the powers between the Centre and units in terms
of three lists—Federal List (for Centre, with 59 items), Provincial List (for provinces, with
54 items) and the Concurrent List (for both, with 36 items). Residuary powers were given to
the Viceroy. However, the federation never came into being as the princely states did not join
it.
2. It abolished dyarchy in the provinces and introduced ‗provincial autonomy‘ in its
place. The provinces were allowed to act as autonomous units of administration in their
defined spheres. Moreover, the Act introduced responsible governments in provinces, that is,
the governor was required to act with the advice of ministers responsible to the provincial
legislature. This came into effect in 1937 and was discontinued in 1939.
3. It provided for the adoption of dyarchy at the Centre. Consequently, the federal
subjects were divided into reserved subjects and transferred subjects. However, this provision
of the Act did not come into operation at all.
4. It introduced bicameralism in six out of eleven provinces. Thus, the legislatures of
Bengal, Bombay, Madras, Bihar, Assam and the United Provinces were made bicameral
consisting of a legislative council (upper house) and a legislative assembly (lower house).
However, many restrictions were placed on them.
5. It further extended the principle of communal representation by providing separate
electorates for depressed classes (scheduled castes), women and labour (workers).
6. It abolished the Council of India, established by the Government of India Act of
1858. The secretary of state for India was provided with a team of advisors.
7. It extended franchise. About 10 per cent of the total population got the voting right.
8. It provided for the establishment of a Reserve Bank of India to control the currency
and credit of the country.
9. It provided for the establishment of not only a Federal Public Service Commission
but also a Provincial Public Service Commission and Joint Public Service Commission for two
or more provinces.
10. It provided for the establishment of a Federal Court, which was set up in 1937.
2. INDIAN INDEPENDENCE ACT OF 1947
On February 20, 1947, the British Prime Minister Clement Atlee declared that the
British rule in India would end by June 30, 1948; after which the power would be transferred
to responsible Indian hands. This announcement was followed by the agitation by the Muslim
League demanding partition of the country. Again on June 3, 1947, the British Government
made it clear that any Constitution framed by the Constituent Assembly of India (formed in
1946) cannot apply to those parts of the country which were unwilling to accept it. On the
same day (June 3, 1947), Lord Mountbatten, the viceroy of India, put forth the partition plan,
known as the Mountbatten Plan. The plan was accepted by the Congress and the Muslim
League. Immediate effect was given to the plan by enacting the Indian Independence Act
(1947).
Features of the Act
1. It ended the British rule in India and declared India as an independent and sovereign
state from August 15, 1947.
2. It provided for the partition of India and creation of two independent dominions of
India and Pakistan with the right to secede from the British Commonwealth.
3. It abolished the office of viceroy and provided, for each dominion, a governor-
general, who was to be appointed by the British King on the advice of the dominion cabinet.
His Majesty‘s Government in Britain was to have no responsibility with respect to the
Government of India or Pakistan.
4. It empowered the Constituent Assemblies of the two dominions to frame and adopt
any constitution for their respective nations and to repeal any act of the British Parliament,
including the Independence act itself.
5. It empowered the Constituent Assemblies of both the dominions to legislate for their
respective territories till the new constitutions were drafted and enforced. No Act of the British
Parliament passed after August 15, 1947 was to extend to either of the new dominions unless it
was extended thereto by a law of the legislature of the dominion.
6. It abolished the office of the secretary of state for India and transferred his functions
to the secretary of state for Commonwealth Affairs.
7. It proclaimed the lapse of British paramount over the Indian princely states and
treaty relations with tribal areas from August 15, 1947.
8. It granted freedom to the Indian princely states either to join the Dominion of India
or Dominion of Pakistan or to remain independent.
 9. It provided for the governance of each of the dominions and the provinces by the
Government of India Act of 1935, till the new Constitutions were framed. The dominions were
however authorized to make modifications in the Act.
10. It deprived the British Monarch of his right to veto bills or ask for reservation of
certain bills for his approval. But, this right was reserved for the Governor-General. The
Governor General would have full power to assent to any bill in the name of His Majesty.
11. It designated the Governor-General of India and the provincial governors as
constitutional (nominal) heads of the states. They were made to act on the advice of the
respective council of ministers in all matters.
12. It dropped the title of Emperor of India from the royal titles of the king of England.
13. It discontinued the appointment to civil services and reservation of posts by the
secretary of state for India.
The members of the civil services appointed before August 15, 1947 would continue to
enjoy all benefits that they were entitled to till that time. At the stroke of midnight of 14–15
August, 1947, the British rule came to an end and power was transferred to the two new
independent Dominions of India and Pakistan10. Lord Mountbatten became the first governor-
general of the new Dominion of India. He swore in Jawaharlal Nehru as the first prime
minister of independent India. The Constituent Assembly of India formed in 1946 became the
Parliament of the Indian Dominion.

3. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
A federation may be formed in two ways. Firstly, a group of sovereign states, who may desire to
unite in to one state for the purpose of common defense and welfare, may join and form a federation. A
federal government is established on the basis of an agreement reached by them and some powers they had
been enjoying previously will be given to the federal government. The United States of America is the
classical example for this. K.C. Wheare defines federal government as the one which predominantly embodies
―a division of power between general and regional authorities, each of which in its own sphere is co-ordinate
with the others and independent of them‖.

Features of a Federation
1. Division of powers: The division of powers between the federal government and units is an essential feature
of a federation, which is specified in the constitution itself. Since the federation consists two levels of
government, there is an imperative need for division of powers demarcating the sphere of authority. Normally
matters of national importance are given to the federal government and matters of local important to the units.
Each government has complete authority in its own sphere.
2. Supremacy of the constitution: Both the levels of governments derive their powers directly from the
constitution. The exercise of every governmental authority is controlled by the provisions of the constitution.
The constitution mentions the powers of the centre and units, thereby prohibiting the encroachment of powers
by one over the other.
3. Written Constitution: The constitution should be a written one in a federation, because the division of
governmental powers can be properly specified only in a written constitution.
4. Rigid Constitution: The constitution should be a rigid one which cannot be easily altered. The amendment
procedure of the federal constitution should be invariably more difficult than the enactment of ordinary laws.
And amendment process must require the explicit participation of the federal units.
5. Presence of an independent supreme court: It is very essential to settle disputes which are likely to arise
between two sets of governments. The judiciary should interpret the constitution and act as the guardian of the
 constitution. Its main function is to see that no organ of the government encroaches in the sphere of others. In
all matters affecting the constitution the Supreme Court acts as the final arbiter.
6. Bicameral legislature: A federation represents two different sorts of interests – those of the states and the
people of the states. The federal constitution inevitably provides for a legislature and gives separate
represented by one chamber represents the units.
7. Dual citizenship: In a typical federation like U.S., a citizen enjoys dual citizenship. First he or she as a citizen
of the federating units in which he or she resides and secondly the citizenship of the federal state.
Merits of a federation
1. A federal government reconciles national unity with regional autonomy. Through this setup, the units forming
a union are enabled to retain their separate entities and are not completely submerged in it.
2. Provide a safeguard against powerful neighbors. By forming a union of such states, they can safeguard their
interests against powerful neighbors having expansionist designs.
3. Economically advantageous. The subjects of common interests are administered by the centre with the result
that individual states do not have to make special arrangements of them.
4. Leads to efficient administration. The demarcation of powers between the centre and units avoid
concentration of authority, which leads to efficient administration.
5. Prevents despotic tendencies. In a federation, the powers of the centre are clearly defined by the constitution
so that it cannot become autocratic.
6. Suitable for vast areas. Through a federation even small areas can preserve their separate entities and
cultures. Local affairs can be properly looked after.
7. A deterrent against collapse. Multiplicity of centers of authority acts as a deterrent against any collapse of
government.
Demerits of a federation
1. It makes a weak government because the distribution of powers in a federation leads to division of
responsibility.
2. It leads to diversity of legislation and administration. A citizen may violate the laws of one state and settle
down in another, where his action may not constitute an offence.
3. There are occasional conflicts of jurisdiction. Even though the powers are divided between the centre and the
states according to the constitution, conflicts of jurisdiction may arise.
4. A complex and expensive mechanism of government.
5. Creates divided allegiance. The loyalty of citizen to his state come into conflict with the loyalty to his
country.
Conclusion
The defects of the federal system are glaring. But they do not outweigh the advantages of the
system. For the countries with diversities of language and culture this is the best system. The system has
proved success in USA, USSR, Australia, Switzerland and India.

4. UNITARY GOVERNMENT
Unitary government is one organized under a single central government. The whole government
authority is fundamentally vested and is exercised by one central organisation. Britain, France, Belgium,
Japan, Iran and Italy are examples of unitary states. According to Prof. Dicey "Unitarianism is the habitual
exercise of supreme legislative authority by one central power.
In a unitary state, ultimate authority and control over all affairs of government and administration are
vested with the single central government. Supremacy of the central legislative is the essence of a unitary
government. There is no constitutional division of power between the central and local authorities. But for the
sake of administrative convenience, unitary states may be divided into a number of local governments. They
are given a certain amount of autonomy and limited power of local government. But there creation as well as
existence depends on the will of central government and is not determined by the constitution. The power and
autonomy of local governments are not original, but derived from the central government which may enlarge
it or restrict it at its will.
Features or Characteristics of unitary government
(i) A single central, all power full government.
(ii) No constitutional division of powers.
(iii)Single citizenship.
(iv) Powers of local units are not original.
(v) Supremacy of central legislature.
(vi) Absence of regional autonomy.
(vii) A written or unwritten constitution.
(viii) A rigid or flexible constitution.
Merits of unitary government
(i) It is the most effective form of government. Decisions on all important issues are made at one
common centre. It is simple in organization.
(ii) It has greater flexibility. The constitution can be amended easily to meet the requirements of changed
circumstances.
(iii)The various organs of government form integral parts of single piece of administrative mechanism.
Hence, there is no question of any conflict of jurisdiction.
(iv) As all powers are with the centre, clear-cut home and foreign policies can be followed.
(v) It is best suited for small countries, having geographical unity and cultural homogeneity.
Demerits of unitary government
(i) It destroys local initiative. Unlimited centralisation of powers to the centre and reducing regional units to
the position of mere agents‘ destroys local initiative. It also ignores the importance of regional
governments which are essential for the success of democracy.
(ii) The centre becomes autocratic. The vesting of full authority in the centre has often a corrupting influence
on it, and it tends to become bureaucratic and autocratic.
(iii)3. Centre is not always competent to look after local affairs. The centre does not have sufficient time to
tackle all local problems. Hence they are likely to be neglected.
(iv) A unitary system having a single central authority may easily collapse under stresses from within and
without.

Distinction between unitary and federal forms of government

Every modern state is either unitary or federal. The two forms are quite different from each
other. Unitarianism is the exercise of supreme legislative authority by one central power. Federation is an
association of states. It is a political contrivance intended to reconcile national unity and power with the
maintenance of state rights.
Distinctions
(a)Governmental set-up- In the unitary state all the powers of the government are concentrated in one
national government whereas in there are two sets of government, one national and the other provincial
governments. Each of them is independent in its sphere, demarcated by a written and supreme constitution.
i.e. In a unitary state there is an all-powerful single central or national government as in a federation there is a
double government.
(b)Division of powers- A federal government is characterized by decentralization and distribution of powers.
The powers are distributed between the central government and the component units by the constitution itself.
But in a unitary state there is no constitutional division of powers, but concentration of powers in the central
government.
(c)Position of units- The local governments in a unitary state are created by the central government for the
sake of administrative convenience. They have no independent status and power. The powers which they
enjoy are granted by the central government can be withdrawn by them at any time. But in a federation, there
are two sets of government each with its own independent status and powers. Their sphere of authority is
determined not by the central government but by the constitution.
(d)Written or Unwritten constitution- In a unitary government a written constitution is not necessarily
required as is the case in a federal government. Since all the powers are vested with the centre and there is no
division of powers, it is not essential to have a written and rigid constitution. But in federation a written and
rigid constitution is necessary as there is division of powers between the central and local governments which
needs to be specifically written down.
(e)Supreme or non-supreme constitution- There is the supremacy of the constitution in a federation where
as constitutional supremacy is not essential in a unitary system. It does not affect the fundamentals of a
unitary system. But in a federation both the two sets of government derive their powers and position from the
constitution and hence there is constitutional supremacy.
(f)Citizenship- In a unitary state an individual enjoys only single citizenship the citizenship of the whole
state. But in a federal system there is the principle of double citizenship. In it the individual is a citizen of his
state as well as of the federal state at the same time.
(g)Organisation of legislature- The legislature is an essential characteristic of a federation. The country as a
whole is represented by one house of the legislature and the component units are representing by the other
house. But in a unitary system, as there are no constitutionally autonomous local units. There is no need for a
second legislative chamber to represent them.
To sum up the unitary and the federal system have fundamental points of mutual distinction. Both
have their own characteristics, merits as well as demerits. Different countries adopt one or the other from
according to their own conditions and historical factors.

Comparing Features of Federal and Unitary Governments

Unitary Government
Federal Government

Dual Government (that is, national Single government, that is, the national
government and government which may create
1 1
regional government) regional governments

. Constitution may be written (France) or

2 Written Constitution 2 unwritten (Britain)

Division of powers between the national

No division of powers. All powers are vested in
and regional
3 3 the national
government
government

Constitution may be supreme (Japan) or may not

be supreme
4 Supremacy of the Constitution 4
(Britain)
 Constitution may be rigid (France) or flexible
5 Rigid Constitution 5 (Britain)

Judiciary may be independent or may not be

6 Independent judiciary 6
independent
Legislature may be bicameral (Britain) or
7 Bicameral legislature 7 uni-cameral (China)

The Constitution of India provides for a federal system of government in the country. The framers
adopted the federal system due to two main reasons—the large size of the country and its socio-cultural
diversity. They realized that the federal system not only ensures the efficient governance of the country but
also reconciles national unity with regional autonomy. However, the term ‗federation‘ has no where been used
in the Constitution. Instead, Article 1 of the Constitution describes India as a ‗Union of States‘. According to
Dr B R Ambedkar, the phrase ‗Union of States‘ has been preferred to ‗Federation of States‘ to indicate two
things:
(i)The Indian federation is not the result of an agreement among the states like the American federation;
and (ii) the states have no right to secede from the federation. The federation is union because it is
indestructible. The Indian federal system is based on the ‗Canadian model‘ and not on the ‗American model‘.
The ‗Canadian model‘ differs fundamentally from the ‗American model‘ in so far as it establishes a very
strong centre. The Indian federation resembles the Canadian federation (i) in its formation (i.e., by way of
disintegration); (ii) in its preference to the term ‗Union‘ (the Canadian federation is also called a ‗Union‘);
and (iii) in its centralizing tendency (i.e., vesting more powers in the centre vis-a-vis the states).

5. FEDERAL FEATURES OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

The federal features of the Constitution of India are explained below:
1. Dual Polity
The Constitution establishes a dual polity consisting the Union at the Centre and the states at the periphery.
Each is endowed with sovereign powers to be exercised in the field assigned to them respectively by the
Constitution. The Union government deals with the matters of national importance like defense, foreign
affairs, currency, and communication and so on. The state governments, on the other hand, look after the
matters of regional and local importance like public order, agriculture, health, local government and so on.
2. Written Constitution
The Constitution is not only a written document but also the lengthiest Constitution of the world.
Originally, it contained a Preamble, 395 Articles (divided into 22 Parts) and 8 Schedules.2 At present (2013),
it consists of a Preamble, about 465 Articles (divided into 25 Parts) and 12 Schedules.3 It specifies the
structure, organization, powers and functions of both the Central and state governments and prescribes the
limits within which they must operate. Thus, it avoids the misunderstandings and disagreements between the
two.
3. Division of Powers
The Constitution divided the powers between the Centre and the states in terms of the Union List, State
List and Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule. The Union List consists of 100 subjects (originally 97), the
State List 61 subjects (originally 66) and the Concurrent List 52 subjects (originally 47). Both the Centre and
the states can make laws on the subjects of the concurrent list, but in case of a conflict, the Central law
prevails. The residuary subjects (ie, which are not mentioned in any of the three lists) are given to the Centre.
 4. Supremacy of the Constitution
The Constitution is the supreme (or the highest) law of the land. The laws enacted by the Centre and the
states must confirm to its provisions. Otherwise, they can be declared invalid by the Supreme Court or the
high courts through their power of judicial review. Thus, the organs of the government (legislative, executive
and judicial) at both the levels must operate within the jurisdiction prescribed by the Constitution.

5. Rigid Constitution
The division of powers established by the Constitution as well as the supremacy of the Constitution can
be maintained only if the method of its amendment is rigid. Hence, the Constitution is rigid to the extent that
those provisions which are concerned with the federal structure (i.e., Centre–state relations and judicial
organisation) can be amended only by the joint action of the Central and state governments. Such provisions
require for their amendment a special majority4 of the Parliament and also an approval of half of the state
legislatures.
6. Independent Judiciary
The Constitution establishes an independent judiciary headed by the Supreme Court for two purposes:
one, to protect the supremacy of the Constitution by exercising the power of judicial review; and two, to settle
the disputes between the Centre and the states or between the states. The Constitution contains various
measures like security of tenure to judges, fixed service conditions and so on to make the judiciary
independent of the government.
7. Bicameralism
The Constitution provides for a bicameral legislature consisting of an Upper House (Rajya Sabha) and a
Lower House (Lok Sabha). The Rajya Sabha represents the states of Indian Federation, while the Lok Sabha
represents the people of India as a whole. The Rajya Sabha (even though a less powerful chamber) is required
to maintain the federal equilibrium by protecting the interests of the states against the undue interference of
the Centre.

6. UNITARY FEATURES OF THE CONSTITUTION-Besides the above federal features, the Indian
Constitution also possesses the following unitary or non-federal features:
1. Strong Centre
The division of powers is in favor of the Centre and highly inequitable from the federal angle.
Firstly, the Union List contains more subjects than the State List. Secondly, the more important subjects have
been included in the Union List. Thirdly, the Centre has overriding authority over the Concurrent List.
Finally, the residuary powers have also been left with the Centre, while in the US; they are vested in the
states. Thus, the Constitution has made the Centre very strong.
2. States Not Indestructible
Unlike in other federations, the states in India have no right to territorial integrity. The Parliament can
by unilateral action change the area, boundaries or name of any state. Moreover, it requires only a simple
majority and not a special majority. Hence, the Indian Federation is ―an indestructible Union of destructible
states‖. The American Federation, on the other hand, is described as ―an indestructible Union of indestructible
states‖.
3. Single Constitution
Usually, in a federation, the states have the right to frame their own Constitution separate from that of
the Centre. In India, on the contrary, no such power is given to the states. The Constitution of India embodies
not only the Constitution of the Centre but also those of the states. Both the Centre and the states must operate
within this single-frame. The only exception in this regard is the case of Jammu and Kashmir which has its
own (state) Constitution.
 4. Flexibility of the Constitution
The process of constitutional amendment is less rigid than what is found in other federations. The bulk
of the Constitution can be amended by the unilateral action of the Parliament, either by simple majority or by
special majority. Further, the power to initiate an amendment to the Constitution lies only with the Centre. In
US, the states can also propose an amendment to the Constitution.
5. No Equality of State Representation
The states are given representation in the Rajya Sabha on the basis of population. Hence, the
membership varies from 1 to 31. In US, on the other hand, the principle of equality of representation of states
in the Upper House is fully recognized. Thus, the American Senate has 100 members, two from each state.
This principle is regarded as a safeguard for smaller states.
6. Emergency Provisions
The Constitution stipulates three types of emergencies—national, state and financial. During an
emergency, the Central government becomes all powerful and the states go into the total control of the Centre.
It converts the federal structure into a unitary one without a formal amendment of the Constitution. This kind
of transformation is not found in any other federation.
7. Single Citizenship
In spite of a dual polity, the Constitution of India, like that of Canada, adopted the system of
single citizenship. There is only Indian Citizenship and no separate state citizenship. All citizens
irrespective of the state in which they are born or reside enjoy the same rights all over the country. The other
federal states like US, Switzerland and Australia have dual citizenship, that is, national citizenship as well as
state citizenship.
8. Integrated Judiciary
The Indian Constitution has established an integrated judicial system with the Supreme Court at
the top and the state high courts below it. This single system of courts enforces both the Central laws as well
as the state laws. In US, on the other hand, there is a double system of courts whereby the federal laws are
enforced by the federal judiciary and the state laws by the state judiciary.
9. All-India Services
In US, the Federal government and the state governments have their separate public services. In
India also, the Centre and the states have their separate public services. But, in addition, there are all-India
services (IAS, IPS, and IFS) which are common to both the Centre and the states. The members of these
services are recruited and trained by the Centre which also possess ultimate control over them. Thus, these
services violate the principle of federalism under the Constitution.

10. Integrated Audit Machinery

The Comptroller and Auditor-General of India audit the accounts of not only the Central
government but also those of the states. But, his appointment and removal is done by the president without
consulting the states. Hence, this office restricts the financial autonomy of the states. The American
Comptroller-General, on the contrary, has no role with respect to the accounts of the states.
11. Parliament’s Authority Over State List
Even in the limited sphere of authority allotted to them, the states do not have exclusive control.
The Parliament is empowered to legislate on any subject of the State List if Rajya Sabha passes a
Resolution to that effect in the national interest. This means that the legislative competence of the
Parliament can be extended without amending the Constitution. Notably, this can be done when there is no
emergency of any kind.
12. Appointment of Governor
The governor, who is the head of the state, is appointed by the President. He holds office during
the pleasure of the President. He also acts as an agent of the Centre. Through him, the Centre exercises
control over the states. The American Constitution, on the contrary, provided for an elected head in the states.
In this respect, India adopted the Canadian system.

13. Integrated Election Machinery

The Election Commission conducts elections not only to the Central legislature but also to the
state legislatures. But, this body is constituted by the President and the states have no say in this matter. The
position is same with regard to the removal of its members as well. On the other hand, US has separate
machineries for the conduct of elections at the federal and state levels.

14. Veto Over State Bills

The governor is empowered to reserve certain types of bills passed by the state legislature for the
consideration of the President. The President can withhold his assent to such bills not only in the first instance
but also in the second instance. Thus, the President enjoys absolute veto (and not suspense veto) over state
bills. But in US and Australia, the states are autonomous within their fields and there is no provision for any
such reservation.
CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM
From the above, it is clear that the Constitution of India has deviated from the traditional federal
systems like US, Switzerland and Australia and incorporated a large number of unitary or non-federal
features, tilting the balance of power in favour of the Centre. This has promoted the Constitutional experts to
challenge the federal character of the Indian Constitution. Thus, KC Wheare described the Constitution of
India as ―quasi-federal‖. He remarked that ―Indian Union is a unitary state with subsidiary federal features
rather than a federal state with subsidiary unitary features.‖
According to K Santhanam, the two factors have been responsible for increasing the unitary bias (tendency
of centralisation) of the Constitution. These are:
(I) The dominance of the Centre in the financial sphere and the dependence of the states upon the Central
grants; and
(ii) The emergence of a powerful planning commission which controls the developmental process in the
states. He observed: ―India has practically functioned as a unitary state though the Union and the states have
tried to function formally and legally as a federation.‖ However, there are other political scientists who do not
agree with the above descriptions.

7.CENTRE- STATE RELATIONS

The Constitution of India, being federal in structure, divides all powers (legislative, executive and
financial) between the Centre and the states. However, there is no division of judicial power as the
Constitution has established an integrated judicial system to enforce both the Central laws as well as state
laws. Though the Centre and the states are supreme in their respective fields, the maximum harmony and
coordination between them is essential for the effective operation of the federal system. Hence, the
Constitution contains elaborate provisions to regulate the various dimensions of the relations between the
Centre and the states.
The Centre-state relations can be studied under three heads:
• Legislative relations.
• Administrative relations.
• Financial relations.

(A). LEGISLATIVE RELATIONS

Articles 245 to 255 in Part XI of the Constitution deals with the legislative relations between the
Centre and the states. Besides these, there are some other articles dealing with the same subject. Like any
other Federal Constitution, the Indian Constitution also divides the legislative powers between the Centre and
the states with respect to both the territory and the subjects of legislation. Further, the Constitution provides
for the parliamentary legislation in the state field under five extraordinary situations as well as the centre‘s
control over state legislation in certain cases. Thus, there are four aspects in the Centre–State legislative
relations, viz.,
• Territorial extent of Central and state legislation;
• Distribution of legislative subjects;
• Parliamentary legislation in the state field; and
• Centre’s control over state legislation.
1. Territorial Extent of Central and State Legislation
The Constitution defines the territorial limits of the legislative powers vested in the Centre and
the states in the following way:
(i) The Parliament can make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India. The territory of India
includes the states, the union territories, and any other area for the time being included in the territory of
India.
(ii) A state legislature can make laws for the whole or any part of the state. The laws made by a state
legislature are not applicable outside the state, except when there is a sufficient nexus between the state and
the object.
(iii) The Parliament alone can make ‗extra-territorial legislation‘. Thus, the laws of the Parliament are also
applicable to the Indian citizens and their property in any part of the world. However, the Constitution places
certain restrictions on the plenary territorial jurisdiction of the Parliament. In other words, the laws of
Parliament are not applicable in the following areas:
(i) The President can make regulations for the peace, progress and good government of the four Union
Territories—the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu.
A regulation so made has the same force and effect as an act of Parliament. It may also repeal or amend any
act of Parliament in relation to these union territories.
(ii) The governor is empowered to direct that an act of Parliament does not apply to a scheduled area in the
state or apply with specified modifications and exceptions.
(i) The Governor of Assam may likewise direct that an act of Parliament does not apply to a tribal area
(autonomous district) in the state or apply with specified modifications and exceptions. The President
enjoys the same power with respect to tribal areas (autonomous districts) in Meghalaya, Tripura and
Mizoram.
2. Distribution of Legislative Subjects
The Constitution provides for a three-fold distribution of legislative subjects between the Centre
and the states, viz., List-I (the Union List), List-II (the State List) and List-III (the Concurrent List) in the
Seventh Schedule: (i) The Parliament have exclusive powers to make laws with respect to any of the matters
enumerated in the Union List. This list has at present 100 subjects (originally 971 subjects) like defense,
banking, foreign affairs, currency, atomic energy, insurance, communication, inter-state trade and commerce,
census, audit and so on. (ii) The state legislature has ―in normal circumstances‖ exclusive powers to make
laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List. This has at present 61 subjects (originally
662 subjects) like public order, police, public health and sanitation, agriculture, prisons, local government,
fisheries, markets, theaters, gambling and so on.
(iii) Both, the Parliament and state legislature can make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in
the Concurrent List. This list has at present 52 subjects (originally 473 subjects) like criminal law and
procedure, civil procedure, marriage and divorce, population control and family planning, electricity, labour
welfare, economic and social planning, drugs, newspapers, books and printing press, and others. The 42nd
Amendment Act of 1976 transferred five subjects to Concurrent List from State List, that is, (a) education, (b)
forests, (c) weights and measures, (d) protection of wild animals and birds, and (e) administration of justice;
constitution and organisation of all courts except the Supreme Court and the high courts.
The power to make laws with respect to residuary subjects (i.e., the matters which are not enumerated in
any of the three lists) is vested in the Parliament. This residuary power of legislation includes the power to
levy residuary taxes. From the above scheme, it is clear that the matters of national importance and the
matters which require uniformity of legislation nationwide are included in the Union List. The matters of
regional and local importance and the matters which permit diversity of interest are specified in the State List.
The matters on which uniformity of legislation throughout the country is desirable but not essential are
enumerated in the concurrent list. Thus, it permits diversity along with uniformity. In US, only the powers of
the Federal Government are enumerated in the Constitution and the residuary powers are left to the states. The
Australian Constitution followed the American pattern of single enumeration of powers. In Canada, on the
other hand, there is a double enumeration—Federal and Provincial, and the residuary powers are vested in the
Centre. The Government of India (GoI) Act of 1935 provided for a three-fold enumeration, viz., federal,
provincial and concurrent. The present Constitution follows the scheme of this act but with one difference,
that is, under this act, the residuary powers were given neither to the federal legislature nor to the provincial
legislature but to the governor-general of India. In this respect, India follows the Canadian precedent.
The Constitution expressly secure the predominance of the Union List over the State List and the
Concurrent List and that of the Concurrent List over the State List. Thus, in case of overlapping between the
Union List and the State List, the former should prevail. In case of overlapping between the Union List and
the Concurrent List, it is again the former which should prevail. Where there is a conflict between the
Concurrent List and the State List, it is the former that should prevail. In case of a conflict between the
Central law and the state law on a subject enumerated in the Concurrent List, the Central law prevails over the
state law. But, there is an exception. If the state law has been reserved for the consideration of the president
and has received his assent, then the state law prevails in that state. But, it would still be competent for the
Parliament to override such a law by subsequently making a law on the same matter.
3. Parliamentary Legislation in the State Field
The above scheme of distribution of legislative powers between the Centre and the states is to be
maintained in normal times. But, in abnormal times, the scheme of distribution is either modified or
suspended. In other words, the Constitution empowers the Parliament to make laws on any matter enumerated
in the State List under the following five extraordinary circumstances:
When Rajya Sabha Passes a Resolution If the Rajya Sabha declares that it is necessary in the
national interest that Parliament should make laws on a matter in the State List, then the Parliament becomes
competent to make laws on that matter. Such a resolution must be supported by two-thirds of the members
present and voting. The resolution remains in force for one year; it can be renewed any number of times but
not exceeding one year at a time. The laws cease to have effect on the expiration of six months after the
resolution has ceased to be in force. This provision does not restrict the power of a state legislature to make
laws on the same matter. But, in case of inconsistency between a state law and a parliamentary law, the latter
is to prevail.
During a National Emergency The Parliament acquires the power to legislate with respect to matters
in the State List, while a proclamation of national emergency is in operation. The laws become inoperative on
the expiration of six months after the emergency has ceased to operate. Here also, the power of a state
legislature to make laws on the same matter is not restricted. But, in case of repugnancy between a state law
and a parliamentary law, the latter is to prevail.
When States Make a Request When the legislatures of two or more states pass resolutions requesting
the Parliament to enact laws on a matter in the State List, then the Parliament can make laws for regulating
that matter. A law so enacted applies only to those states which have passed the resolutions. However, any
other state may adopt it afterwards by passing a resolution to that effect in its legislature. Such a law can be
 amended or repealed only by the Parliament and not by the legislatures of the concerned states. The effect of
passing a resolution under the above provision is that the Parliament becomes entitled to legislate with respect
to a matter for which it has no power to make a law. On the other hand, the state legislature ceases to have the
power to make a law with respect to that matter. The resolution operates as abdication or surrender of the
power of the state legislature with respect to that matter and it is placed entirely in the hands of Parliament
which alone can then legislate with respect to it.
To Implement International Agreements The Parliament can make laws on any matter in the State
List for implementing the international treaties, agreements or conventions. This provision enables the Central
government to fulfil its international obligations and commitments. Some examples of laws enacted under the
above provision are United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947; Geneva Convention Act, 1960;
Anti-Hijacking Act, 1982 and legislations relating to environment and TRIPS.
During President’s Rule When the President‘s rule is imposed in a state, the Parliament becomes
empowered to make laws with respect to any matter in the State List in relation to that state. A law made so by
the Parliament continues to be operative even after the president‘s rule. This means that the period for which
such a law remains in force is not co-terminus with the duration of the President‘s rule. But, such a law can be
repealed or altered or re-enacted by the state legislature.
4. Centre’s Control Over State Legislation
Besides the Parliament‘s power to legislate directly on the state subjects under the exceptional
situations, the Constitution empowers the Centre to exercise control over the state‘s legislative matters in the
following ways:
(i) The governor can reserve certain types of bills passed by the state legislature for the consideration of
the President. The president enjoys absolute veto over them.
(ii) Bills on certain matters enumerated in the State List can be introduced in the state legislature only
with the previous sanction of the president. (For example, the bills imposing restrictions on the freedom of
trade and commerce).
(iii) The President can direct the states to reserve money bills and other financial bills passed by the
state legislature for his consideration during a financial emergency. From the above, it is clear that the
Constitution has assigned a position of superiority to the Centre in the legislative sphere. In this context, the
Sarkaria Commission on Centre–State Relations (1983–87) observed: ―The rule of federal supremacy is a
technique to avoid absurdity, resolve conflict and ensure harmony between the Union and state laws. If this
principle of union supremacy is excluded, it is not difficult to imagine its deleterious results. There will be
every possibility of our two-tier political system being stultified by interference, strife, legal chaos and
confusion caused by a host of conflicting laws, much to the bewilderment of the common citizen. Integrated
legislative policy and uniformity on basic issues of common Union–state concern will be stymied. The federal
principle of unity in diversity will be very much a casualty. This rule of federal supremacy, therefore, is
indispensable for the successful functioning of the federal system‖.

(B) ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS

Articles 256 to 263 in Part XI of the Constitution deal with the administrative relations between the
Centre and the states. In addition, there are various other articles pertaining to the same matter.
Distribution of Executive Powers
The executive power has been divided between the Centre and the states on the lines of the distribution
of legislative powers, except in few cases. Thus, the executive power of the Centre extends to the whole of
India: (i) to the matters on which the Parliament has exclusive power of legislation (i.e., the subjects
enumerated in the Union List); and (ii) to the exercise of rights, authority and jurisdiction conferred on it by
any treaty or agreement. Similarly, the executive power of a state extends to its territory in respect of matters
on which the state legislature has exclusive power of legislation (i.e., the subjects enumerated in the State
List). In respect of matters on which both the Parliament and the state legislatures have power of legislation
(i.e., the subjects enumerated in the Concurrent List), the executive power rests with the states except when a
Constitutional provision or a parliamentary law specifically confers it on the Centre. Therefore, a law on a
concurrent subject, though enacted by the Parliament, is to be executed by the states except when the
Constitution or the Parliament has directed otherwise.
Obligation of States and the Centre
The Constitution has placed two restrictions on the executive power of the states in order to give ample
scope to the Centre for exercising its executive power in an unrestricted manner. Thus, the executive power of
every state is to be exercised in such a way (a) as to ensure compliance with the laws made by the Parliament
and any existing law which apply in the state; and (b) as not to impede or prejudice the exercise of executive
power of the Centre in the state. While the former lays down a general obligation upon the state, the latter
imposes a specific obligation on the state not to hamper the executive power of the Centre. In both the cases,
the executive power of the Centre extends to giving of such directions to the state as are necessary for the
purpose. The sanction behind these directions of the Centre is coercive in nature. Thus, Article 365 says that
where any state has failed to comply with (or to give effect to) any directions given by the Centre, it will be
lawful for the President to hold that a situation has arisen in which the government of the state cannot be
carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. It means that, in such a situation, the
President‘s rule can be imposed in the state under Article 356.
Centre’s Directions to the States
In addition to the above two cases, the Centre are empowered to give directions to the states with regard
to the exercise of their executive power in the following matters:
The construction and maintenance of means of communication (declared to be of national or military
importance) by the state;
(i) the measures to be taken for the protection of the railways within the state;
(ii) the provision of adequate facilities for instruction in the mother-tongue at the primary
stage of education to children belonging to linguistic minority groups in the state; and
(iii)the drawing up and execution of the specified schemes for the welfare of the Scheduled
Tribes in the state.
The coercive sanction behind the Central directions under Article 365 (mentioned above) is also
applicable in these cases.
Mutual Delegation of Functions
The distribution of legislative powers between the Centre and the states is rigid. Consequently, the
Centre cannot delegate its legislative powers to the states and a single state cannot request the Parliament to
make a law on a state subject. The distribution of executive power in general follows the distribution of
legislative powers. But, such a rigid division in the executive sphere may lead to occasional conflicts between
the two. Hence, the Constitution provides for inter-government delegation of executive functions in order to
mitigate rigidity and avoid a situation of deadlock. Accordingly, the President may, with the consent of the
state government, entrust to that government any of the executive functions of the Centre. Conversely, the
governor of a state may, with the consent of the Central government, entrust to that government any of the
executive functions of the state. This mutual delegation of administrative functions may be conditional or
unconditional. The Constitution also makes a provision for the entrustment of the executive functions of the
Centre to a state without the consent of that state. But, in this case, the delegation is by the Parliament and not
by the president. Thus, a law made by the Parliament on a subject of the Union List can confer powers and
impose duties on a state, or authorize the conferring of powers and imposition of duties by the Centre upon a
state (irrespective of the consent of the state concerned). Notably, the same thing cannot be done by the state
legislature.
 From the above, it is clear that the mutual delegation of functions between the Centre and the state can
take place either under an agreement or by legislation. While the Centre can use both the methods, a state can
use only the first method.
Cooperation between the Centre and States
The Constitution contains the following provisions to secure cooperation and coordination between the Centre
and the states:
(i) The Parliament can provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use,
distribution and control of waters of any inter-state river and river valley.
(ii) The President can establish (under Article 263) an Inter-State Council to investigate and discuss
subject of common interest between the Centre and the states. Such a council was set up in 1990.
(iii) Full faith and credit is to be given throughout the territory of India to public acts, records and judicial
proceedings of the Centre and every state.
(iv) The Parliament can appoint an appropriate authority to carry out the purposes of the constitutional
provisions relating to the interstate freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse. But, no such
authority has been appointed so far.
All-India Services
Like in any other federation, the Centre and the states also have their separate public services called as
the Central Services and the State Services respectively. In addition, there are all-India services— IAS, IPS
and IFS. The members of these services occupy top positions (or key posts) under both the Centre and the
states and serve them by turns. But, they are recruited and trained by the Centre. These services are controlled
jointly by the Centre and the states. The ultimate control lies with the Central government while the
immediate control vests with the state governments. In 1947, Indian Civil Service (ICS) was replaced by IAS
and the Indian Police (IP) was replaced by IPS and was recognized by the Constitution as All-India Services.
In 1966, the Indian Forest Service (IFS) was created as the third All-India Service. Article 312 of the
Constitution authorizes the Parliament to create new All-India Services on the basis of a Rajya Sabha
resolution to that effect. Each of these three all-India services, irrespective of their division among different
states, forms a single service with common rights and status and uniform scales of pay throughout the
country. Though the all-India services violate the principle of federalism under the Constitution by restricting
the autonomy and patronage of the states, they are supported on the ground that (i) they help in maintaining
high standard of administration in the Centre as well as in the states; (ii) they help to ensure uniformity of the
administrative system throughout the country; and (iii) they facilitate liaison, cooperation, coordination and
joint action on the issues of common interest between the Centre and the states.
Public Service Commissions
In the field of public service commissions, the Centre–state relations are as follows: (i) The Chairman
and members of a state public service commission, though appointed by the governor of the state, can be
removed only by the President. (ii) The Parliament can establish a Joint State Public Service Commission
(JSPSC) for two or more states on the request of the state legislatures concerned. The chairman and members
of the JSPSC are appointed by the president. (iii) The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) can serve
the needs of a state on the request of the state governor and with the approval of the President. (iv) The UPSC
assists the states (when requested by two or more states) in framing and operating schemes of joint
recruitment for any services for which candidates possessing special qualifications are required.
Integrated Judicial System
Though India has a dual polity, there is no dual system of administration of justice. The Constitution, on
the other hand, established an integrated judicial system with the Supreme Court at the top and the state high
courts below it. This single system of courts enforces both the Central laws as well as the state laws. This is
done to eliminate diversities in the remedial procedure. The judges of a state high court are appointed by the
president in consultation with the Chief Justice of India and the governor of the state. They can also be
transferred and removed by the president. The Parliament can establish a common high court for two or more
states. For example, Maharashtra and Goa or Punjab and Haryana have a common high court.
Relations during Emergencies
(i) During the operation of a national emergency (under Article 352), the Centre becomes entitled to
give executive directions to a state on ‗any‘ matter. Thus, the state governments are brought under the
complete control of the Centre, though they are not suspended.
(ii) When the President‘s Rule is imposed in a state (under Article 356), the President can assume to
himself the functions of the state government and powers vested in the Governor or any other executive
authority in the state.
(iii) During the operation of a financial emergency (under Article 360), the Centre can direct the states
to observe canons of financial propriety and the President can give other necessary directions including the
reduction of salaries of persons serving in the state and the high court judges.

C. FINANCIAL RELATIONS
Articles 268 to 293 in Part XII of the Constitution deal with Centre–state financial relations. Besides
these, there are other provisions dealing with the same subject. These together can be studied under the
following heads:
Allocation of Taxing Powers The Constitution divides the taxing powers between the Centre and the states
in the following way:
• The Parliament has exclusive power to levy taxes on subjects enumerated in the Union List (which are 15 in
number12).
• The state legislature has exclusive power to levy taxes on subjects enumerated in the State List (which are
20 in number13).
• Both the Parliament and the state legislature can levy taxes on subjects enumerated in the Concurrent List
(which are 3 in number14).
• The residuary power of taxation (that is, the power to impose taxes not enumerated in any of the three lists)
is vested in the Parliament. Under this provision, the Parliament has imposed gift tax, wealth tax and
expenditure tax. The Constitution also draws a distinction between the power to levy and collect a tax and the
power to appropriate the proceeds of the tax so levied and collected. For example, the income-tax is levied
and collected by the Centre but its proceeds are distributed between the Centre and the states.
Further, the Constitution has placed the following restrictions on the taxing powers of the states:
(i) A state legislature can impose taxes on professions, trades, callings and employments. But, the total
amount of such taxes payable by any person should not exceed Rs. 2,500 per annum.15
(ii) A state legislature can impose taxes on the sale or purchase of goods (other than newspapers). But, this
power of the states to impose sales tax is subjected to the four restrictions: (a) no tax can be imposed
on the sale or purchase taking place outside the states; (b) no tax can be imposed on the sale or
purchase taking place in the course of import or export; (c) no tax can be imposed on the sale or
purchase taking place in the course of inter-state trade and commerce; and (d) a tax imposed on the
sale or purchase of goods declared by Parliament to be of special importance in inter-state trade and
commerce is subject to the restrictions and conditions specified by the Parliament.
(iii) A state legislature can impose tax on the consumption or sale of electricity. But, no tax can be
imposed on the consumption or sale of electricity which is (a) consumed by the Centre or sold to the
Centre; or (b) consumed in the construction, maintenance or operation of any railway by the Centre or
by the concerned railway company or sold to the Centre or the railway company for the same purpose.
(iv) A state legislature can impose a tax in respect of any water or electricity stored, generated, consumed,
distributed or sold by any authority established by Parliament for regulating or developing any inter-
 state river or river valley. But, such a law, to be effective, should be reserved for the president‘s
consideration and receive his assent.
Distribution of Tax Revenues
The 80th Amendment of 2000 and the 88th Amendment of 2003 have introduced major changes in the
scheme of the distribution of tax revenues between the centre and the states. The 80th Amendment was
enacted to give effect to the recommendations of the 10th Finance Commission. The Commission
recommended that out of the total income obtained from certain central taxes and duties, 29% should go to the
states. This is known as the ‗Alternative Scheme of Devolution‘ and came into effect retrospectively from
April 1, 1996. This amendment has brought several central taxes and duties like Corporation Tax and
Customs Duties at par with Income Tax (taxes on income other than agricultural income) as far as their
constitutionally mandated sharing with the states is concerned.17 The 88th Amendment has added a new
Article 268(A) dealing with service tax. It also added a new subject in the Union List – entry 92-C (taxes on
services). Service tax is levied by the centre but collected and appropriated by both the centre and the states.
After these two Amendments, the present position in this regard is as follows:
A. Taxes Levied by the Centre but Collected and Appropriated by the States (Article 268): This category
includes the following taxes and duties: (i) Stamp duties on bills of exchange, cheques, promissory notes,
policies of insurance, transfer of shares and others. (ii) Excise duties on medicinal and toilet preparations
containing alcohol and narcotics. The proceeds of these duties levied within any state do not form a part of the
Consolidated Fund of India, but are assigned to that state.
B. Service Tax Levied by the Centre but Collected and Appropriated by the Centre and the States (Article
268-A): Taxes on services are levied by the Centre. But, their proceeds are collected as well as appropriated
by both the Centre and the states. The principles of their collection and appropriation are formulated by the
Parliament.
C. Taxes Levied and Collected by the Centre but Assigned to the States (Article 269): The following taxes
fall under this category: (i) Taxes on the sale or purchase of goods (other than newspapers) in the course of
inter-state trade or commerce. (ii) Taxes on the consignment of goods in the course of inter-state trade or
commerce. The net proceeds of these taxes do not form a part of the Consolidated Fund of India. They are
assigned to the concerned states in accordance with the principles laid down by the Parliament.
D. Taxes Levied and Collected by the Centre but Distributed between the Centre and the States (Article
270): This category includes all taxes and duties referred to in the Union List except the following: (i) Duties
and taxes referred to in Articles 268, 268-A and 269 (mentioned above); (ii) Surcharge on taxes and duties
referred to in Article 271 (mentioned below); and (iii) Any cess levied for specific purposes. The manner of
distribution of the net proceeds of these taxes and duties is prescribed by the President on the recommendation
of the Finance Commission.
E. Surcharge on Certain Taxes and Duties for Purposes of the Centre (Article 271): The Parliament can at
any time levy the surcharges on taxes and duties referred to in Articles 269 and 270 (mentioned above). The
proceeds of such surcharges go to the Centre exclusively. In other words, the states have no share in these
surcharges.
F. Taxes Levied and Collected and Retained by the States These are the taxes belonging to the states
exclusively. They are enumerated in the state list and are 20 in number. These are18: (i) land revenue; (ii)
taxes on agricultural income, succession and estate duties in respect of agricultural land; (iii) taxes on lands
and buildings, on mineral rights, on animals and boats, on road vehicles, on luxuries, on entertainments, and
on gambling; (iv) excise duties on alcoholic liquors for human consumption and narcotics; (v) taxes on the
entry of goods into a local area, on advertisements (except newspapers), on consumption or sale of electricity,
and on goods and passengers carried by road or on inland waterways; (vi) taxes on professions, trades,
callings and employments not exceeding Rs. 2,500 per annum; (vii) capitation taxes; (viii) tolls; (ix) stamp
duty on documents (except those specified in the Union List); (x) sales tax (other than newspaper); and (xi)
fees on the matters enumerated in the State List (except court fees).
Distribution of Non-tax Revenues
A. The Centre The receipts from the following form the major sources of non-tax revenues of
the Centre: (i) posts and telegraphs; (ii) railways; (iii) banking; (iv) broadcasting (v) coinage and currency;
(vi) central public sector enterprises; and (vii) escheat and lapse.
B. The States The receipts from the following form the major sources of non-tax revenues of
the states: (i) irrigation; (ii) forests; (iii) fisheries; (iv) state public sector enterprise; and (v) escheat and lapse.
Grants-in-Aid to the States Besides sharing of taxes between the Centre and the states, the Constitution
provides for grants-in-aid to the states from the Central resources. There are two types of grants-in-aid, viz,
statutory grants and discretionary grants:
Statutory Grants Article 275 empowers the Parliament to make grants to the states which are in
need of financial assistance and not to every state. Also, different sums may be fixed for different states.
These sums are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India every year. Apart from this general provision, the
Constitution also provides for specific grants for promoting the welfare of the scheduled tribes in a state or for
raising the level of administration of the scheduled areas in a state including the State of Assam. The statutory
grants under Article 275 (both general and specific) are given to the states on the recommendation of the
Finance Commission.
Discretionary Grants Article 282 empowers both the Centre and the states to make any grants
for any public purpose, even if it is not within their respective legislative competence. Under this provision,
the Centre makes grants to the states on the recommendations of the Planning Commission —an extra-
constitutional body. ―These grants are also known as discretionary grants, the reason being that the Centre is
under no obligation to give these grants and the matter lies within its discretion. These grants have a two-fold
purpose: to help the state financially to fulfill plan targets; and to give some leverage to the Centre to
influence and coordinate state action to effectuate the national plan.‖ Notably, the discretionary grants from
the larger part of the Central grants to the states (when compared with that of the statutory grants). Hence, the
Planning Commission has assumed greater significance than the Finance Commission in Centre state financial
relations.
Other Grants The Constitution also provided for a third type of grants-in-aid, but for a temporary period.
Thus, a provision was made for grants in lieu of export duties on jute and jute products to the States of Assam,
Bihar, Orissa and West Bengal. These grants were to be given for a period of ten years from the
commencement of the Constitution. These sums were charged on the Consolidated Fund of India and were
made to the states on the recommendation of the Finance Commission.

8. SARKARIA COMMISSION

In 1983, the Central government appointed a three-member Commission on Centre–state relations

under the chairmanship of R S Sarkaria, a retired judge of the Supreme Court. The commission was asked to
examine and review the working of existing arrangements between the Centre and states in all spheres and
recommend appropriate changes and measures. It was initially given one year to complete its work, but its
term was extended four times. The final report was submitted in October 1987, and the summary was later
officially released in January 1988. The Commission did not favour structural changes and regarded the
existing constitutional arrangements and principles relating to the institutions basically sound. But, it
emphasized on the need for changes in the functional or operational aspects. It observed that federalism is
more a functional arrangement for co- operative action than a static institutional concept. It out rightly
rejected the demand for curtailing the powers of the Centre and stated that a strong Centre is essential to
safeguard the national unity and integrity which is being threatened by the fissiparous tendencies in the body
politic. However, it did not equate strong Centre with centralisation of powers. It observed that over
centralisation leads to blood pressure at the centre and anemia at the periphery. The Commission made 247
recommendations to improve Centre–state relations.
The important recommendations are mentioned below:
1.A permanent Inter-State Council called the Inter Governmental Council should be set up under Article 263.
2. Article 356 (President‘s Rule) should be used very sparingly, in extreme cases as a last resort when all the
available alternatives fail.
3. The institution of All-India Services should be further strengthened and some more such services should be
created.
4. The residuary powers of taxation should continue to remain with the Parliament, while the other residuary
powers should be placed in the Concurrent List.
5. When the president withholds his assent to the state bills, the reasons should be communicated to the state
government.
6. The National Development Council (NDC) should be renamed and reconstituted as the National Economic
and Development Council (NEDC).
7. The zonal councils should be constituted afresh and reactivated to promote the spirit of federalism.
8. The Centre should have powers to deploy its armed forces, even without the consent of states. However, it
is desirable that the states should be consulted.
9. The Centre should consult the states before making a law on a subject of the Concurrent List.
10. The procedure of consulting the chief minister in the appointment of the state governor should be
prescribed in the Constitution itself.
11. The net proceeds of the corporation tax may be made permissibly shareable with the states.
12. The governor cannot dismiss the council of ministers so long as it commands a majority in the assembly.
13. The governor‘s term of five years in a state should not be disturbed except for some extremely compelling
reasons.
14. No commission of enquiry should be set up against a state minister unless a demand is made by the
Parliament.
15. The surcharge on income tax should not be levied by the Centre except for a specific purpose and for a
strictly limited period.
16. The present division of functions between the Finance Commission and the Planning Commission is
reasonable and should continue.
17. Steps should be taken to uniformly implement the three language formula in its true spirit.
18. No autonomy for radio and television but decentralization in their operations.
19. No change in the role of Rajya Sabha and Centre‘s power to reorganize the states.
20. The commissioner for linguistic minorities should be activated.

Till December 2011, the Central government has implemented 180 (out of 247) recommendations of the
Sarkaria Commission. The most important is the establishment of the Inter-State Council in 1990.
 POLITICAL SCIENCE-II-INDIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM
MODULE-II
(Indian Party System: Nature and Trends, National and Regional Parties, Coalition Politics. Interest Groups
and Pressure Groups. The role of Media in Political Process.)

POLITICAL PARTIES:-MEANING AND TYPES

In the present day democratic countries, political parties are considered as essential components
for the formation and working of the government. Of course, in some countries like Libya, Oman, Qatar and the
United Arab Emirates, there are governments without parties. These countries are not democratic and political
parties are banned there. We can therefore infer that democracies function successfully in countries which have
competitive party systems. Political parties actually help the institutions and processes of a government
democratic. They enable people to participate in elections and other processes of governance, educate them and
facilitate them to make policy choices.
A political party is generally described as an organized body of people who share common
principles and cherish certain common goals regarding the political system. A political party operates and seeks
political power through constitutional means to translate its policies into practice. It is a body of like-minded
people having similar views on matters of public concern.
Gilchrist defines a political party as ―an organized group of citizens who profess or share the same
political views and who by acting as a political unit, try to control the government‖.
Another definition given by Gettell is: ―a political party consists of a group of citizens, more or less
organized, who act as a political unit and who, by the use of their voting power, aim to control the government
and carry out their general policies‖.
-From these definitions it is clear that political parties are organized bodies and are primarily concerned
with the acquisition and retention of power.
Political parties are voluntary associations or organised groups of individuals who share the same
political views and who try to gain political power through constitutional means and who desire to work for
promoting the national interest.
There are three kinds of party systems in the world, viz., (i) one party system in which only one ruling
party exists and no opposition is permitted, as for example, in the former communist countries like the USSR
and other East European countries; (ii) two-party system in which two major parties exists, as for example, in
USA and Britain1; and (iii) multi-party system in which there are a number of political parties leading to the
formation of coalition governments, as for example, in France, Switzerland and Italy.

Following can be identified as their main characteristics:

 Political party is and the organized group of people believes in common principles and common goals.
 Its objectives revolve around seeking political power through collective efforts.
 It employs constitutional and peaceful methods in seeking control over the government through elections.
While in power, it translates its declared objectives into governmental policies.
FUNCTIONS OF POLITICAL PARTIES
 They nominate candidates during elections.
 They campaign to obtain support for their candidates in the elections.
 They place objectives and programmes before the voters through their manifestos.
 Those securing the majority in elections form the government and enact and implement the policies.
 Those not in power form opposition and keep a constant check on the government.
 They form opposition when they are in minority in the legislature and constantly put pressure on the
government for proper governance.
 They educate people and help in formulating and shaping public opinion.
 They articulate peoples-‘ demands and convey them to the government.
 They provide a linkage between people and governmental institutions.
INDIAN POLITICAL PARTIES: TYPES
Political parties in India are classified by the Election Commission for the allocation of symbols. The
Commission classifies parties into three main heads: National Parties, State Parties, and Registered
(unrecognized) Parties. The Election Commission grants political parties the status of national parties on three
grounds:
1. It should be a recognized political party in four or more states.
2. It should have won at least 4 per cent of the seats in the last Lok Sabha elections or 3.33 per cent of the
seats in the assembly elections from the state.
3. All the candidates put by the party should have polled at least 6 per cent of the total valid votes in the
elections.
The National Political Parties have areas of influence extending over the entire country. Since the last
general elections held in 2009 the recognized national political parties in India are: the Indian National
Congress (INC), the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the Communist Party
of India (CPI), the Communist Party of India, Marxists (CPI-M), the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), and the
Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD).
The Regional Political Parties, as recognized by the Election Commission, are those political parties which
receive a certain amount of votes or seats in a State. The Election Commission grants election symbols to the
political parties and the candidates who contest elections. The number of regional political parties in the country
is fairly large. Some of the leading regional political parties in India include Trinamool Congress (West
Bengal), Assam Gana Parishad (Assam), All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (Tamil Nadu) Dravida
Munnetra Kazhagam (Tamil Nadu, Pondicherry), National Conference (Jammu and Kashmir), Samajwadi Party
(Uttar Pradesh, Uttrakhand), Shiromani Akali Dal (Punjab), Shiv Sena (Maharashtra), Telugu Desam (Andhra
Pradesh).
INDIAN POLITICAL PARTIES AND THEIR POLICIES
Every political party pronounces its policies and programmes as commitment to the electorate. These are
normally included in a document known as Manifesto. As you may be aware, Manifestoes are published by
political parties during elections. We may discuss the major policies of the following political parties.
The Indian National Congress: Founded in Bombay in 1885, the Indian National Congress (now the
Congress) played a leading role in India‘s freedom struggle. After independence the Congress emerged as the
leading party of governance and ruled at the Centre and in almost all the States till 1967. The first two decades
in India‘s political history were dominated by the Congress and the period came to be described as the
‗Congress System‘. The dominance of the Congress decreased gradually. Now it depended on coalition of
political parties to come to power in the Centre. The Congress is committed to democracy, secularism, and
socialism. It is, in a way, a centrist political party. While it champions the policy of liberalization, privatization,
globalization called ―LPG‖ on the one hand; it also works for the welfare of the weaker sections of society. It
advocates both agrarian based Indian economy and industrialization. It seeks to strengthen grassroots
institutions at the local level and claims to play a vital role in international institutions, especially in the United
Nations.
The Bharatiya Janata Party: Founded in 1980 after distancing itself from the then Janata Party, the
Bharatiya Janata Party is the new incarnation of its erstwhile formation, Bharatiya Jana Sangh (BJS). BJP is an
important political party both at the Centre as well as in some of the States. The BJP stands for (a) nationalism
and national integration, (b) democracy, (c) positive secularism, (d) Gandhian socialism, and (e) value–based
politics. Tilted towards the right in the initial stages, the BJP is as centrist as is the Congress now. The party has
formed governments in a number of States such as Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Gujarat, Karnataka and
Uttrakhand. The party is trying to expand its base in South and North-East India.
The Communist Parties: The major communist parties in India are the Communist Party of India (CPI),
founded in 1925 and the Communist Party of India, Marxist (CPI M) which came into being after the split in
the Communist Party of India in1964. Over the years, the CPI(M) became relatively more powerful than the
CPI. The CPI (M) and the CPI had been in power in West Bengal, Kerala and Tripura. The Communist Parties
are workers‘ and peasants‘ parties. Based on the ideology of Marxism and Leninism, the Communist Parties
stand for socialism, socialist ownership of industries, agrarian reforms, rural upliftment and a self-reliant
economy. They are opposed to capitalism, imperialism and globalization
Nationalist Congress Party: The Nationalist Congress Party is a breakaway group of the Indian National
Congress. The trio who formed the party in 1999 included Sharad Pawar, P A Sangma and Tariq Anwar. The
party‘s policies are more or less same as that of the Congress. It has major support base in Maharashtra. It has
been a coalition partner of the Congress led UPA since 2004.
Regional Political Parties: Regional political parties have emerged to fulfill regional aspirations. They
became quite popular in their respective States that they have even begun dominating state politics and
capturing power in their respective States. Their enhanced political positions helped the national political parties
form coalition governments at the Centre. It is because of the regional political parties that our party-system has
been federalized. The Centre has begun to address their problems and respond their aspirations through
accommodation. The evolving nature of our party system has strengthened the cooperative trends of our federal
system.
Registered (unrecognized) Parties: A large number of political parties are registered at the Election
Commission, without having been recognized as National or State parties.
PARTY SYSTEM IN INDIA-NATURE
The Indian party system has the following characteristic features:
Multi-Party System
The continental size of the country, the diversified character of Indian society, the adoption of universal
adult franchise, the peculiar type of political process, and other factors have given rise to a large number of
political parties. In fact, India has the largest number of political parties in the world. At present (2013), there
are 6 national parties, 51 state parties and 1415 registered – unrecognized parties in the country2. Further, India
has all categories of parties—left parties, centrist parties, right parties, communal parties, non-communal parties
and so on. Consequently, the hung Parliaments, hung assemblies and coalition governments have become a
common phenomena.
One-Dominant Party System
In spite of the multiparty system, the political scene in India was dominated for a long period by the
Congress. Hence, Rajni Kothari, an eminent political analyst, preferred to call the Indian party system as ‗one
party dominance system‘ or the ‗Congress system‘ . The dominant position enjoyed by the Congress has been
declining since 1967 with the rise of regional parties and other national parties like Janata (1977), Janata Dal
(1989) and the BJP (1991) leading to the development of a competitive multi-party system.
Lack of Clear Ideology
Except the BJP and the two communist parties (CPI and CPM), all other parties do not have a clear-cut
ideology. They (i.e., all other parties) are ideologically closer to each other. They have a close resemblance in
their policies and programmes. Almost every party advocates democracy, secularism, socialism and Gandhism.
More than this, every party, including the so-called ideological parties, is guided by only one consideration—
power capture. Thus, politics has become issue-based rather than the ideology and pragmatism has replaced the
commitment to the principles.
Personality Cult
Quite often, the parties are organised around an eminent leader who becomes more important than the
party and its ideology. Parties are known by their leaders rather than by their manifesto. It is a fact that the
popularity of the Congress was mainly due to the leadership of Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi.
Similarly, the AIADMK in Tamil Nadu and TDP in Andhra Pradesh got identified with MG Ramachandran and
NT Rama Rao respectively. Interestingly, several parties bear the name of their leader like Biju Janata Dal, Lok
Dal (A), Congress (I) and so on. Hence, it is said that ―there are political personalities rather than political
parties in India‖.
Based on Traditional Factors
In the western countries, the political parties are formed on the basis of socio-economic and political
programme. On the other hand, a large number of parties in India are formed on the basis of religion, caste,
language, culture, race and so on. For example, Shiv Sena, Muslim League, Hindu Maha Sabha, Akali Dal,
Muslim Majlis, Bahujan Samaj Party, Republican Party of India, Gorkha League and so on. These parties work
for the promotion of communal and sectional interests and thereby undermine the general public interest.
Emergence of Regional Parties
Another significant feature of the Indian party system is the emergence of a large number of regional
parties and their growing role. They have become the ruling parties in various states like BJD in Orissa, DMK
or AIADMK in Tamil Nadu, Akali Dal in Punjab, AGP in Assam, National Conference in J&K, JD(U) in Bihar
and so on. In the beginning, they were confined to the regional politics only. But, of late, they have come to
play a significant role in the national politics due to coalition governments at the Centre. In the 1984 elections,
the TDP emerged as the largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha.
Factions and Defections
Factionalism, defections, splits, mergers, fragmentation, polarisation and so on have been an important
aspect of the functioning of political parties in India. Lust for power and material considerations have made the
politicians to leave their party and join another party or start a new party. The practice of defections gained
greater currency after the fourth general elections (1967). This phenomenon caused political instability both at
the Centre and in the states and led to disintegration of the parties. Thus, there are two Janata Dals, two TDPs,
two DMKs, two Communist Parties, two Congress, three Akali Dals, three Muslim Leagues and so on.
Lack of Effective Opposition
An effective Opposition is very essential for the successful operation of the parliamentary democracy
prevalent in India. It checks the autocratic tendencies of the ruling party and provides an alternative
government. However, in the last 50 years, an effective, strong, organised and viable national Opposition could
never emerge except in flashes. The Opposition parties have no unity and very often adopt mutually conflicting
positions with respect to the ruling party. They have failed to play aconstructive role in the functioning of the
body politic and in the process of nation building.
Dominant Features of India’s Party System
The party system in India displays the following major characteristics:
India has a multi-party system with a large number of political parties competing to attain power at the
Centre as well as in the States.
The contemporary party system in India has witnessed the emergence of a bi-nodal party system existing at
both national and state/region levels. The bi-nodal tendencies operating at two poles are led by the Congress and
the BJP both at the center and in the states. Political parties are not hegemonic but competitive, though many a
time we see a particular party aligning with one national political party and then shifting to another on the eve
of general elections.
The regional political parties have come to play a vital role in the formation of governments at the Centre.
At the Centre, these regional parties support one national political party or the other and seek substantive
favours, ministerial berths at the Centre and other financial package for their respective States.
Election is now fought not among parties but coalition of parties. Nature of competition, alliance and
players is varied from state to state.
Coalitional politics has been a new feature of our party system. We have reached a situation where there is
no single party government, except in some of the States. There are, as you can see around, neither permanent
ruling parties nor permanent opposition parties.
As a result of coalitional politics, ideologies of the political parties have taken a back seat. Administration is
run through Common Minimum Programme, which reflects that pragmatism has become the ‗ruling mantra‘.
We have seen political situations where the Telugu Desam Party supported the BJP led NDA in 1999 and CPI
(M) backed the Congress led UPA in 2004 without formally joining the government.
Parties are keen on focusing on the single emotive issue/s to garner votes. The emotive issues in some of the
earlier elections were: Garibi Hatao of the 1970s, ‗Indira is India‘ of the 1980s, ‗Taking into the 21st Century‘
under Rajiv in mid-1980s, BJP‘ India Shining of 1999, Congress‘ ‗Feel Good‘ in 2004 and ‗Aam Aadmi‘ in
2009.
Parties now look for short term electoral gains rather than build lasting social coalitions.
RECOGNITION OF NATIONAL AND STATE PARTIES
The Election Commission registers political parties for the purpose of elections and grants them
recognition as national or state parties on the basis of their poll performance. The other parties are simply
declared as registered-unrecognised parties. The recognition granted by the Commission to the parties
determines their right to certain privileges like allocation of the party symbols, provision of time for political
broadcasts on the state-owned television and radio stations and access to electoral rolls. Every national party is
allotted a symbol exclusively reserved for its use throughout the country.
Similarly, every state party is allotted a symbol exclusively reserved for its use in the state or states in
which it is so recognised. A registered-unrecognised party, on the other hand, can select a symbol from a list of
free symbols. In other words, the Commission specifies certain symbols as ‗reserved symbols‘ which are meant
for the candidates set up by the recognised parties and others as ‗free symbols‘ which are meant for other
candidates.
Conditions for Recognition as a National Party:
At present (2013), a party is recognised as a national party if any of the following conditions is
fulfilled:
1. If it secures six per cent of valid votes polled in any four or more states at a general election to the Lok Sabha
or to the legislative assembly; and, in addition, it wins four seats in the Lok Sabha from any state or states; or
2. If it wins two per cent of seats in the Lok Sabha at a general election; and these candidates are elected from
three states; or
3. If it is recognised as a state party in four states.
Conditions for Recognition as a State Party :
At present (2013), a party is recognised as a state party in a state if any of the following conditions is fulfilled:
1. If it secures six per cent of the valid votes polled in the state at a general election to the legislative assembly
of the state concerned; and, in addition, it wins 2 seats in the assembly of the state concerned; or
2. If it secures six per cent of the valid votes polled in the state at a general election to the Lok Sabha from the
state concerned; and, in addition, it wins 1 seat in the Lok Sabha from the state concerned; or
3. If it wins three per cent of seats in the legislative assembly at a general election to the legislative assembly of
the state concerned or 3 seats in the assembly, whichever is more; or
4. If it wins 1 seat in the Lok Sabha for every 25 seats or any fraction thereof allotted to the state at a general
election to the Lok Sabha from the state concerned; or
5. If it secures eight per cent of the total valid votes polled in the state at a General Election to the Lok Sabha
from the state or to the legislative assembly of the state. This condition was added in 2011.
The number of recognised parties keeps on changing on the basis of their performance in the general elections.
At present (2013), there are 6 national parties, 51 state parties and 1415 registered unrecognised parties in the
country6. The national parties and state parties are also known as all-India parties and regional parties
respectively.

COALITION POLITICS IN INDIA

Indian political system takes place within the framework of a constitution. India is declared as a federal,
parliamentary, multi-party, representative-democratic, republic modeled after the British West Minister system.
According to its constitution, India is ―sovereign socialist, secular, democratic and republic‖. It has a
democratically elected government chosen by its largest population. As like any other democracy, political
party represent different sections among the Indian society and regions, and their core value place a major role
in the politics of India. India has a multi party system where there is number of national and regional political
parties existing in India because of which there is an emergence of coalition governments in India.
A coalition government is a cabinet of a parliamentary government in which several political parties
cooperates to reduce or to avoid the dominance of any one party within that coalition. The usual reason given
for this arrangement is that no party on its own can achieve a majority in the parliament. Coalition might also be
created in a time of national difficulty or economic crisis. (During the war time to give a government a high
degree of perceived political legitimacy) Dictionary of encyclopedia defines; it‘s an alliance for combined
action especially a temporary alliance of political parties forming a government or of a state‖.

The term ‗coalition‘ is derived from the Latin word ‗coalition‘ which is the verbal substantive
coalescere. Co means together and alescere means to go or to grow together. According to the dictionary
meaning, coalition means an act of coalescing, or uniting into one body, a union of persons, states or an
alliance. It is a combination of a body or parts into one whole. In the strict political sense the word ‗coalition‘ is
used for an alliance or temporary union for joint action of various powers or States and also of the union into a
single government of distinct parties or members of distinct parties.
After independence, The largest democracy has largely been ruled or governed by the single largest
party that is, of course, Indian national congress. Congress party since its inception in 1885 has evolved as the
most organized and vibrant force through every nock and corner of India. Since congress party has faced a lot of
music during India‘s freedom struggle from the White men not to exclude an ordinary Indian who might have
faced the British axe and not just music. Needless, to say the very existence of congress goes to the British
account. Bipin Chandra Beautifully articulates in his book ―History of modern India ―page 208 if Hume wanted
to use the congress as a ‗safety valve‘, the early congress leaders hoped to use him as a lightning conductor‘.
Once, called safety valve finally made British pay the huge price they had borrowed from the India in the name
of trade centuries ago and finally returned back to India in 1947 with unfortunate partition. The organized
congress party ruled India with no parallel or competition. The charisma of Nehru, Patel, and Azad had given
congress the yield that congress enjoyed until 1977.
Indian too has accumulated not inconsiderable amount of experience in the form of governing
arrangement. Undivided India got its first experience of coalition government in 1937 when the government of
India act, 1935 became operative. At the time Jinnah asked for a coalition consisting of congress and Muslim
league in UP but congress the party holding majority did not entertain this demand. Mohammad Ali Jinnah at
that time argued that in India coalition was the only respectable device to give to the Muslims a fair share in
governance in other states like NWFP and Punjab congress formed coalitions with other regional parties.
First experience of coalition in free India at the union level goes back to 1977 when non congress forces
united under the leadership of Morarji Desai in the name of janta government. Ram Monohar Lohia In 1963 had
propounded the strategy of Anti-Congressism or non- congressism. He was of the opinion that since in the past
three general elections the Congress had won with a thumping majority, there was a feeling among the masses
that the Congress could not be defeated and it had come to stay in power for ever. Lohia invited all the
Opposition parties to field a single candidate against Congress candidates so that the non congress votes won‘t
get divided and common masses could come out of the illusion that congress can‘t be defeated. This formula of
Dr. Lohia saw success in the 1967 general elections with the Congress party defeated in seven States and
Samyuktha Vidhayak Dal governments formed by the Opposition parties of the time. Lohia‘s fomula sowed the
seeds for coalition politics in india.The first coalition was formed under the experience of Morarji Desai .He
was the oldest man to become prime minister of India. The four party janta government remained in power for
about two years i.e, 1977-1979. The power struggle in the government did not allow Desai to continue anymore.
Once the no confidence motion against Desai was discussed in the lower house Mr. Desai tendered his
resignation. The Janta government collapsed like a house of cards in july 1979 when floodgates of defections
opened with the departure of various group leaders like George Fernandes , H.N.Bahuguna , Biju patnaik and
mudhu Limaye.
Second coalition, a new coalition was formed with Mr. Charan Singh as the prime minister in October
1979. He was the only prime minister who didn‘t face the parliament. This coalition had the support of CPI (M)
and the CPI. There was pro wast Fernandes and pro soviet Bahuguna faction in the coalition. On paper Charan
Singh had the absolute majority. But, once President asked him to seek a vote of confidence in the house within
three weeks time. Mr. Charan Singh tendered his resignation before facing the house. Hence became the first
Indian prime minster that did not face the house.
Third coalition was formed in the name of national front under the leadership of V.P. Singh in
December 1989.V.P.Singh government was supported by BJP and the then single largest party congress which
did not form the govt. as a political strategy. National front government had also the support of CPI,
CPI(M),The RSP and the Forward Block. But, the honeymoon period was short lived when BJP withdrew its
support to V.P. Singh on the eve of Advani‘s arrest on the backdrop of his Rath Yatra from somnath to Gujarat
despite BJP‘S warning to withdraw support if Advani is arrested. Though national front government remained
in power only for 11 months. The then Indian president R.Venketaraman observes, ―it is my impression that if
V.P. Singh had headed a government with a clear majority instead of depending on a conglomeration of parties
mutually destructive to each other, he would have given a good administration to the country. Being dependent
on parties with different objectives and ideologies, he could not with stand pressures from discordant groups‖
Fourth coalition,V.P.Singh‘s coalition government was defeated by 142 votes for and 346 against the
confidence motion on nov.7,1990 in the Lok Sabha.By nov.8,all major political parties declined to shoulder the
responsibility for administration. Chandra Shekhar had already staked his claim to form the government with
the help of the congress(i),the AIADMK, BSP, Muslim league ,j&k national conference ,Kerala
congress(M),Shiromni Akali Dal (panthic) and a few independent members. Chandra shekhar formed the
government on November 11 1990 despite the criticism that defectors should not have been invited to form
government. Chandra Shekhar offered his resignation on 6th march 1991 and advised for dissolution of house
on the issue of maintaining surveillance of Rajiv Gandhi by some Haryana policemen. The then President R.
Venkataraman‘s take on the leadership of Chandra shekhar government ―during his few months in office, he
had handled parliament competently and was responsive to suggestions from the opposition. He was under
constant strain from the pressures of the congress party, which I am afraid , assumed that it was the real
government and Chandra shekhar only a proxy.
Fifth coalition was formed under the leadership of H.D. Deve Gowda in the banner of united front
government. The United Front was a coalition government of 13 political parties including outside support of
congress, CPI, Other members of the front included the Samajwadi Party, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Asom
Gana Parishad, Tamil Maanila Congress, Communist Party of India and Telugu Desam Party. The united front
government headed by H.D.Deve Gowda was like a chariot being pulled at times in different direction by 13
horses. The Congress revoked its support to Gowda amidst discontent over communication between the
coalition and the Congress. Hence, the united front government lost the vote of confidence with 190 in favour
and 338 against.
Sixth coalition was headed by I.K.Gujral from 21st April 1997 to 19th march 1998 as a consensus
candidate between others that included Lalu Prasad Yadav, Mulayam Singh Yadav , INC,left parties and
others‘. The INC finally withdrew support from his government on 28 November after Gujral sent Kesri a letter
saying he would not dismiss any DMK leaders. Gujral resigned following the withdrawal and sent a letter to
President K. R. Narayanan that read: "My government has lost its majority and does not want to continue in
office on moral grounds‖. The president accepted the resignation, but asked for Gujral to stay on in an interim
capacity. The president finally dissolved parliament on 4 December once formation of government by any party
did not materialize.
Seventh coalition was led by A.B. Vajpayee from 19 march 1998 to 10th oct.1999.the BJP led coalition
was supported by AIADMK, BJD, Akali Dal, Shiv sena,PMK,TRC and others. This coalition of two many
parties did not last long since the demands of AIADMK were not met including the demand of Jayalalitha to
sack defence minister George Fernandes. It was but natural that she would withdraw her support and of course
she did not surprise anyone. Once Mr. Vaypayee moved confidence motion it was lost by one vote i.e., 269 in
favour and 270 against. Hence, Mr. Vaypayeee tendered his resignation to the president of India and came to an
end what was a shaky coalition.
India today observes: ―The BJP won 182 seats to retain its status as the single largest party in the 12th
Lok Sabha….if President K.R. Narayanan invites Vajpayee to head the next government, the BJP leader will be
a prisoner of his 13 disparate prepoll allies who hold 73 seats and a score of post poll friends who will
inevitably extract a steep price for their support.‖ India then appears to have entered a long season of coalition
governments. ― if the purpose of forming a coalition is to topple the existing government without any common
programme of action or approach, the Coalition, however, broadbased or cohesive it may be, would not provide
for stability and would in its turn be the victim of the same process of defections‖. As the former Governor of
Punjab D.C. Pavate viualised in his book ―Coalition Governments, Their Problems and Prospects.
Eighth coalition was formed after the 13th Lok sabha elections under the prime ministership of
A.B.Vajpayee from 11th October 1999 to 21st may 2004 under the flag of national democratic alliance(NDA)
led by BJP and supported by 24 political parties including AIADMK, Telgu Desam Party, NC, Trinimool
Congress, Shiv Sena ,Shiromani Akali Dal and others. The coalition led by Mr. Vajpayee had the support of
different shades of opinion. It was a coalition of ideologies, cultures, social fabrics, religions and above all
coalition of regions yet NDA was dominated by the upper and middle castes. ―the presence of the BJP as the
strong pillar in the coalition ,the charismatic leadership of A.B. Vajpayee and the skilfull way in which diverse
interestswere accommodated ensured the stability of the coalition government‖.
Nineth coalition was formed in may 2004 under the leadership of a stalwart economist Dr.Manmohan
singh in the name of united progressive alliance supported by Nationalist Congress Party with 9 MPs, Rashtriya
Lok Dal with 5 MPs, Jammu & Kashmir National Conference with3 MPs, Indian Union Muslim League with 3
MPs, Kerala Congress (Mani) with 1 MP and others including left parties. Outside support was given by
Samajwadi Party with 22 MPs, Bahujan Samaj Party with 21 MPs, Rashtriya Janata Dal with 4 MPs. On 8 July
2008, the national media had the breaking news that Prakash Karat, the general secretary of the Communist
Party of India (Marxist) (CPI, announced that the Left Front would be withdrawing support over Indo-U.S.
nuclear deal. Despite many ifs, buts, ought the government survived amid controversies over ―vote for cash‖
scam which is never a bombshell in coalitions.
The tenth coalition was formed by UPA 2nd in may 2009 headed by Dr. Manmohan singh as prime
minister for 2nd term after 15th Lok Sabha elections chaired by Shri Sonia Gandhi as was done in 2004 . India
held general elections to the 15th Lok Sabha in five phases between 16 April 2009 and 13 May 2009. With an
electorate of 714 million. (larger than the electorate of the European Union and United States combined. UPA
2nd was short of 10 seats to reach the magical number of 272 as required under rules to form government. UPA
2nd had the outside support of Samajwadi party with 23 mps, Bahujan Samaj party with 21, Rashtrya Janta Dal
with 4mps, Janta Dal secular with 3 mps, others with 3mps and others. Due to the fact that UPA was able to get
262 seats — just short of 10 seats for a majority — all the external support came from parties who gave
unconditional support to Manmohan Singh and the UPA. The Janata Dal (Secular), the Rashtriya Janata Dal, the
Bahujan Samaj Party and the Samajwadi Party all decided to do so to keep out any possibility of a BJP
government in the next 5 years.
On 18 September 2012, TMC Chief Mamta Banerjee, announced her decision to withdraw support to
the UPA after the TMC's demands of rollback of reforms including FDI in retail, increase in the price of diesel
and limiting the number of subsidized cooking gas cylinders for households, were not met. Likewise The DMK
pulled out of the UPA government on 19 March 2013 over the issue of a draft resolution at the United Nations
Human Rights Council of the alleged human rights' violations of Sri Lankan Tamils. Others who left the yoke
of UPA include people‘s democratic party, Jharkhand Vikas Morcha , All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen,
Pattali Makkal Katchi and others on many issues needless to delineate upon.the UPA 2nd played its full innings
despite BJP‘s criticism that ‗UPA is 100 not out in scams‘.What makes these coalitions work is the established
fact that there are no permanent enemies or friends in politics, if there is anything permanent that is interest.
India finally seems to have made a perennial entry in the world of coalitions. The above analysis clearly
depicts how hung parliaments become norm in the largest democracy with fragile or enduring impact. The
crumbling of political parties creates gloomy electoral circumstances in which hung parliaments become rule
rather than an exception. Nevertheless, Indian democratic politics so far has been lacking in the aptitude and the
culture of coalition forming and coalition maintaining succession of unhinged coalitions or minority
governments has made its own contribution to the crisis of the State as the state is inextricably mixed with the
webs of government.
The national Front Government

After the Janata Government the National Front under the leadership of V.P. Singh, the Defence
Minister in Rajiv Gandhi's Cabinet took an attempt to form a non-Congress government at the centre in 1988.
Singh's National Front government was an alliance among disparate individuals and parties to remain the
Congress (I) out of power. The alliance began to fall apart because of the partisan interests and personality
squabbles. V.P. Singh wanted to rise above factional politics, but he was encircled by ambitious colleagues and
diehard parties whose conspiracies and intrigues to nudge him out of office tempered his style of governance.
―The contradictory traits of his personality, exacerbated by situational imperatives, made him earnest and
Machiavellian, decisive and ambivalent, consistent and inconsistent at one and the same time.‖ His government
began searching for pro-Janata Party hacks to fill these positions. To ensure value-based politics his government
dismissed all state governors In January, 1990. Under the leadership of Prime Minister, P. V. N Simha Rao,
minority government was formed at the Centre in June 1991. On the one hand, the Rao government was
successful in initiating economic reforms, „it pursued liberalization and globalization much to the satisfaction of
the World Bank- International Monetary Fund (IMP) combine side by side it failed to promote value-based
politics. It sustained itself in power and made reasonable coalitions through buying support. The government
like the previous Congress regimes was not hesitant to use president's rule for partisan purpose in the arena of
federalism. Between 1991 and 1996, for a total of 11 incidents of president's rule, the Meghalaya Assembly
(non-Congress government, 1991) was suspended, but „revived after the Congress (I) was able to form the
government‟19, the Manipur Assembly (non-Congress, 1992; Congress I, 1994) was suspended twice, but
„revived in each case, after the Congress (I) formed the government.‟ All cases of Presidential dissolutions
involved non-Congress governments: Uttar Pradesh (1992, 1995); Nagaland (1992); Rajasthan (1992); Madhya
Pradesh (1992); Bihar; (1995) Himachal Pradesh (1992).

The United Front Government

The next Lok Sabha election held in April-May 1996 and it was witnessed a severely fractured verdict
with no one party or coalition being able to come anywhere near an absolute majority. It is a miracle that there
was a government at the centre after the parliamentary polls as the situation with the party system in disarray
and the political leadership in a worst ever crisis of credibility. Turmoil, besieged from within by disparate
regional leaders from different political parties and from without by the Congress (I) and the Marxists, the 13-
parties United Front government under the leadership of H.D. Deva Gowda muddles through-perhaps, until the
Congress ditched it. The Front might have faltered in promoting its hastily drawn 'Common Minimum
Programme' but it had stalled for some time, the saffronization of the centre much to the relief of minorities.
Nobody knew how the political universe would unfold within the few months and years, but none anticipated
realignment of political parties and leaders to provide stable situation in political arena. In that situation the
centre seemed fragile and suffered from power deflation and it was obviously constrained the analysis of future
itinerary of the political system and for the federal system in India.

The BJP-led Coalition

A rainbow coalition government was formed under the leadership of Atal Behari VaJpayee (a
combination of 17 parties and independents) and expect that the coalition would be more durable but this did
not happen. He started his term as prime minister on 19 March 1998 and resigned on 17 April 1999 as his
government lost a vote of confidence in the Lok Sabha by a single vote. His government also blamed by some
issues as for examples the BJP was ―a cadre-based, it opted for a consensual „National Agenda for
Governance‟, somewhat monolithic party, and ideologically committed to the promotion of Hindutva etc.‖ The
13th Lok Sabha election held on October 1999 (somewhat delayed because of Kargil war) and the BJP-Ied
omnibus alliance of 24 parties [the National Democratic Alliance (NDA)] got a comfortable working majority.
„The electoral verdict was still fractured but the NDA did well; it got a majority of about 30 seats which
enlivened its hope for a long stint in government under the leadership of Atal Behari Vajpayee who was sworn
in as prime minister (third time around) on 13th October 1999.‟To keep the NDA together, policy of a National
Agenda for Governance (NAG), sanitized for the BJP-allies, was drawn and the allies also cornered some key
portfolios in the Union Cabinet. On assuming office, Atal Behari Vajpayee promised bold economic reforms,
fiscal discipline, and a review of the constitution for better governmental stability, functional decentralisation,
judicial accountability, and financial autonomy tough the President of India did not favor such a review.‟
Except where the BJP's interests were at stake, the Vajpayee centre had been watchful but less intervening in
the making and unmaking of state governments. He asserted that "his Government truly believed in Federalism
and regional parties should have a say in the management of national affairs.‖ As a dominant governing party at
the centre, BJP entered into a variety of pre-poll and post-poll alliances to make its presence felt in all states. As
a political party it used the resources of the Centre to capture non-BJP territories mainly if the state
governments in these territories were well-entrenched and stable (e.g. most Southern States). Because of the
politics of defections, States like Meghalaya, Manipur, Goa, and Pondicherry have had turnover of governments
but the Vajpayee centre let the chips fall where they did. „Manipur came under President's rule (June 2001) as a
last resort failing due consultation with Congress President, Sonia Gandhi.‟ Uttar Pradesh experienced a brief
spell of presidential suspension of its legislative assembly following a divided mandate of the February 2002
polls.

United Progressive Alliance

The fourteenth Lok Sabha elections (April/May 2004) bought a change in the central government; the
BJP-Ied NDA government was replaced by the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government. One of
the most important feature of Manmohan Singh-led UPA is that in many state level based parties and groups
which agreed to participate in the government, supported from outside by the Communist block of MPs. They
have interpreted that their mandate is to promote and solidify the secular forces and transform Indian democracy
with a view to bring comfort to millions of unemployed rural and urban youth and the neglected agrarian
Indian. To improve the Centre-State relations, it was focused on growing regional imbalances, both among
states as well as within states, through administrative, fiscal, investment and other means. The party believed
that regional imbalances have been created by not just historical neglect, but also by distortions of resources and
central government assistance. The Government will consider the creation of a Backward State and that basis
they used to create productive assets in these states. The government used the National Development Council as
more effective instrument of cooperative federalism. To strengthen the Centre-State relations, this government
is committed to set-up a new commission keeping in view the sea-changes that have taken place in the polity
and economy of India. The issue of centre-state relations was last looked at by the Sarkaria Commission over a
decade ago. The 15th Lok Sabha held in 2009 (between 16 April 2009 and 13 May 2009), the tenth coalition
was also formed by UPA 2nd headed by Dr. Manmohan singh as prime minister for 2nd term and also this
elections chaired by Sonia Gandhi. The tenth coalition was able to get 262 seats — just short of 10 seats for a
majority. The UPA 2nd was gotten unconditional supports from Samajwadi party with 23 MPs, Bahujan Samaj
party with 21 MPs, Rashtrya Janta Dal with 4mps, Janta Dal secular with 3 mps, and the others. These all
parties are supported to UPA 2nd as they wanted to keep out any possibility of a BJP government in the next 5
years. The tenth coalition was more often in the news headlines for 2G scam, coal mines scam, MGNREGA
scam, common wealth games scam etc. After the TMC's demands of rollback of reforms including FDI in retail,
increase in the price of diesel and limiting the number of subsidized cooking gas cylinders for households, the
TMC Chief Mamta Banerjee, announced her decision to withdraw support to the UPA on 18 September 2012.
Likewise the DMK withdrew support from UPA government over the issue of a draft resolution at the United
Nations Human Rights Council of the alleged human rights' violations of Sri Lankan Tamils on 19 March 2013.

The Third BJP-led Coalition 2014

The 16th Lok Sabha held in 2014 and the National Democratic Alliance won a sweeping victory, taking
336 seats and the BJP itself won 282 seats. After 1984, it is the first time in Indian General Election that a party
has won enough seats to form the government without the support of other parties. The United Progressive
Alliance, headed by Indian National Congress, won only 58 seats. This was the worst defeat in a general
election of the United Progressive Alliance.

CONCUSSION

In Indian political system, coalition politics is a matter of fact. Today every citizen of Indian is bound to
accept that era of coalition politics has now fully dawned. All the National parties are now fully realised the fact
that none of them can singly get a majority at least in the near future. India‘s mother political party Congress
which is in power at centre nearly 40 years also now fully aware of the fact that they need to form some sort of
coalition group to occupy the power at the centre and states. The last few decades we are witnessed that how the
hung parliaments become as permanent feature of the largest democracy with enduring impact.

INTEREST GROUPS AND PRESSURE GROUPS

Meaning and Techniques

The term ‗pressure group‘ originated in the USA. A pressure group is a group of people who are
organised actively for promoting and defending their common interest. It is so called as it attempts to bring a
change in the public policy by exerting pressure on the government. It acts as a liaison between the government
and its members.
The pressure groups are also called interest groups or vested groups. They are different from the
political parties in that they neither contest elections nor try to capture political power. They are concerned with
specific programmes and issues and their activities are confined to the protection and promotion of the interests
of their members by influencing the government. The pressure groups influence the policy-making and policy-
implementation in the government through legal and legitimate methods like lobbying, correspondence,
publicity, propagandizing, Petitioning, public debating, maintaining contacts with their legislators and so forth.
However, sometimes they resort to illegitimate and illegal methods like strikes, violent activities and corruption
which damages public interest and administrative integrity.
According to Odegard, pressure groups resort to three different techniques in securing their purposes.
First, they can try to place in public office persons who are favorably disposed towards the interests they seeks
to promote. This technique may be labeled electioneering. Second, they can try to persuade public officers,
whether they are initially favorably disposed toward them or not, to adopt and enforce the policies that they
think will prove most beneficial to their interests. This technique may be labeled lobbying. Third, they can try to
influence public opinion and thereby gain an indirect influence over government, since the government in a
democracy is substantially affected by public opinion. This technique may be labeled propagandizing.
 CHARACTERISTICS OF PRESSURE GROUPS
To have a proper understanding of pressure groups we must try to familiarize ourselves with the various
characteristics of pressure groups.
1. Based on Certain Interests-
Each pressure group organises itself keeping in view certain interests and thus tries to adopt the structure
of power in the political systems. In every government and political party there are clashing interest groups.
These groups try to dominate the political structure and to see that groups whose interests clash with theirs are
suppressed. Thus, each political party and system is pressurised by certain interest groups which may be similar
or reactionary to each other.
2. Use of Modern as well as Traditional Means
Another characteristic feature of pressure groups is that they try to follow modem means of exerting
pressure, without fully giving up the traditional or old ways of operation. They adopt techniques like financing
of political parties, sponsoring their close candidates at the time of elections and keeping the bureaucracy also
satisfied. Their traditional means include exploitation of caste, creed and religious feelings to promote their
interests.
3. Resulting Out of Increasing Pressure and Demands on Resources
As the resources of developing countries are usualIy scarce, there are cIaims and counter claims on their
resources from different and competing sections of the society. In such a situation, there has to be a process of
allocation. The public policies thus become the devices through which allocation takes place. However, the
allocation process has to be accompanied by certain amount of authority for the demands of all the groups
cannot be satisfied. In the process certain other groups are denied the benefits. Those who are denied the
benefits are found to be unhappy and do express their resentment through different forms. This may range from
mild protests to violent outbursts. In such a situation the allocator of values, viz., the State employs different
techniques to contain the movement or meet the protest. At ideological level the State would claim legitimacy
of its authority to allocate the values. If the legitimacy claim is accepted then the conflicts get resolved in a
more orderly fashion. If the claims for the legitimacy are rejected, the State employs force and justifies it on the
grounds of legitimacy and maintenance of order in the general interest of the society.
The pressure groups take birth in this process. In every society there is a continuous generation of demands.
In developing countries like India, where around forty per cent population is below the poverty line, the
demands emanate from the basic physical requirements of human beings. There are demands not only for food
and basic needs but demands for work and opportunities. It is significant to note that the pressure for these
demands has come more from the elite than the poor people themselves. Although there is restlessness, it has
not acquired a concrete form in terms of poor peoples' organisation. The poor continue to be one of the most
unorganized segments of the society with the result their problems do not get articulated sufficiently and
pressure applied is not adequate to extract the share that is due to them.
4. Alternative to Inadequacies of Political Parties
Pressure groups are primarily a consequence of inadequacies of the political parties. The political parties are
expected to articulate the demands of different deprived and dominant interests in the system. They are also
expected to organise and mobilise the support structure to various demands. In India, the spectrum of political
parties indicates that while all of them do talk of the poor and other deprived sections and give prominent place
to their problems in their manifestoes, a larger number of them neither have the capacity nor the political will to
organise the poor. Thus, the political parties leave a wide gap in the system. This gap is not filled by the
pressure groups either. This is due to the inability of the poorer sections to organise themselves. The political
parties have not been able to present the interests of the dominant groups as adequately and fully as one woulcl
expect them to do. Most of the political parties compete for the same social base. With the result there is not
much difference between one party programme and the other. This has left enormous gaps in the socio-
economic system of the country. These gaps have come to be filled up by the pressure groups. In a mixed
economy where the state has opted for planned development, the dominant interests are always suspicious of
the intentions of the state. This gives rise to organised pressure groups as a counter-check to politics and
political parties. For -instance, the Acts like Monopolies Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) or land reforms
 can always be a source of doubt about the real intentions of the policy formulators. That is the reason why the
dominant interests are alert throu& pressure groups. Another reason why political system leaves considerable
space for pressure groups is the continuous regulations and restrictions imposed by the political system. From
obtaining a licence to selling a product in the market, there is presence of the State. Th is\ is a highly
bureaucratised process. The interest or pressure groups not only need to.have a highly organised pressure
system but maintain middlemen, liaison officer, hidden persuaders and so on. They adopt several methods to
extract the favours from the system on the one hand and circumvent highly impending procedures, rules and
regulations on the other. The political parties because of their dependence on the poor voters do not publicly
plead for the course of the dominant interests. On the contrary their rhetoric is anti-dominant social groups. This
gives rise to pressure groups.
5. Represent Changing ~consciousness
Pressure groups are a sign of changing consciousness. The consciousness of different groups goes on
changing as the result (I) changing material conditions; and (ii) increasing politicisation. The change in the
material conditions leads to higher level consciousness. For instance the increase in the food production or
industrial goods does bring a change in the way individuals and groups look at the world. The stagnation in
production leads to fatalism but increase in the production leads to demands, protests and formation of new
pressure groups. This is the initial expression of the changes in material conditions. This also leads to
sharpening of the political processes. The political parties and political groups try to mobilize various groups by
raising new demands or articulating the new aspirations. The people at large respond to those processes as they
enter a new phase of consciousness. Thus, the changing material conditions and consciousness create a 'new
situation for the rise of pressures and in turn the pressure groups.
The pressures arising from competition are, in fact, the real arena of pressure group phenomenon. The poor and
the deprived sections lack the capacity to organise themselves, therefore, they are usually organised or
represented by the elite for upper strata. That is why the nature of pressure that is applied on behalf of the poor
would be different from the pressure that the better off sections apply on the society. The better off sections who
are locked up in competition from the limited resources of the society employ all the methods possible to extract
Maximum benefits from the system. It is in understanding the modes and methods that these groups adopt; our
awareness of the problem gets enlarged.
In present times, the role of some movements, for protection of rights of people, has become significant.
They are playing the role of a pressure group. For example, the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) movement
has generated consciousness amongst the people in questioning the actions of government regarding dam
construction and its repercussions.
Similarly, in the State of Rajasthan, a people's organisation known as Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sanghthan
(MKSS), could succeed in making the people question and demand information on money spent on roads; loans
to poor and so on. This made the basis for the right to information movement. People are exerting their rights to
get information from the government regarding activities that rightfully concerns them.

TYPES OF PRESSURE GROUPS

Different writers on comparative government have classified interest groups or pressure groups on the
basis of their structure and organisation. According to Almond and Powell, interest groups can be classified into
four categories:

I. Institutional Interest Groups

II. The Associational Interest Groups
III. Anomic Interest Groups
IV. Non-Associational Interest Groups

1. Institutional Interest Groups

These groups are formally organised which consist of professionally employed persons. They are a part of
government machinery and try to exert their influence. But they do have much autonomy. These groups include
 political parties, legisla-tures, armies, bureaucracies and churches. An example of institutional group can be the
West Bengal Civil Se-rvices Association. Whenever such an association raises protest it does so by
constitutional means and in accordance with the rules and regulations.
2. Associational Interest Groups
These are organised specialised groups formed for interest articulation, but to pursue limited goals. These
include trade unions, organisations of businessmen and industrialists and civic groups. Some examples of
Associational Interest Groups in India are Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Indian Chambers of
Commerce, Trade Unions such as AITUC (All India Trade Union Congress), Teachers Associations, Students
Associations such as National Students Union of India (NSUI) etc.
3. Anomic Interest Groups
These are the groups that have analogy with individual self-representation. In such type of groups,
perpetual infiltrations such as riots, demonstrations are observed. These groups are found in the shape of
movement demonstrations and processions, signature campaigns, street corner meetings, etc. Their activities
may either be constitutional or unconstitutional.
4. Non-Associational Interest Groups
These are the kinship and lineage groups and ethnic, regional, status and class groups that articulate
interests on the basis of individuals, family and religious heads. These groups have informal structure. These
include caste groups, language groups, etc.

PRESSURE GROUPS IN INDIA

A large number of pressure groups exist in India. But, they are not developed to the same extent as in the
US or the western countries like Britain, France, Germany and so on. The pressure groups in India can be
broadly classified into the following categories:
1. Business Groups
The business groups include a large number of industrial and commercial bodies. They are the most
sophisticated, the most powerful and the largest of all pressure groups in India. They include:
(i) Federation of Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (FICCI); major constituents are the Indian
Merchants Chamber of Bombay, Indian Merchants Chamber of Calcutta and South Indian Chamber of
Commerce of Madras. It broadly represents major industrial and trading interests.
(ii) Associated Chamber of Commerce and Industry of India (ASSOCHAM); major constituents are the
Bengal Chamber of Commerce of Calcutta and Central Commercial Organisation of Delhi. ASSOCHAM
represents foreign British capital.
(iii) Federation of All India Foodgrain Dealers Association (FAIFDA). FAIFDA is the sole
representative of the grain dealers.
(iv) All-India Manufacturers Organisation (AIMO). AIMO raises the concerns of the mediumsized
industry.
2. Trade Unions
The trade unions voice the demands of the industrial workers. They are also known as labour groups. A
peculiar feature of trade unions in India is that they are associated either directly or indirectly with different
political parties. They include:
(i) All-India Trade Union Congress (AITUC)—affiliated to CPI;
(ii) Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC)—affiliated to the Congress (I);
(iii) Hind Mazdoor Sabha (HMS)—affiliated to the Socialists;
(iv) Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU)—affiliated to the CPM;
(v) Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS)—affiliated to the BJP;
(vi) All India Central Council of Trade Unions (Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist)
Liberation);
(vii) All India United Trade Union Centre (Socialist Unity Centre of India (Communist));
(viii)New Trade Union Initiative (Independent from political parties, but left);
(ix) Labour Progressive Federation (Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam);
(x) Trade Union Coordination Committee (All India Forward Bloc);
(xi) United Trade Union Congress (Revolutionary Socialist Party);
(xii) All India Centre of Trade Unions (Marxist Communist Party of India (United));
(xiii)Anna Thozhil Sanga Peravai (All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam);
(xiv)Bharatiya Kamgar Sena (Shiv Sena);
(xv) Hind Mazdoor Kisan Panchayat (Janata Dal (United));
(xvi)Indian Federation of Trade Unions (Communist Party of India Marxist- Leninist) New
Democracy);
(xvii)Indian National Trinamool Trade Union Congress (All India Trinamool Congress);
(xviii)Pattali Trade Union (Pattali Makkal Katchi);
(ix) Swatantra Thozhilali Union (Indian Union Muslim League); and
(xx) Telugu Nadu Trade Union Council (Telugu Desam Party).
First Trade Union in India: All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) was founded in 1920 with Lala
Lajpat Rai as its first president. Upto 1945, Congressmen, Socialists and Communists worked in the AITUC
which was the central trade union organisation of workers of India. Subsequently, the trade union movement got
split on political lines.
3. Agrarian Groups
The agrarian groups represent the farmers and the agricultural labour class. They include:
(i) Bhartiya Kisan Union (under the leadership of Mahendra Singh Tikait, in the wheat belt of North
India)
(ii) All India Kisan Sabha (the oldest and the largest agrarian group)
(iii) Revolutionary Peasants Convention (organised by the CPM in 1967 which gave birth to the
Naxalbari Movement)
(iv) Bhartiya Kisan Sangh (Gujarat)
(v) R V Sangham (led by C N Naidu in Tamil Nadu)
(vi) Shetkhari Sanghatana (led by Sharad Joshi in Maharashtra)
(vii) Hind Kisan Panchayat (controlled by the Socialists)
(viii)All-India Kisan Sammelan (led by Raj Narain)
(ix) United Kisan Sabha (controlled by the CPM)
4. Professional Associations
These are associations that raise the concerns and demands of doctors, lawyers, journalists and teachers.
Despite various restrictions, these associations pressurise the government by various methods including
agitations for the improvement of their service conditions. They include:
(i) Indian Medical Association (IMA)
(ii) Bar Council of India (BCI)
(iii) Indian Federation of Working Journalists (IFWJ)
(iv) All India Federation of University and College Teachers (AIFUCT)
5. Student Organisations
Various unions have been formed to represent the student community. However, these unions, like the
trade unions, are also affiliated to various political parties. These are:
(i) Akhila Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) (affiliated to BJP)
(ii) All India Students Federation (AISF) (affiliated to CPI)
(iii) National Students Union of India (NSUI) (affiliated to Congress (I))
(iv) Progressive Students Union (PSU) (affiliated to CPM)
6. Religious Organisations
The organisations based on religion have come to play an important role in Indian politics. They
represent the narrow communal interest. They include:
(i) Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS)
(ii) Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP)
(iii) Jamaat-e-Islami
 (iv) Ittehad-ul-Mussalmeen
(v) Anglo-Indian Association
(vi) Associations of the Roman Catholics
(vii) All-India Conference of Indian Christians
(viii)Parsi Central Association
7. Caste Groups
Like religion, caste has been an important factor in Indian politics. The competitive politics in many
states of the Indian Union is in fact the politics of caste rivalries: Brahmin versus Non-Brahmin in Tamil Nadu
and Maharashtra, Rajput versus Jat in Rajasthan, Kamma versus Reddy in Andhra, Ahir versus Jat in Haryana,
Baniya Brahmin versus Patidar in Gujarat. Kayastha versus Rajput in Bihar, Nair versus Ezhava in Kerala and
Lingayat versus Okkaliga in Karnataka3. Some of the caste-based organisations are:
(i) Nadar Caste Association in Tamil Nadu
(ii) Marwari Association
(iii) Harijan Sevak Sangh
(iv) Kshatriya Maha Sabha in Gujarat
(v) Vanniyakul Kshatriya Sangam
(vi) Kayastha Sabha
8. Tribal Organisations
The tribal organisations are active in MP, Chattisgarh, Bihar, Jharkhand, West Bengal and the North
Eastern States of Assam, Manipur, Nagaland and so on. Their demands range from reforms to that of secession
from India and some of them are involved in insurgency activities. The tribal organisations include:
(i) National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN)
(ii) Tribal National Volunteers (TNU) in Tripura
(iii) People‘s Liberation Army in Manipur
(iv) All-India Jharkhand
(v) Tribal Sangh of Assam
(vi) United Mizo Federal Organisation
9. Linguistic Groups
Language has been so important factor in Indian politics that it became the main basis for the
reorganisation of states. The language along with caste, religion and tribe have been responsible for the
emergence of political parties as well as pressure groups. Some of the linguistic groups are:
(i) Tamil Sangh
(ii) Anjuman Tarraki-i-Urdu
(iii) Andhra Maha Sabha
(iv) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan
(v) Nagari Pracharani Sabha
(vi) Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha
10. Ideology Based Groups
In more recent times, the pressure groups are formed to pursue a particular ideology, i.e., a cause, a
principle or a programme. These groups include:
(i) Environmental protection groups like Narmada Bachao Andolan, and Chipko Movement
(ii) Democratic rights organisations
(iii) Civil liberties associations
(iv) Gandhi Peace Foundation
(v) Woman rights organisations
11. Anomic Groups
Almond and Powell observed: ―By anomic pressure groups we mean more or less a spontaneous
breakthrough into the political system from the society such as riots, demonstrations, assassinations and the like.
The Indian Government and bureaucratic elite, overwhelmed by the problem of economic development and
scarcity of resources available to them, inevitably acquires a technocratic and anti-political frame of mind,
particularistic demands of whatever kinds are denied legitimacy. As a consequence interest groups are alienated
from the political system‖. Some of the anomic pressure groups are:
(i) All-India Sikh Student‘s Federation.
(ii) Nava Nirman Samithi of Gujarat.
(iii) Naxalite Groups.
CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS
Pressure groups are now considered as an indispensable and helpful element of the democratic process.
The society has become highly complex and individuals cannot pursue their interests on their own. They need
the support of other fellow beings in order to gain greater bargaining power; this gives rise to pressure groups
based on common interests. For a long time these groups remained unnoticed, initially they were considered as
harmful for the democratic process, but now their role in the political process has become very important.
Democratic politics has to be politics through consultation, through negotiation and some amount of bargaining
is also involved. Thus, it is very essential for the government to consult these organised groups at the time of
policy formulation and implementation.
Thus, we saw that pressure groups are a very important part of any system. No administrative and
political set up can function without the advice and cooperation of pressure groups. The Unit explained the
meaning and importance of pressure groups. An attempt was made to discuss the nature of pressure groups in
India and their methods of operation. The different types of pressure groups that exist in any political and
administrative system were highlighted upon. The problems of pressure groups and need to overcome them
were also clearly dealt with.
ROLE OF MEDIA IN DEMOCRATIC PROCESS
Democracy and Media are two major elements in the process of Development, as development is no
longer viewed as the sole responsibility of the elected governments. In spite of the policy initiatives, the
governments need people's participation in the development and the various democratic processes like elections,
movements and public debates help in securing it. The Media, including the news media, too provides a forum
for public debate on the issues of development apart from providing information regarding such issues.
In this era of globalization, the media has emerged as one of the most powerful components of social
management. The role of mass media in shaping the public opinion is well known. However, some
communication experts and social scientists think that opinion leaders have more significant role in shaping the
public opinion. But from the days of Capitalist revolution, the press was accorded the status of the fourth estate
for no other reason than its power to influence the minds and thus accelerate the political process in favor of
bourgeois democracy.
In this Unit, we shall understand the role of media in the policy making in general and public policy in
particular. The role of media is twofold. On the one hand, the media influences the policy makers by putting
forth the opinions expressed by various groups including educationists, journalists and experts, leaders of
different political parties, religious leaders, workers and peasants Unions, etc. On the other hand, the media
pressurizes the policy makers or the authorities to act in response to people's interest and demands by opening a
debate and educate the masses. We shall also discuss the impact of globalization and technological
advancement on the process of democratization as well as on media and social development.
The modern democratic states with their lofty ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity regulated the
political process of the nations with the help of Parliament (Legislature), Government (Executive) and the
Court (Judiciary). It declared the press as the fourth pillar of democracy. The Press then became the prime agent
of free debate in Europe and America.
Modern Democracies and the Press
The media is increasingly intertwined with the practice of democracy in various countries. Government
officials and political candidates use the media to advance their agendas. People rely more and more on the
media to judge how their leaders campaign, govern, shape public policy, and communicate their ideas.
Curiously, this increase in media influence corresponds to a decrease in voter participation. In order to be well-
informed citizens and active participants in our democracy, people must understand both our governing
processes and the role of the media in them. Common citizens have a great deal of exposure to the media in the
realms of entertainer and culture, yet most do not understand how the media, politics, and public policy interact
1

with each other and thereby affect their lives. What they need is to know these things in order to become more
thoughtful "consumers" of media messages related to politics. How can we challenge them to explore the
changing relationships between the media and democracy? These are some of the questions that educators,
journalists, media leaders, and citizens must explore together.
The modern democracies have witnessed the complex and increasingly critical relationship between
media and public policy. In a society where a 24'7 news cycle bombiirds a fractured public, where
'infotainment' and the 'argument culture' often overshadow traditional journalism, it has become more difficult
to focus public debate and build political consensus necessary to shape, lead or change public policy. Polls,
focus groups, talking points, sound-bitten debates, massive spending by special interests and corporate
ratings/circulation pressures can distort and overshadow important issues. It has become imperative on students
of media and public policy to know hour these forces collide in our modern media. Equally important is to
examine how coverage decisions regarding public policy are made ‗in newsrooms, how advocates use and rely
on the media to advance their message and hob different media reflect different str<engths and vulnerabilities.
New Media Technologies and Democracy
The emergence of Information Technologies and the convergence of various communication
technologies have changed the nature of media. The media, which earlier meant the press alone, now
included radio, television and computers to make it much wider than ever before. However, the growing
use of Information Technology has brought many new 'changes in the nature of press. The information is
readily available on the net, which has reduced the dependence of the readers or citizens on Newspapers.
The Governments world over are now not only using internet for providing information to its citizens, but
are promoting the use of the internet and other digital technologies to transact day to day business like
submitting applications, filling the forms, issuing orders and notices, etc. It is this use of digital technology
that is known as e-governance.
The spread of the computers and the Internet is limited for the time being. But with more and more
rationalization of costs of IT and telecommunication facilities, the new media technologies would have a
greater freedom of expression as the public or private control on the content is much less in new media than
other technologies like press, radio and television. The earlier media were allowed the freedom so that they
would be able to represent the people, but due to the cost of technologies and their management, the
ownership of these media had the privilege of selecting their own content. Now with the e-governance and
seemingly lack of control of the Internet, the government and the people have a live channel for
communication and more and more interest groups are networking with other people of similar interest and
are also able to manipulate public opinion on certain issues.
Media and the Public Opinion
It can be said with certainty that media shapes the public opinion to some extent. There have been
various studies that have shown that media is not the only agent of shaping the people's perception. During
the US Presidential elections in 1940, Paul E. Lazarfeld and others conducted a research and found that
Mass media had no direct influence in the decision making of the people. In their book entitled "The
People's Choice", they described the interpersonal relationships, peer group pressures and the opinion
leaders as some of the major factors for shaping the public opinion. However, the role of mass media was
not negated altogether in the two step flow of information model as the mass media was seen as a major
player in disseminating the information to the people including the opinion leaders.
The communication theorists in the 1970s again emphasized the role of media in molding the public
perception. George Garbner (1967) worked on the Cultivation Theory in which he described the media as
molders of the society. He believed that Mass media has subtle effect on people's perception as he
described the media as cultivators of dominant image patterns due to long and persistent exposure. His
researches were in tune with the time as, during that period, advertising had made enough impact on the
society. Later, the media and politics relationships were investigated and analysed by Maxwell McCombe
and Donald Shaw (1972) who explored the role, the media played in the agenda setting during the election.
The Agenda setting theorists hold that the media is successful in telling the people "what is to think about" than
in telling them ''What to think". This theory depends upon the study of media where the significance given to
certain issues by media were compared with the importance given to the same issues by people and politicians.
It says .that over a period of time, the priority given to certain issues by media become the public priorities as
well. Other scholars of media have provided us with alternative theories of Mass Media, but here we would
discuss two other theories. Melvin de Fleur and Sandra Ball-Rokeztch proposed the Dependency theory in
which certain social and psychological factors prevent media from exercising control over their audiences. As
they say, "Mass Media not only lack arbitrary influence powers, but also their personal lack of freedom to
engage in arbitrary communication behaviour. Both media and their audiences are integral part of their society.
The surrounding socio-cultural context provides controls and constraints not only on the nature of media
messages but also on the nature of their effects on audiences." The other relevant theory is called the
Development Communication theory which was formulated during the efforts of McBride Commission to study
the Communication problems of developing societies. The absence of communication infrastructure, the
dependence on the developed world for hardware and software were some of these problems. The common
commitment of these societies to economic, political and social development as the primary national task and
the need to idenl.ify countries with similar interests and identities in international politics were the objectives
that these countries wanted to achieve. The major concern of the development communication theorists was to
find the means to use media for development prograrnrnes like poverty alleviation, population control, literacy
drive, employment generation scheme, etc. The effectiveness of this theory depends upon the governments as
they could restrict the freedom or intervene in media operations by legislating policies. It is evident from the
above facts that the media is a powerful tool of disseminating information, educating people on major issues
and also of entertaining them. It is the power of media to influence the public opinion which sometime forces
the governments to impose draconian measures like censorship.
 POLITICAL SCIENCE II- INDIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM
MODULE-III
MAJOR CHALLENGES TO INDIAN DEMOCRACY

We are proud to be the largest democracy in the world. For more than sixty five years we have
witnessed the conduct of successful elections, peaceful changes of government at the Centre and in the States,
people exercising freedom of expression, movement and religion. India has also been developing and transforming
economically and socially. At the same time we, quite often, listen complains about prevalent inequalities, injustice
or non-fulfillment of expectations of certain sections of the society. These people do not feel themselves
participative in the democratic process. You may ask why it is so. You have already read in earlier unit that
democracy means ‗government of the people, for the people, and by the people‘. It means democracy is not limited
to just a process of election, but also fulfilling social and economic aspirations of the people. In India we keep on
debating these various aspects of democracy and its achievements and challenges.
Meaning of Democracy
Long back, former President of the United States of America, Abraham Lincoln said, ―Democracy is a
government of the people, for the people, and by the people.‖ The term ‗democracy‘ comes from the Greek word
demokratia which means ―rule of the people‖. It was coined from two words: demos that means ―people‖ and
Kratos which refers to ―power‖. That is, in a democracy the power rests with the people. This meaning is based on
the experiences of the governments that existed in some of the Greek city-states, notably Athens. And, today also,
democracy is defined as a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by
them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodic free elections. When you
examine the definition of democracy, as suggested above, you will find that most of those definitions define
democracy as a form of government which is run by the elected representatives. Democracy has been defined in
many ways. Bryce believes that ―Democracy really means nothing more or less than the rule of the whole people,
expressing their Sovereign will by their votes‖. MacIver observes, ―Democracy is not a way of governing, whether
by majority or otherwise, but primarily a way of determining, who shall govern, and broadly to what ends‖.
In its comprehensive form, democracy means, or ought to mean, (i) a form of government, (ii) a type
of state, (iii) a pattern of social system, (iv) a design of economic order, and (v) a way of life and culture. Therefore,
when we say that India is a democracy, we mean not only that its political institutions and processes are democratic
but also that the Indian society and every Indian citizen is democratic, reflecting basic democratic values of
equality, liberty, fraternity secularism and justice in the social environment and individual behaviour.
Essential Conditions for Democracy
A system can be termed as a genuine and comprehensive democracy only whe it fulfills both political
and socio-economic aspects of people‘s participation and satisfaction. Let us identify those. There may be two
major categories: (a) political conditions, and (b) social and economic conditions – the fulfillment of the first leads
to political democracy and the second as social democracy. Obviously, the first and the foremost, are political
conditions of democracy. It is essential that for a system to be democratic, we must adopt a Constitution and laws
that vest supreme power in the people. The human rights and fundamental rights, such as equality, liberty of thought
and expression, belief, movement, communication and association must be protected by the Constitution. The
democratic system has to have universal adult franchise as the basis of electing representatives at various levels of
the government. Moreover, opportunities for political participation of all the citizens not only in elections at regular
interval, but also in other aspects of the political process have to be made available. There has to be a responsible
government in which the executive is answerable to the legislature, the legislature to the people and the Judiciary to
remain independent. Political institutions like political parties and interest and pressure groups (associations, various
non-governmental organizations) must be functional for expressing popular needs, demands and grievances. A
democratic system is strengthened if it maintains an enlightened public opinion in its various forms through free
press and other communication processes. Political democracy is thus one which incorporates all the above political
traits.
A democratic system has to ensure that the social development is in tune with democratic values and
norms reflecting equality of social status and opportunities for development, social security and social welfare.
Citizens must avail opportunities of universal and compulsory education. They must also be enabled to utilize
means of economic development. The fruits of economic development must reach all and especially to the poor and
the deprived sections of the society. Socio-economic development of the people strengths social democracy.
CHALLENGES TO INDIAN DEMOCRACY
Since independence India has been functioning as a responsible democracy. The same has been
appreciated by international community. It has successfully adapted to the challenging situations. There have been
free and fair periodic elections for all political offices from the panchayats to the President. There has been smooth
transfer of political power from one political party or set of political parties to others, both at national and state
levels on many occasions. You will find many examples in our neighboring countries like Pakistan, Myanmar and
even Bangladesh where transfer of power has been done through military coups. The legislative, executive and
judicial organs have been functioning properly. The Parliament and the State Legislatures control the Executives
effectively through the means like question hours, etc. More importantly, some significant enactments like the Right
to Information (RTI) Act 2005, Right to Education 2009 and other welfare means have empowered the people. The
mass media, including print and electronic, have full autonomy and play a key role in formulating and influencing
public opinion. Significant social change has taken place in almost all walks of life and the nation is moving ahead
on course of socio-economic development.
India is a very large country full of diversities – linguistically, culturally, and religiously. At the time
of independence it was economically underdeveloped. There were enormous regional disparities, widespread
poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, and shortage of almost all public welfare means. Citizens had enormous
expectations from independence. As mentioned above, India has changed a lot. Yet, there are various challenges
that the country faces in terms of fulfillment of expectations of various sections of society. The challenges come
both from prevailing domestic and international conditions as well as lack of adequate prerequisites for a smooth
functioning of democracy. These are discussed below.
Casteism
The caste system which presumably originated in the division of labour in the ancient society has
become a more or less rigid group classification, based on birth. Have you ever experienced the role of caste in your
life and society? You will agree that the most detrimental and inhuman aspect of the caste system is the practice of
untouchability which is continuing in spite of the constitutional ban imposed on it. This has led to segregation of so
called low castes or ‗Dalits‘, depriving them of education and other social benefits. The Dalits have been typically
performing menial labour and some of the hardest physical work in society. Casteism has played a negative role
even in the democratic political processes. In fact, casteism has become notorious as a strategy of exploitation of
caste consciousness for narrow political gains. The caste system acts against the roots of democracy. The
democratic facilities - like fundamental rights relating to equality, freedom of speech, expression and association,
participation in the electoral process, free media and press, and even legislative forums - are misused for
maintaining cattiest identity.
Casteism has also been contributing towards continuation of socio-economic inequalities. It is true that
India has been an unequal society from times immemorial. The Scheduled Castes (SCs), the Scheduled Tribes (STs)
and the backward classes have suffered down the ages from socio-economic deprivations. There are enormous
inequalities in our society which are posing serious challenge to Indian democracy. What is more alarming is the
mixing of caste and politics resulting into ‗politicization of caste‘ and ‗cartelization of politics‘ in contemporary
Indian polity which has become a grave challenge to our democracy? Despite the era of liberalization and
globalization caste consciousness has not been eroded in our society and castes are being increasingly used as vote
bank politics.
Caste, according to Risley, is ―a collection of families bearing a common name, claiming a common
descent from a mythical ancestor, divine or human, and professing to follow the same hereditary calling and
regarded by those who are competent to give an opinion as forming a single homogenous community‖. We may,
thus, describe caste as a localized group having a traditional association, based on one‘s birth in a caste, though at
times, associated with a particular occupation. The caste groups have their respective rules governing their behavior
and attitudes. G.S.Gharye sums up the features of the caste system as: Segmental division of society, Hierarchy,
Restrictions of feeding and social intercourse, Civil and religious disparities and social discourse Lack of
unrestricted choice of occupation, and Restriction on marriage
Caste group, divide the society hierarchically into numerous segments having their own respective
rules which govern their behavior, customs and rituals. Caste groups are rigid in the sense that once born in a caste a
person remains in the caste throughout his life, though women adopt the caste of their husbands. They divide the
people socially: higher caste people enjoy higher status and have better entitlements than those born in lower caste.
The Indian society is a casteist society. The caste system in India presents a stratified social hierarchy which alone
distinguishes us from any other society. Its history goes back to the times as far back as 1200bc. The term caste is
derived from the Portuguese ‗casta‘ meaning breed, race or kind. We, in India related caste to varna, jati, jat, biradri,
and samaj. The Indian caste system has its origin in the Varna system. The four basic varnas usually, described are:
 The varna of brahmans, the priestly and the learned class
 The varna of kashatriyas, the ruling and the warrior class;
 The varnas of vaishs, the commercial and the trading class; and
 The varnas of shudars, the class of servile labourers.
After independence, the caste, with the introduction of the electoral politics, had a new role for itself. Moin
Shakir is of the opinion that the caste has a dual role in post-independence era: positive, in democratising the
system, and negative, in hampering the rise of evolutionary class organisations. Caste helps in the mobilisation
of the people. Rudolph and Rudolph refers to three types of mobilisation : vertical in marshalling the political
support of traditional notables in local societies which are the organised and ranked; horizontal in marshalling
the political support by class or community leaders and their specialised organisations; differential in
marshalling the direct or indirect political support by political parties through appeals to ideology, sentiments
and interests. In both rural and urban India, the caste has been the instrument of mobilisation, a channel of
communications, representations and leadership which links the electorate to the democratic process. Caste, in
the Indian electoral contest, has become important, especially the lower caste gaining significance during
elections. Leaders of all the political parties agree that the crucial Dalit votes make and unmake their fortune
because of their number. The formation of Dalit political parties, from the Republican party of India (1956) to
that of the Bahujan Samaj party(1982), shows the emerging strength of the Dalit vote.
This is true about other castes as well. Exercising franchise on the basis of caste is a normal process of
voting in India. Caste has become a source of mobilising votes. Vote banks are created through religious,
linguistic, regional and above all caste appeals, polarising people into one caste group or the other. Examples of
such polarisation are, for instance, Brahmins versus non-Brahmins in Tmail Nadu and Maharashtra, Rajputs
versus jats in Rajasthan, Baniya-Brahmins versus patidars in Gujarat, Kayasthas versus Rajputs in Bihar,
Kammas versus Reddi in Andhra Pradesh, and Nairs versus Ezhavas in Kerala. Such polarisations keep
emerging with different combinations from time to time in one region or the other. Kothari states that it is not
politics that gets caste-ridden; it is caste that gets politicized. Caste is not a factor in political mobilization of the
voters; it has become a factor in political leadership, both at the party and government levels. Referring to caste
as getting politicized, Kothari writes: ―the is so because the operation of competitive politics has drawn caste out
of its apolitical context, and given it a new status and identity such that the ―caste system‖; as hitherto known,
has begun to disintegrate. Such things as a respective numerical strengths of different castes, choice of
candidates, factions within castes and economic ties between caste are calculated as variables in the situation…,
another variable politics along with many other variables.‖ Caste, despite all efforts at legal and constitutional
equality, remains and wound always remain an important arbiter in contemporary Indian politics. The post-
mandal era clearly indicates that the other backward classes in addition to the scheduled castes and the
scheduled Tribes have a definite role to play in India.
 Religion in Indian Politics
Religion and politics stand in a paradoxical relationship with each other. In democracies, secularism comes
to mean the separation of politics from religion, while it is difficult to assume that religion does not influence
politics. In a country like India, religion is deep-rooted in the veins of our social fabric. Like caste, religion plays
a significant role in the life of the people. We are born in a religion and it is seldom that we change it. Religion
is found in our rituals, customs, conduct, behavior and at times, in our activities: faith usually dominates more
than rationalism.
Relationship between religion and politics has existed in every society and in every age. Religious symbols, idea
and institutions have been used by rules to perpetuate their control over the ruled. Clashes between opposing
religions are also facts of history: religious factions within and between religions have dominated the course of
history in every age and in all societies.
Like caste, religion works both ways: positively, it mobiles people of the same faith; negatively, it
constitutes a source of cleavage. Religion has assumed a special significance in the traditional societies of the third
world countries in general and in multi-religious societies like ours in particular.
In India‘s context, communalization of politics has been a byproduct of politicization of religion. The
process began in 1990 when the British granted communal/separate representation to the Muslims in India councils,
leading ultimately to the communalisation of politics before and after independence of India. Indeed, there were
numerous religions before the advent of the British in India, but there were never communal conflicts. The British,
following their policy of ‗divide and rule‘, exploited the differences to suit their imperialistic design. They
welcomed the formation of political parties based on religion. Thus were welcomed the All-India Muslim league,
the Hindu Mahasabha, the Akali Dal, Christian organisations. So were encouraged the communal representation in
legislatures during the British rule. So was accepted the demand for a muslim state and the country was partitioned
in 1947. The entry of religion into politics communalised all political issues and when the country became
independent, religion remained the significant factor but now as determining the electoral politics. Politics is now
completely communalised: the state is declared secular but the society remains based on religion as it is on caste.
The electoral politics has made political parties and political leadership use religion as an instrument of politics,
appeasing religious minorities and at times communalising politics.
Communalisation of politics and the politicisation of religion stay in India. The communal riots on the
eve of India‘s partition, in the wake of pre and post Indira Gandhi‘s assassination, the construction of Ram Temple
at Ayodhya, the Gujarat riots, or the terroristic attacks engineered from across the borders are all example of the
communalisation of politics. The politicisation of religion is seen during elections and thereafter in the formation
and running of governments. Though, a great number of political parties demonstrate a secular and non-religious
outlook, some others stick on their religious base. And yet, party manifestoes speak of the protection and promotion
of religious and cultural minorities, party tickets are given on religious considerations, ministerial berths are
distributed to accomadate certain religions.
In any traditional society as that of ours, the role of religion in our social life is always significant
while it influences politics, despite our efforts to secularise. This can hardly be denied. Political leadership does not
mind using religion for its political advantage. Political parties do not, at all, ignore the role of religion in their
political activities and use it when it is to serve them. The fundamentalists use religion for their sectarian gains, at
times to create dissensions and promote terrorism.
Though, the Indian state claims to be secular, it does admit the presence of religion in the public
domain. An individual is a citizen and yet she/he is a person with a religion, an individual is free to profess and
propagate and manages one's religion while the state assures him/her of his/her religious and cultural identities. The
state, in fact, does not intervene in his/her religion.
Religious Fundamentalism
Religious fundamentalism also reinforces communalists in exploiting both religion and politics. In
fact, fundamentalism acts as an ideology which advocates a return to orthodoxy and a strict compliance to the
fundamental tenets of religion. Religious fundamentalists vehemently oppose progressive reforms in order to
establish their exclusive control on their respective communities
Communalism
Communalism and religious fundamentalism have acquired a very dangerous form and alarming
proportion in India. They disrupt the pattern of co-existence in our multi-religious society. Communalism is an
affront to India‘s nationalist identity and a tragic setback to its evolving secular culture. It is subversive of our
democratic political stability and destroyer of our glorious heritage of humanism and composite culture. Quite often,
communalism is wrongly used as a synonym for religion or conservatism. Adherence to a religion or attachment to
a religious community is not communalism.
Although conservatism represents social backwardness, it does not mean communalism either. As a
matter of fact, communalism is an ideology of political allegiance to a religious community. It uses one religious
community against other communities and perceives other religious communities as its enemies. It is opposed to
secularism and even humanism. One of the manifestations of communalism is communal riots. In recent past also,
communalism has proved to be a great threat to our social and political life on several occasions.
.
Regionalism
Indian democracy has also been struggling with regionalism which is primarily an outcome of regional
disparities and imbalances in development. We all know that India is a plural country with diversities of religions,
languages, communities, tribes and cultures. A number of cultural and linguistic groups are concentrated in certain
territorial segments. Although development process in the country aims at growth and development of all regions,
the regional disparities and imbalances in terms of differences in per capita income, literacy rates, state of health
and educational infrastructure and services, population situation and levels of industrial and agricultural
development continue to exist. Existence and continuation of regional inequalities both among States and within a
State create a feeling of neglect, deprivation and discrimination. This situation has led to regionalism manifested in
demands for creation of new States, autonomy or more powers to States or even secession from the country.
It is true that regionalism and sub-regionalism are unavoidable in a vast and plural country like India.
It is not always correct to consider every attempt to support or defend regional or sub-regional interests as divisive,
fissiparous and unpatriotic. The problem begins when these interests are politicized and regional movements are
promoted for ulterior political motives. Such unhealthy regional or sub-regional patriotism is cancerous and
disruptive. The continuing regional imbalances have given rise to militant movements in certain parts of our
country. Separatist demands in Jammu and Kashmir or by ULFA (United Liberation Front of Assam) in Assam or
by different groups in the North-Eastern region are matters of grave concern for Indian polity.
Illiteracy
Illiteracy among people was a matter of grave concern for the successful functioning of democracy in
India on the eve of independence and it still continues to be a major challenge. The level of education of citizens is a
key to both the successful functioning of democracy and socio-economic development of the country. And perhaps,
more importantly, it is an essential condition for human dignity. But the state of formal literacy was almost dismal
when India achieved independence. The literacy rate in 1951 was mere 18.33 per cent and female literacy was
negligible with 8.9 percent. It was, therefore, feared by many that the citizens would not be able to play their roles
effectively and exercise their right to vote meaningfully which is an individual‘s expression of the power of the
people. In spite of a substantial number of them being illiterates, they have demonstrated maturity in the exercise of
their right to vote on more than one occasion thus resulting peaceful transfer of political power since independence.
The Indian National Congress under the leadership of Ms. Indira Gandhi was very popular and powerful during the
early part of 1970s. But in 1977‘s general election, the people of India rejected her primarily because of the misuse
of power during emergency in 1975-1977 and provided an opportunity to the first non-Congress government at the
 Centre in form of the Janata Party. After that there have been changes in the governments both at the Centre and in
the States almost regularly.
Literacy is necessary not simply for enabling citizens to participate in elections and exercise their right
to vote effectively, it has other important implications as well. Literacy enables citizens to be aware of various
issues, problems, demands, and interests in the country. It also makes them conscious of the principles of liberty and
equality of all and ensures that the representatives elected by them truly represent all the interests in the society.
Universal literacy is therefore a must for the successful functioning of Indian democracy. Although according to
2011 Census, the literacy rate has risen to 74.04 per cent, the female literacy rate is still lagging at 65.46 per cent.
This means that over one-fourth of the country‘s population is still illiterate while among women nearly one out of
three is not literate. If the children have access to basic education, the problem of illiteracy can be checked.
Recently, the Right to Education is provided as a fundamental right.
Terrorism
Terrorism in India, according to the Home Ministry, poses a significant threat to the people of India.
Terrorism found in India includes ethno-nationalist terrorism, religious terrorism, left wing terrorism and macro
terrorism. A common definition of terrorism is the systematic use or threatened use of violence to intimidate a
population or government for political, religious, or ideological goals. The regions with long term terrorist activities
have been Jammu and Kashmir, east-central and south-central India (Naxalism) and the Seven Sister States. In
August 2008, National Security Advisor M K Narayanan has said that there are as many as 800 terrorist cells
operating in the country. As of 2013, 205 of the country‘s 608 districts were affected by terrorist activity. Terror
attacks caused 231 civilian deaths in 2012 in India, compared to 11,098 terror-caused deaths worldwide, according
to the State Department of the United States; or about 2% of global terror fatalities while it accounts for 17.5% of
global population.
Media reports have alleged and implicated terrorism in India to be sponsored by Pakistan, particularly
through its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). In 2012, the US accused Pakistan of enabling and ignoring anti-India
terrorist cells working on its soil; however, Pakistan has denied its involvement. In July 2016, Government of
India released data on a string of terror strikes in India since 2005 that claimed 707 lives and left over 3,200 injured.
The 8th report on terrorism in India published in 2008 defined terrorism as the peacetime equivalent of
war crime. An act of terror in India includes any intentional act of violence that causes death, injury or property
damage, induces fear, and is targeted against any group of people identified by their political, philosophical,
ideological, racial, ethnic, and religious or any other nature. This description is similar to one provided by
the United Nations' in 2000. The Indian government uses the following working definition of terrorism, same as one
widely used by Western nations as well as the United Nations, proposed by Schmid and Jongman in 1988.
Meaning of Terrorism-Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by
(semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby the
direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen
randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and
serve as message generators. Threat and violence-based communication processes between terrorist organisation,
victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a
target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily
sought.— Alex Schmid and Albert Jongman
India subdivides terrorism in four major groups:
1. Ethno-nationalist terrorism - This form of terror focuses either (a) on creating a separate State within India or
independent of India or in a neighboring country, or (b) on emphasising the views/response of one ethnic group
against another. Violent Tamil Nationalist groups from India to address the condition of Tamils in Sri Lanka, as
well as insurgent tribal groups in North East India are examples of ethno-nationalist terrorist activities.
2. Religious terrorism - This form of terror focuses on religious imperatives, a presumed duty or in solidarity for a
specific religious group, against one or more religious groups. Mumbai 26/11 terror attack in 2008 from an Islamic
group in Pakistan is an example of religious terrorism in India.
3. Left-wing terrorism - This form of terror focuses on economic ideology, where all the existing socio-political
structures are seen to be economically exploitative in character and a revolutionary change through violent means is
essential. The ideology of Marx, Engel, Mao, Lenin and others are considered as the only valid economic path.
Maoist violence in Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh are examples of left wing terrorism in India.
4. Narco-terrorism - This form of terror focuses on creating illegal narcotics traffic zones. Drug violence in northwest
India is an example of narco-terrorism in India.
Linguism
At the time of achievement of Independence from the British rule in 1947, there were many princely states.
Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel, the then home minister, played a stellar role in amalgamating these states into the union of
India. The Constitution of India was adopted on 20th November 1949 and came into effect on 26th January 1950,
which defined the Union of India, comprising of different states, and union territories. In 1950, the states were
reorganized on linguistic basis.
As a result, the domiciles of a particular state speak a particular language. Therefore India has become a land
of many tongues and has been called ―as a tower of veritable languages‖ or a ―Museum of languages‖ or a ―linguistic
madhouse‖. According to the 1961 census of India there were 1018 different languages. The 1971 census reveals that
1952 languages and dialects are spoken by the people of India. The Constitution of India has approved of 18
languages such as Assamese, Bengali, Guajarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Malayalam, Marathi, Oriya, Punjabi,
Sanskrit, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu, Urdu, Manipuri, Nepali and Konkani.
It has been rightly pointed out by A.R. Desai that India presents a spectacle of museum of tongues. India has
also been called a tower of Babel.‖ This multilingual nature of the country affects every aspect of her national life. At
present the language problem has become so acute that it has posed a major threat to national integration. Most often
linguistic tensions are being manifested in the borders which are bilingual. The Goans are divided on the basis of
Marathi and Konkani languages. In Belgaum there is a tug of war between Marathi and Kannad speaking people.
Assam is confronted with Bengali and Assamese. Bihar and Utter Pradesh are not free from the linguistic
problems too. There conflict tends to persist among the Urdu, Hindi and Oriya linguistic groups and Urdu and Hindi
speaking people respectively. It has also been demanded to include English in the Eighth Schedule of the
Constitution. Of course English is a great language, but the problem is that, no nation can grow great with the help of
a foreign language, simply because a foreign language fails to represent the indigenous culture.
India is not the only country faced with the problem of diversity of languages and multiplicity of scripts.
Erstwhile U.S.S.R. and Switzerland, for instance, do also possess a number of languages. But ―Unlike India in almost
all the republic of the Soviet Union, Cyrillic script solved the problem of script.‖
In the past, India did not have the problem of languages, because Sanskrit and Prakrit served as link language.
In the later period, the role was being played by Persian and English language. They all were found suitable as link
languages at least for the intelligentsia of the country. At present, although Hindi has been recognized as the national
language, this has promoted bitter hostilities, particularly in the South.
Even the Constituent Assembly accepted Hindi as the official language after bitter and prolonged
controversy.‖ Even though Nehru supported Hindi as a link language, nevertheless, he thought it to be unwise to
impose Hindi on non-Hindi speaking people. ―Language is the most delicate part of the body of community. It should
not ordinarily be disturbed in the process of national development or social regeneration.‖
Some of the important causes of linguism are discussed below:
1. Love of Literature: Love of literature creates and strengthens a sense of loyalty towards it among the
linguistic groups. These linguistic loyalties hamper the evolution of a common language.
2. Geographical Causes: Geographical conditions also promote linguism. People living in a particular
locality tend to speak the same language. This promotes local identity and distinctiveness among people. Living
together geographically reinforces a linguistic group‘s love for its own language.
3. Historical Causes: Linguism in India is a by-product of India‘s struggle for national freedom. Our leaders
of freedom movement criticized the British system of dividing country by cutting across linguistic boundaries.
Rather, they pleaded for the division of India into different provinces along linguistic lines. After independence, in
1956, the States were reorganized on the basis of homogeneity of languages. The reorganization of the States on
linguistic lines has provided geographical foundations for sub-nationalism in India.
4. Political Causes: Parochial political parties create linguistic feeling among the people of a locality and
exploit their sentiments at the time of election.
5. Psychological Causes: Language has certain psychological and emotional characteristics which invoke the
feeling of ethnocentrism to a homogeneous group. In India, the linguistic groups are tied together by ties of common
interest. This creates the spirit of regionalism, sectarianism and separatist feeling in the mind of the inhabitant.
Consequences of Linguism: The evils of linguism are as follows:
1. Increasing Regionalism and Parochialism:The people of different linguistic groups who are concentrated
in a state seem to think only in terms of interests of their own States. This undermines consideration of national issues
and causes parochial feelings.
2. Formation of Regional Political Parties:Linguism has resulted in regionalism which has ultimately led to
the formation of regional political parties in some state. Some of these regional political parties have also formed
government. Such political parties in power often complicate Centre-State relationship.
3. Persecution of the Linguistic Minorities:The State Reorganization Commission had provided for
safeguard of linguistic minorities in States. But in reality the linguistic minorities have been harassed in different
States. As a result certain complications and disturbing trends have developed which seem to have threatened the
unity of the country.
4. Demand for Separate States: Linguistic conflicts take place due to selfish motive of politicians. These
politicians instigate the linguistic minority to demand partition of the States along linguistic lines. The demand for a
separate state creates problems for the concerned state as well as the centre.
5. Erosion of National Feeling: The national feeling is eroded due to linguistic and regional loyalties. The
erosion of national feeling threatens the sovereignty of the country.
6. Inter-State Border Dispute: Language problems have created tensions in the boarder which are bilingual.
For example, the Goans are divided on the basis of Konkani and Marathi languages.

Following measures may be taken for the eradication of tensions between different linguistic groups:
1. Development of a National Language: Although Hindi has been recognized as the national language, it has
caused bitter hostilities, particularly in the South. It will be unwise to impose Hindi on non-Hindi speaking people.
Therefore, the propagation of Hindi as the national language requires lot most care and tact.
2. Development of Common Script: At present there are a number of scripts in India. But if a common script is
evolved, it would break through the script barrier which separates one language area from another. M. N. Srinivas‘s
suggestion for the use of Roman Script may also be considered.
3. Ban on Political Parties and other Organisations: The regional political or any other organization which try to
exploit the sentiments of people along the linguistic lines should be banned.
The Sarkaria Commission was appointed in 1983 to examine the language problem in India. The Commission
made a couple of recommendations for the solution of the problem. It suggested that the styles, forms and expression
of English along with other regional languages are to be retained in the process of development of official language.
The three language formula such as regional language, Hindi and English should be properly implemented.
Poverty
It is generally said that for a hungry person right to vote does not have any meaning. For him/her the
first requirement is food. Therefore, poverty is considered as the greatest bane of democracy. It is, in fact, the root
cause of all kinds of deprivations and inequalities. It is the state of denial of opportunities to people to lead a healthy
and fulfilling life. Of course, India inherited poverty from the long exploitative British colonial rule, but it continues
to be one of the gravest problems today. Even now a considerable proportion of Indian population lives below
poverty line, called ‗BPL‘. The poverty line means an income level below which human beings cannot provide
for their basic necessities of food, much less for clothes and shelter. The governmental definition of poverty line
during the 1960s sought to measure the extent of poverty on the amount of income required to purchase a barest
minimum desirable food having nutritional standards of caloric intake by a person. According to it, in Indian
conditions, a person in rural areas needs an average of 2400 calories per day and in urban areas an average of 2100
calories per day in order to keep himself above the poverty line.
 Poverty in the contemporary phase is linked with systemic deprivation of rights. It is also associated
with the notion of Human Development Index (HDI) as championed by Mabud-ul-Haq and Amartya Sen. Viewed
from the HDI perspective, the definition of poverty also includes socio-economic-political and human rights issues
under its ambit. The persisting phenomenon of poverty is attributed to many factors, one of which is mass
unemployment and under-employment. A large number of people in rural areas do not have regular and adequate
work. In urban areas also the number of educated unemployed is very high. The growing population is regarded as a
reason for poverty, though population is considered as the greatest resource in the country. In fact, the process of
economic development has not been able to ensure social justice and gap between rich and poor has not been
bridged. Because of all this, poverty continues to remain a great challenge to Indian democracy.

Gender Discrimination
Discrimination against girls and women exists in every walk of life. We must have had such
experiences of prevailing gender inequality in our society and polity. But we know that gender equality is one of the
basic principles of democracy. The Constitution of India enjoins upon the State to ensure that men and women are
treated as equals and there is no discrimination against women. Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties as
well as the Directive Principles of State Policy make these intensions very clear. But the discrimination against
females continues to be a fact of life. It is clearly reflected in the sex ratio, child sex ratio and maternal mortality
rate. The number of females in comparison to males has been declining ever since 1901. In 1901, the sex ratio was
972 females per 1000 males. It came down to 927 females per 1000 males in 1991. According to 2011 Census it is
940 females per 1000 males which is still very unfavorable to females. In some of the States, the 2011 Census
reported a very low sex ratio of 877 females per 1000 males (Haryana), the lowest being 618 in Daman & Diu and
866 in the NCT of Delhi. The child sex ratio is a matter of greater concern. According to 2011 Census, the child sex
ratio (0-6 years) in India is only 914 female children per 1000 male children. This is lower than the 2001 Census
which reported child sex ratio of 927 female children per 1000 male children. It has been declining because of
several factors, like the prevailing preference for male child, discriminatory treatment against the girl child right
after birth, and the increasing incidence of female infanticides and female foeticides. By using technology, people
are forcing mothers to get the fetus of a female child aborted. The infant mortality rate among girl children is high,
as compared to that among boy children. The maternal mortality ratio as per the Sample Registration System 2004-
06 is 254 per lakh live births, which is considered very high. Amendments, 1993 providing 33 per cent reservation
of seats in Panchayati Raj Institutions, Municipalities and Municipal Corporations have facilitated the course of
political empowerment of women. However, traditionally women have been subordinated in the society, which
restricts their participation in every field.
This has been true for women belonging to more or less all classes and communities. Women
Reservation Bill (providing 33 per cent of reservation of women in Parliament) has yet to be passed despite a very
low ratio of women in both the Houses of the Parliament.
The Women Reservation Bill was meant to increase the proportion of women in Parliament to provide
opportunities for equal political participation. While most parties agree on the need for such a Bill, none of them has
given it a priority.
Corruption
Corruption in public life has been a major concern in India. In 2011, India was ranked 95th of 183
countries defined as corrupt in Transparency International‘s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). In fact, corruption
is rampant in all walks of life, be it land and property, health, education, commerce and industry, agriculture,
transport, police, armed forces, even religious institutions or so called places of spiritual pursuits. Corruption
continues to exist in covert and overt ways at all three levels - political, bureaucratic and corporate sector. One can
see the nexus between the politicians, the bureaucrats and the industrialists which has resulted into corruption and
corrupt practices. The tentacles of corruption have affected all organs of government, including the judiciary.
 Above all, corruption in electoral processes and bribing of voters who participate in elections at
different levels has now become a common practice. Have you or your friends observed this happening during
elections in the recent past? In recent years, various scams have been coming out in our country in quick succession.
In fact, corruption is a sign of political instability and institutional decay, challenging seriously the validity and
propriety of governance. We as citizens should take a vow not to indulge in corrupt practices at any level and
contribute in eliminating corruption from our country.
Criminalization of Politics
In recent years, criminalization of politics in India has become a debatable issue. There have been
allegations that there are some elements in politics that do not have faith in democratic values and practices. They
indulge in violence and take refuge in other unhealthy, undemocratic methods to win elections. Undoubtedly, this is
not a healthy trend in politics and there is an urgent need to apply serious check on such tendencies. Criminalization
of politics is the very negation of democratic values and has no place in a democratic set up. Democracy can be
strengthened by adopting and promoting democratic values and shunning criminal activities. Recently, the judiciary,
while taking a serious note of criminal tendencies in politics, has showed signs of adopting remedial measures to
apply a serious check on such elements. The Central government and many State governments have been taking
steps to address this issue effectively. This is a matter of great satisfaction and a healthy sign for the successful
functioning of democracy in our country. We, as awakened citizens and as voters of the largest democracy in the
world, can also contribute by discouraging such persons who have a criminal background, from contesting
elections.
Political Violence
Violence has been with us for long, but use of violence for political end is dangerous for the existence
of any system. In India we have been witnessing various forms of violence. Communal violence, caste violence and
political violence in general have attained serious proportion. Communal riots are engineered by vested interests for
political, religious and economic reasons. Caste violence in various shapes has been increasing. Despite agricultural
development, abolition of zamindari system, and developments like green revolution and white revolution, there are
still powerful feudal elements in the society. A serious conflict of interests has emerged between higher and middle
castes and this has led to aggressive competition for political power which many a time leads to violence.
Another aspect of caste violence is the backlash of the higher castes against the growing awareness
and assertion of their rights by the Dalits and lower castes, particularly the Scheduled Castes and the backward
castes. During elections, violence is being adopted either to mobilize voters or to prevent them from exercising their
right to vote. Moreover, violence has been associated with demands for separate States, reorganization of States or
adjustment of State boundaries. Violence has also been used quite frequently during industrial strikes, farmers‘
movements, and students‘ agitations.
CORRECTIVE MEASURES
It is thus clear that democracy in India faces certain serious challenges. These are causes of serious
concern to all. In fact, the leadership of the freedom movement and especially the framers of the Indian Constitution
themselves were very much aware of these issues. They made a number of constitutional provisions to address the
same. Since independence governments have taken various measures to respond to many of these challenges. There
have been significant improvements in some of these. However, lots still have to be done. For that, efforts have
been going on. There is need for collaboration among governmental agencies, political parties, civil society and
citizens in general. Certain significant corrective measures that have been adopted and can be initiated are as
follows:
 Universal Literacy ‘Education for All’
The significance and necessity of education for efficient functioning of democracy was appreciated by
the framers of the Indian Constitution. Which is why, free and compulsory education to all children up to the
fourteen years of age continued to remain constitutional commitment in India. Various governments at national and
state levels have been making efforts to attain this goal. As a follow up of the National Policy on Education 1986, a
National Literacy Mission was set up in 1988 to plan and implement programmes for the removal of illiteracy under
the platform, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. But the goal of universal literacy is yet to be attained. Currently a nation-
wide programme known as Saakshar Bharat is being implemented. It aims at developing functional literacy and
numeracy to non-literate and non-numerate adults in the age group of fifteen and above, to enable them to continue
their learning beyond basic literacy and acquire equivalence to formal educational system. The Sarva Shiksha
Abhiyan is a flagship programme for universalization of elementary education for children between 6-14 years of
age. Further, the Parliament of India in 2009 passed the Right to Education Act through which education has
become a fundamental right for all children of age group 6-14 years.
 Poverty Alleviation
From the 1970s, a number of programmes have been implemented for alleviation of poverty in India.
These programmes fall into two broad categories: (i) There are programmes to lift beneficiaries above poverty line
by providing them with productive assets or skills or both, so that they can employ themselves usefully and earn
greater income. (ii) Programmes are also being implemented to provide temporary wage employment for the poor
and the landless. Similarly, the Jawahar Gram Samridhi Yojana (JGSY) is a programme for the creation of rural
economic infrastructure with employment generation as a secondary objective. The programme is implemented by
the village panchayats and since its inception it has generated 27 crore men-days of employment each year. The
Employment Assurance Scheme (EAS) covers 1,778 drought-prone, desert, tribal and hill area blocks. The
programme was designed to provide employment in the form of manual work in the lean agricultural season. The
Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA) isbeing implemented to enhance the
livelihood security of people in rural areas by guaranteeing hundred days of wage-employment in a financial year to
a rural household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work.
 Elimination of Gender Discrimination
It is now being recognized that the goals of democracy ―of the people, for the people and by the
people‖ cannot be fully realized if the female population are not included in all ways in the processes of socio-
economic and political development. That is why, besides constitutional provisions, several laws have been enacted,
policies have been made and implemented, and institutional reforms have been carried out for the development of
women. The 73rd and 74th Amendments of Indian Constitution in 1993 are the milestones in the process of political
empowerment of women. These Amendments have reserved one-third of the seats in the Panchayati Raj
Institutions, Municipalities and Municipal Corporations. Another significant development has been the adoption of
the National Policy for Empowerment of Women in 2001, the overarching goal of which is to ―bring about the
advancement, development and empowerment of women.‖ But a lot needs to be done to attain this goal.
 Removal of Regional Imbalance
Redressing regional imbalances has indeed been a vital objective of the planning process in India.
Efforts are on to reduce regional disparities. Besides, the State specific efforts for reducing intra-State regional
disparities, a number of Centrally Sponsored Programmes have been in operation for the last two to three decades
for taking care of specific aspects of backwardness of such regions.
For the development of North-East states, a certain percentage is earmarked from the budget for each
developmental scheme or programme in the region. While the development of the backward regions is a national
responsibility, the State and the local leadership also have significant role to play. Unless the local leadership –
political, bureaucratic and intellectual – resolves to usher in development based on sharing the benefits on
egalitarian basis with the masses, results will be hard to come by. Resources are not the real constraints; it is the
way resources are spent that remains the fundamental concern.
 Administrative and Judicial Reforms
The success of all the above stated corrective measures primarily depends on the efficient functioning
of administration and independence and righteousness of the judicial system. But on both counts, a lot needs to be
done. The performance of public administration in India has come under close scrutiny in the last few years.
Rampant corruption, inefficiencies, wastages and irresponsiveness to the needs of citizens are some of the
commonly acknowledged problems afflicting the administration. No doubt, the Indian judiciary has remained
independent and neutral; there are serious problems of (i) slow disposal of cases leading to delays as well as
accumulation of backlog, and (ii) very low rate of prosecution in criminal cases.
Administrative reforms have continuously been on the agenda of the government ever since
independence. A number of Commissions and Committees have been set up in this regard. But bureaucratic
reluctance to change has prevented the reforms to take place in full measure. The recommendations of various
Commissions and Committees focus around the need (i) to make administration accountable and citizen friendly,
(ii) to build its capacity for quality governance, (iii) to orient administration for promoting peoples‘ participation,
decentralization and devolution of powers, (iv) to make administrative decision-making process transparent, (v) to
improve the performance and integrity of the public services, (vi) to reinforce ethics in administration, and (vii) to
inculcate readiness for e-governance. Judicial reform also has been a critical concern since long. Various
recommendations have been made on many occasions. The major issues that need consideration in this regard are :
(a) Simplification of Rules and Procedures, (b) Repealing Out-dated Laws, (c) Increase in the Judge Population
Ratio, (d) Time-bound filling of Vacant Posts in Judiciary, (d) Transparency in Appointment, Promotion and
Transfer of Judges, (e) Judicial Accountability; and (f) Transparency of Court Proceedings.
 Sustainable Development (Economic, Social, Environmental)
Indian democracy can adequately respond to all the challenges when it moves forward on the path of
sustainable development. A model of development without taking into account the basic needs of millions, today as
well as in the future, cannot be conducive for the survival of democracy. Development has to be human-centered
and directed towards improvement of quality of life of all the people. It has to be focused on removal of poverty,
ignorance, discrimination, disease and unemployment. The development process has to aim at sustained economic,
social and environmental development.

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS
1. Democracy is defined as a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and is
exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodic free
elections. In essence, democracy is a form of government which is run by the elected representatives of the
people.
2. The definition of democracy is incomplete unless it is defined in social and individual contexts as well. In
the present age, it means more than a mere form of government. In its comprehensive form, democracy
means, (i) a form of government, (ii) a type of state, (iii) a pattern of social system, (iv) a design of
economic order, and (v) a way of life and culture. Therefore, when we say Indian democracy, we mean not
only that its political institutions and processes are democratic but also that the Indian society and every
Indian citizen is democratic, reflecting basic democratic values of equality, liberty, fraternity, secularism and
justice in social sphere and individual behaviour.
3. A system can be termed as a genuine democracy only when it fulfils (a) political conditions as follows: (i)
having a Constitution that vests supreme power in the people and protects fundamental rights, such as
equality, liberty of thought and expression, belief, movement, communication and association; (ii) having
universal adult franchise as the basis of electing representatives; and (iii) having a responsible government in
which the executive is answerable to the legislature and the legislature to the people; and (b) social and
economic conditions as follows: (i) the system ensuring social development that is in tune with democratic
values and norms reflecting equality of social status, social security and social welfare; and (ii) the system
facilitating a situation where the fruits of economic development reach all and especially the poor and
deprived sections of the society.
4. Illiteracy, inequality and poverty adversely affect the functioning of Indian democracy. (i) Illiterate citizens
are not able to play their roles effectively and exercise meaningfully their right to vote which is an individual
expression of the power of the people. Literacy enables citizens to be aware of various issues, problems,
demands, and interests in the country, be conscious of the principles of liberty and equality of all and ensure
that the representatives elected by them truly represent all the interests in the society. (ii) Poverty is perhaps
the greatest bane of democracy. It is the root cause of all kinds of deprivations and inequalities and is the
state of denial of opportunities to people to lead a healthy and fulfilling life.
5. The popular entertainment channels and films generally depict gender discrimination. In fact, the serials on
television channels are reinforcing the prevailing patriarchal system showing females playing traditional
roles of mothers, sisters, wives and daughters. It is true that a few of them question the traditional roles, but
those also somehow reflect gender discrimination.
6. Caste System: The most detrimental and inhuman example of the prevailing caste system is the practice of
untouchability which is continuing in different covert and overt ways in spite of the constitutional ban
imposed on it. The Dalits still bear the brunt of discrimination and deprivation. This has led to segregation of
so called low castes, depriving them of education and other social benefits. The second example relates to
politicization of caste system. Casteism has become notorious as a strategy of exploitation of caste
consciousness for narrow political gains. The caste system acts against the roots of democracy.
Communalism: It disrupts quite often the smooth process of co-existence in a multi-religious Indian society.
Communal riots happening in the country since independence have been dangerous for peace order and
social harmony. Secondly the misuse of religion by fundamentalist people during elections and even in other
situations has always been proved to be counter-productive.
7. Although development process in the country aims at growth and development of all regions, the regional
disparities and imbalances continue to exist. Existence and continuation of regional inequalities in terms of
differences in per capita income, literacy rates, state of health and educational infrastructure and services,
population situation and levels of industrial and agricultural development both among States and within a
State create a feeling of neglect, deprivation and discrimination.
8. The influence of muscle power in Indian politics has been a fact of life for a long time. Political parties and
candidates do not hesitate in seeking the help of criminal elements to dominate the election scene in India.
Earlier in the 1960‘s, the criminals were content by covertly helping the politician win the election so that
they could in turn get protection from him. But the roles have now been reversed. It is the politicians who
now bank on the support of the criminals for protection.
9. One of the major reasons of increase of political violence has been the emergence of serious conflict of
interests between higher and middle castes as an outcome of agricultural development, abolition of
zamindari system, and developments like green revolution and white revolution. These have led to
aggressive competition for political power which many a time leads to violence. Another reason is the
backlash of the higher castes against the growing awareness and assertion of their rights by the lower castes,
particularly the Scheduled Castes and the lowest backward castes. Moreover, violence has been associated
with demands for separate States, re-organization of States or adjustment of State boundaries. As we
observe, the Telangana Movement in Andhra Pradesh and Bodo Movement in Assam often turned violent.
Violence has also been used quite frequently during industrial strikes, farmers‘ movements, students‘
agitations, and a number of other civil disobedience campaigns.
10. To attain the goal of universal literacy a nation-wide programme known as Saakshar Bharat is being
implemented. Moreover, the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan is a flagship programme for the universalization of
elementary education for children between 6-14 years of age. Besides, the Parliament of India in 2009
passed Right to Education Act through which education has become a fundamental right of all children in the
age group of 6-14 years. For poverty alleviation, two kinds of programmes are being implemented: (i)
 Programmes to lift beneficiaries above poverty line by providing them with productive assets or skills or
both so that they can employ themselves usefully and earn greater income, and (ii) Programmes to provide
temporary wage employment for the poor and the landless. Public Distribution System (PDS) contributes
towards meeting people‘s basic food needs, the Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP) provides
rural households below the poverty line with credit to purchase income-generating assets, the Jawahar
Rozgar Yojana (JRY), provides more than 700 million person days of work a year. Moreover, TRYSEM
(Training Rural Youth for Self Employment) was started to provide technical skills to the rural youth and to
help them to get employment.
11. Besides the State-specific efforts for reducing intra-State regional disparities, a number of Centrally
Sponsored Programmes have been in operation for the last two to three decades for taking care of specific
aspects of backwardness of such regions. Some of the major programmes are: (i) the Tribal Development
Programme, (ii) the Hill Area Development Programme, (iii) the Border Area Development Programme, (iv)
the Western Ghat Development Programme, (v) the Drought Prone Area Programme, and (vi) the Desert
Development Programme.
12. For administrative reforms, the following recommendations need to be implemented:(i) to make
administration accountable and citizen friendly, (ii) to build its capacity for quality governance, (iii) to orient
administration for promoting peoples‘ participation, decentralization and devolution of powers, (iv) to make
administrative decision-making process transparent, (v) to improve the performance and integrity of the
public services, (vi) to reinforce ethics in administration, and (vii) to inculcate readiness for e-governance.
For judicial reforms, the steps that are to be taken are as follows: (a) Simplification of Rules and Procedures,
(b) Repealing Out-dated Laws, (c) Increase in the Judge Population Ratio, (d) Time-bound filling of Vacant
Posts in Judiciary, (d) Transparency in Appointment, Promotion and Transfer of Judges, (e) Judicial
Accountability, and (f) Transparency of Court Proceedings.
13. Sustainable development is a pattern of resource use that aims to meet human needs while preserving the
environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for the future generations. When
the development is human-centred and directed towards improvement of quality of life of all the people, it
has to be focused on removal of poverty, ignorance, discrimination, disease and unemployment. All these
steps will strengthen Indian democracy.
14. Participation in a democratic polity is not confined simply to participation in elections. A vital form of
participation comes through membership of political parties and more importantly, active membership in
independent non-governmental organizations, that are known as ―civil society organizations.‖ Civil Society
Organizations represent a variety of interests of different groups: women, students, farmers, workers,
doctors, teachers, business owners, religious believers and human rights activists.
15. Citizens have to make the democratic system responsive and responsible. They are needed to ensure that the
Parliamentarians, Members of State Legislatures and their representatives in Panchayati Raj and Municipal
Institutions are accountable. The instruments created by Right to Information Act, 2005 in our country
enable citizens to play their role effectively. Citizens must watch carefully how their political leaders and
representatives use their powers, and to express their own opinions and interests.
 POLITICAL SCIENCE II- INDIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM
MODULE-IV
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS IN INDIA

INTRODUCTION

“Social movements”, according to oxford dictionary of politics, “are change-oriented political formation,
using often tactics such as direct action, with loose and informal organisational structures.”They are, the
dictionary continues, “organised around idea which give the individuals new forms of social and political
identity”, charles Tilly (social Movements:1768-2004) defines movements are a series of contentions
performances, displays and campaigns by which ordinary people make collective claims on other. He also
says that through social movements, ordinary people participate in public activities. Three elements,
according to Tilly, characterising social movements are:
(i) Campaigns: a sustained, organised and joint effort making claims on authorities;

(ii) Social movements repertoire: employing a combination of political action such a public meetings,
processions, rallies, demonstrations, petition drives;
(iii) WUNC displays: conceited public representation of words such as (WUNC) unity, numbers, and
commitments

Sidney Tarrow (Power in Movements: Collective Action, Social Movements and Politics) defines
social movements as “collective challenges (to elites, authorities, other groups or cultural codes) by people
with common purposes and solidarity in sustained interactions with elites, opponents and authorities.” Lorenz
von stein, a German sociologist, used the term “social movements” in 1850 in book History of the French
Social Movement from 1789 to the Present. The growth of social movements is associated with factors such
as economic and political changes culminating in parliamentarisation, capitalization, proletarianisation,
urbanization, industrialization, development of communication and technology, growth of universities and the
like. The spread of democracy and the expansion of political rights made the evolution of social movements
much easier.
Social movements are of several types with regard to the scope, social movements are either reform
movements (such as workers reforms, ecological reforms, socio-religious reforms) or radical movements
(such as polish solidarity). With regard to the type of changes, social movements are either innovative
movements such as seeking norms and values or conservative movements such as the nineteenth century
luddites anti-machine movements.
With regard to the target, social movements are either group focused or individual-focused. with
regard to method, social movements are either peaceful (civil rights movements of the USA) ; violent )the
Zapatista Army of National Liberation) or terrorist (provincial Irish Republic Army); with regards to range,
the social movements, are either global(First International), local or multi-level movements.

NEW SOCIAL MOVEMENTS IN INDIA

It refers to those movements which have come up recently. They differ from the old social movements
in that
(a) They are primarily concerned with non –materialistic phenomena,
(b) They work for quality of life rather than merely life
(c) They are not conflictive,
(d) They are follower-oriented, and
(e) They are decentralized.
 These movements include feminist movements, ecological and environmental movements, and peace
movements.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS IN INDIA

Social movement is an organised effort by a number of people to change (or to resist change) in some
aspect or aspects of society. Turner and Khilhan (collective behavior) define social movement as a collectivity
which acts with some continuity to promote or resist change in a society or a group of which it is a part, it is,
thus clear from what has been said that
(i) Social movement involve collective action as against actions of a small group of individuals, and
(ii) The collective attempts are designed to promote change or resist change in the society in the
society in which the attempt is made.
Accordingly collective attempt may be alter, inaugurate, supplement, restore or reinstate all to the
larger society; they stimulate the formation of organised groups which work systematically to see that their
plans and polices are implemented; and they help generate and develop ideas which spread throughout the
society.
With the expansion of civil society domain, social movements also expanded. In India, the earliest of
social movements can be traced to the Gandhian efforts of sarvodya. Gandhi recognized the need for social
change and believed that the change has to come from the bottom to top if it has to be non-violent, successful
and permanent. Since the 1970s, a number of social movements emphasizing on a range of basic issues have
come up. these „new; social movements are different from the old „trade unions‟ , „peasants‟ and „scheduled
castes‟ movements which had, in themselves, an alternate political vision of the state itself and which had, for
their respective people, materialistic demands. These new social movements are broad-based peoples‟
responses to ecological, gender, peace, civil liberties issues. Such social movements are indicators of the pulse
of the people; they do not accept the materialistic paradigms, though they insist on peoples participation; they
help build consciously or unconsciously a countervailing power to the dominant state; they express the civil
society domain.
These new social movements are emerging out of peculiar contradictions within societies and cultures.
They appear as the state comes to dominate civil society; they expand as the civil society attempts to open up.
They bring about the horizontal integration of people instead of hierarchical integration. It is, difficult to
categories social movement as they exist in the present or had existed in the past. We may in general, describe
numerous social movements as:
(a) The first category essentially focuses on the needs and interests of a particular group of people.
Historically, Indian society oppressed the tribes (indigenous people), dalits (untouchables) and women. In the
past decade or so, social movement focusing on the interests, concerns and aspirations of tribes, dalits and
women have gained ascendancy.
(b) Another form of social movements has been to protect against a set of practices, institutions,
policies and programmes. Social movements to reform social evils have specially been targeting liquor,
dowry, and inheritance rights of women act.
(c) The development paradigm and programmes have resulted in mass displacements, especially of
tribes and rural poor. Social movements have emerged in protest against or to prevent displacements due to
development. Various issues in the protection, preservation and regeneration of environment are triggering
social movements throughout the country as well.
(d) A fourth type of social movement has focused upon governance and state accountability. Anti-
corruption campaigns against governments‟ officials, civil liberties and human rights campaigns, campaigns
for right to information, right to education, right to livelihood are some examples of this type.
Some of the major social movements of India can be described as under:

(i) CIVIL LIBERTIES AND HUMAN RIGHTS MOVEMENTS

Civil liberties and human right movements in India can be traced back to the anti-colonial struggle
even people, while looking for political concessions, developed notions of political freedoms. The Rowlwtt
Act (March 1919) was, for example, one legislation that helped Indians to rise against British atrocities. Much
before the demand for swaraj, there arose the demand for civil liberties and rights. Dadabhai Naoroji was one
of the first Indians to raise his voice for rights and civil liberties. As British oppression on Indians grew, so
grew their demand for rights and liberties. The Indian bill of 1985 earlier sought freedom of thought and
prohibition of punishment without trial. The Congress‟s resolution of 1917 and 1919 demanded freedom of
speech and press.
The Commonwealth Bill of 1925 included:
(a) Liberty of person and security of dwelling and property;
(b) Freedom of conscience and practice of religion;
(c) Free expression of opinion and the right of assembly without arms and forming of association and unions;
(d) Free elementary education;
(e) Use of roads, public places, court of justice and the like;
(f) Equality before law;
(g) Equality of sexes.
The 1928 Nehru Committee report, and the 1931 Congress Karachi session sought fundamental rights
for the Indians. Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru proposed, in 1945, a proposal stressing the importance of the
fundamental rights. The Constituent Assembly constituted a sub-committee on fundamental rights to propose
freedoms and liberties for Indians in the Constitution of independent India. Part III of the 1950 Constitution
provided for the fundamental rights which includes the right of freedom from article 19 to 22, the
Government of India ratified the Covenants of Economic, Social and Cultural rights as well as the civil and
political rights acknowledging to responsibility to implement the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR).
Even since the enactment of the constitution, the state has, in the name of security and integrity of the
country, restricted civil liberties and fundamental rights. The fundamental rights has numerous limitations on
them; they can suspended during the operation of emergency, the Defense of Indian Rules (DIR), the
Maintenance of Indian Security Act (MISA), and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act
(TADA), have empowered the state apparatus with arbitrary powers. Numerous amendments in the
constitution have curtailed the civil liberties to some degree, though in the name of integrity and socio-
economic development.
The growing power of the state during the 1960s and 1970s, either to face the external threat (china in 1962,
Pakistan in 1965 and 1971) or to combat internal security problems (from the Naxalities for example), may be
stated as one of the reasons for the democratic right, say the civil liberties, movements in the country. The
liberals provided the basis and the leadership for such a movement. The People‟s Union for Civil Liberties
(PUCL) and the People‟s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) began to work together. Soon, there arose a
conflict, during the period from1977-80, between their perspectives. The „democratic rights‟ perspective
argued that the deprived liberties perspective asserted that the fragile democracy, as in India, requires to be
strengthened and that the rights and liberties have to be protected and preserved. Together, both can provide a
human right perspective.
The human rights perspective does contain elements of democratic rights and civil liberties. It is the
perspective which provides the basis for our rights and liberties; in fact, it goes to the basics to provide human
beings and freedoms essential for them as human beings. The Constitution of India pledges to its citizens all
the basic human rights: to life, liberty, equality, justice, of thought, of personal freedoms, of belief, faith, of
equal status. It also provides the minorities the right to protection and promotion of their religion and culture.
The Constitution provides for the formation of numerous independent commissions (those of Scheduled
Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, the Minorities, Human Rights, the Backward Classes) to monitor the welfare of
the concerned people. The Supreme Court, through its judicial activism, has, over the years, created new basic
rights which include, as Upendra Baxi (The State and Human Rights Movement in India) says, “right to
dignity, right to livelihood, right to compensation and rehabilitation for injuries done or caused by state agents
or agencies, right to speedy trial, right to health, right to education, right to gender equality, right to
environment” converting numerous directive principles into fundamental rights.
The assertive civil society has always taken up the cause of rights and liberties of the people as and
when the state chooses to oppress people. The 1975- emergency brought numerous activities to the fore that
faced imprisonment. The People‟s Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) and the People‟s Union for Democratic
Rights (PUDR) were formed to fight the emergency atrocities and to contest cases in the Supreme Court
against encounter killings. Punjab Human Rights Organisation came to be associated with Amnesty
International. The Association for Democratic Rights and some other organizations have been working in the
Punjab to preserve
and protect human rights. The Human Right Organisation of Manipur, Civil Liberties Committee of Andhra
Pradesh, Naga People‟s Movement for Human Rights and the like are seeking justice on behalf of the
oppressed and the minorities.
The establishment of National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), in 1993, has incorporated all
basic values of the Amnesty International. Its objectives include:
(a) To strengthen the institutional arrangements through which human right issues are addressed in totality
and in a more focused manner;
(b) To look into allegations of excesses;
(c) To complement and strengthen efforts to protect human rights.
The NHRC had studied the arbitrary detention under the TADA and dealt with a range of issues
concerning the rights of children, child labour and women. Also, it has given directions for the treatment of
Chakama refugees in Andhra Pradesh and Sri Lankan refugees in Tamil Nadu. Apart from the National
Commission, various state governments in India such as Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal have also established
their own state commissions to deal with human right issues and they focused attention on custodial death,
rape, torture, prison reforms, etc.

(ii) SOCIO-RELIGIOUS REFORM MOVEMENTS

These are movements which are organized for reforms in specific areas. Usually such movements use
legitimate means within the larger framework of the society and without disturbing the existing framework.
The Brahmo Samaj Movement led by Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Arya Samaj Movement led by Swami Dayanand
Saraswati, Aligarh Movement by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, Talighi Jammat movement by Moulana Ilyas, the
Ramakrishna Mission Movement bt Swami Vivekananda, the Theosophical Society Movement by Madame
Blavatsky and Colonel Olcott are some examples of socio-religious reform movement of the nineteenth
century India. These socio-religious movements sought to eradicate social evils caused by religious customs
and rituals. Most of these movements fought against sati practice, purda system, infanticide, religious bigotry
and the like and laid stress on female education, widow remarriage, and spread of modern western education.

(iii) PEASANT’S MOVEMENTS

Peasant‟s movements seek facilities and concessions to better the lot of the peasantry. The history of
the peasant movement in India can be traced to colonial period when repressive economic policies, new land
revenue system, colonial administrative and judicial system and the ruin of handicrafts led to the
overcrowding of land transformed the agrarian structure and impoverished the peasantry. Peasant movements
occupy an important place in the history of social unrest in India, though the aims and objectives of these
movements differ in nature and
degree from region to region. Some peasants uprising include Sanyasi rebellion (1770), Wahabi uprising
(1831), Santhal revolt (1855), Indigo unrest (1859), Punjab Kisan Struggle (1890-1900), Champaran
Satyagraha (1912-18), Moplah rebellion (1921), and Bardoli Satyagraha (1928). Kathleen Gough says that
there had been 77 peasants uprising in colonial India. All these uprising were directed against the colonial
land revenue system and the zamindari system as developed by the British. We may describe some of the
major features of the peasant movements during the colonial rule as:
(i)These uprising mobilized the peasantry;
(ii) These were mostly spontaneous outbursts of the exploited rural poor;
(iii) Most of these were suppressed brutally by the state power;
(iv) The emerging middle class was indifferent and even hostile to peasants‟ consciousness.
Gandhi‟s entry on the Indian political scene after his return from South Africa in 1915 helped the
Indian National Congress become a mass political party. He made village as the primary focus and fought for
the rural poor. Champaran Sathyagraha (1917-18) abolished the Tinkathia system, the Khadi no-revenue
movement (1918), the peasant uprising in Bardoli (1928) against revenue hike and the no-rent and no-revenue
campaign in Oudh (1930-32) were such peasant movements supported by Gandhi. After assuming virtual
leadership of the Congress from 1917 onwards. Gandhi led the congress to all-India movements in 1920-22,
1930-34 and 1940 (the 1940 Quit India movement was one when Gandhi was arrested before it being
launched). All though, the national liberation struggle, Gandhi‟s base was the village, though he never aimed
at changing the basic land ownership structure in the countryside.
On the initiative of representation of numerous peasant organizations from different providences, a
conference was held in 1936 in Lucknow and as a result of it an All-India Kisan Sabha(AIKS) was formed
under the presidentship of Swami Sahajanand of Bihar. The Communist Party of India(CPI), the Workers‟
and Peasants Party(WPP) and the Congress Socialist Party(CSP) played a vital role in the formation of AIKS.
In the late 1940s, the AIKS organized two major peasants movement: the Tebhaga movement in Bengal
(1946-47) and the Telengana uprising in Andhra Pradesh (1946-51).
The Tebhaga movement started in the harvesting season of 1946 which spread to 15 districts of north
Bengal demanding two-third share of the crop for sharecroppers working on the jotedari land. The two-third
share demand was already admitted by the Floud Commission in 1940. The movement was launched under
the leadership of the Bengal Provincial Kisan Sabha. The centre of the movement was Dinajpur where 40
peoples were killed, 1200 were put behind the bar and nearly 10,000 were wounded. The movement
ultimately failed and could not attain its objectives. The government, led by the Muslim League, was
lukewarm. While the communist leadership could not build pressure, the Tebhaga strategy could not
distinguish between the big jotdari from the smaller ones, and, therefore, the bargardars could not mount
pressure, the urban middle class was always hostile towards the movement.
The Telengana rebellion was a communist led peasant revolt which took place in Hyderabad (Andhra
Pradesh between 1946 and 1951). The revolt began in Nalgouda district and soon spread to other districts of
warrangel and Bihar. Peasants revolted against the Nizam and landlords. Initially, the objectives were to do
away with the illegal and excessive exploitation by feudal lords in the name of bonded labour. The most
strident demand was the writing off of all debts of peasants that were manipulated by the feudal lords.
The Communist Party instigated the peasants to use guerilla tactics and around 3,000 villages (about
41,000sq km) came under peasant-rule. The landlords were either killed or driven out and land was
redistributed. These victorious village established communes reminiscent of the Soviet Mir to administer their
region. These community governments were integrated regionally to a central organization. As the rebellion
was led by the Communist Party of India under the banner of Andhra Mahasabha, a few among the well-
known individuals at the forefront of the movement were the Urdu poet Makhdoom Mohiuddin (d.1969),
Raavi Narayana Reddy (d.2008), Mallu Venkata Narasimha Reddy and Mallu Swarajyam. The violent phase
of the movement ended in 1951.
After independence, the AIKS worked for the pro-peasant objectives: the abolition of the zamindari
system, tenancy laws in favor of peasants as in West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu, lowering the
levy in Punjab and Rajasthan. The AIKS, in the late 1950s, organized nation-wide food movements. During
the 1960s, the AIKS supported sugarcane growers‟ strike in Uttar Pradesh, pressed for the distribution of
wasteland among agricultural labourers in Andhra Pradesh. Long padayatras were organized in Kerala for the
detention for the surplus and benami land. During the 1970s and 1980s, the AIKS took up the cause of the
agricultural laborers. Movements for increasing their wages were launched in Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh,
Punjab and West Bengal, though in some regions, uprising rose, such as the one in the Naxalbari, while the
farming lobby became assertive, as the Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU) in Uttar Pradesh or Sharad Joshi‟s
Shetkari Sangathana in Maharastra. The peasants, as at present, keep seeking remunerative prices for their
products, increase in agricultural production, and parity between prices of agricultural and industrial products.

(iv) WORKERS’ MOVEMENT IN INDIA

The working class owes its existence of the growth of industries in India from the second half of the
nineteenth century. Its number increased with increase in industrialization. N.M.Joshi tells us that the labour
class was about 50 million, out of which 10 per cent was in the organised industry according to the 1931
census. According to the 1991 census, the total number of workers in modern manufacturing industries rose to
around 306 million. The workers, in India, are divided into organized and unorganized categories; some of
them act as workers, when in cities and towns but become agricultural labourers when in villages, they work
both with the public and private sectors.
Before independence, the workers in the initial stages until the 1920s, were sporadic and unorganized
and were concentrated in Bengal, Madras (Tamil Nadu) and Bombay(Mumbai). Their leaders, S.S.Bangalee
and Sasipada Banerjee in Bengal and Narayana Lokhandrya in Maharastra, sought improvement in workers‟
conditions. During the 1920s, serious attempts were made to organize the working class. B.G.Tilak did a great
job in the formation of the All-India Trade Union Congress(AITUC) with Lala Lajpat Rai and Chaman Lal as
its office-bearer, the AITUC was organized not only for organizing the working for the fulfillment if their
demands but also for supporting the nationalist struggle. Though, the AITUC was formed in 1920 and
numerous resolutions, seeking demands, were passed in 1920, 1922, 1924 and in 1930 in their annual
conferences, the clearest policy of the Congress came up in 1936 when the Congress appointed its committee
to look after labour issues. Earlier there was a split in the AITUC, with moderates such as N.M.Joshi,
V.V.Giri, B.Shivarao forming the National Trade Union Federation (NTUF) and the communists such as S.K
Despande and B.T Ranadive, forming the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC).
The AITUC merged with the AITUC in 1935 and the NTUF affiliated itself with the AITUC in 1938.
As a result of this, there was a growth of trade unions and trade union activity throughout the 1930s and
1940s. The number of strikes went up by the end of the 1930s. During the period 1937-39 the frequency of
strikes and the number of strikes increased. In 1937 there were 379 strikes and in 1938 there were 399 strikes.
In 1939, 406 disputes took place. The involvement of workers in these strikes was also higher.
The movement entered into a decisive phase in the 1940s and this phase coincided with the final phase
of the National Movement, when the latter entered into its last phase beginning with the Quit India Movement
of 1942. On the industrial front, from 1939 onwards the working conditions of workers were affected
seriously. There was an increase in working hours, multiple shift systems were introduced, wages were
significantly reduced, and workers on the whole were subjected to great hardships. As a result, strikes erupted
throughout the country and probably the most important demand of workers was the demand for a Dearness
Allowance against rising prices and the cost of living. In 1942 there were 694 disputes, which increased to
820 in 1945. The number of workers involved in these disputes also increased to 7.47 lakhs in 1945. Between
1945-1947, after the end of the war, the working class was confronted with two distinct problems. First was
the problem of large-scale retrenchments and the second, the problem of decline in earnings. As a result, the
number of strikes reached a peak in 1947; there were 1,811 strikes involving 1,940 thousand workers.
After independence, the working class movement entered into a different phase. Between 1947 and
1960, with the introduction of new industries, whether in public sector or in private sector and with the state
having a sympathetic attitude towards workers, there was no organized action. Consequently workers‟
agitation declined. However, with inflation rising, there arose workers discontent between 1960 and 1970. In
1964, there were2151 disputes involving about one thousand workers in which 7,725 days were lost. Soon,
political parties began blessing the growing number of numerous trade unions. By 1949, there were four
unions and all these unions and all these unions were linked or affiliated to and controlled by political parties.
The Communist dominates the AITUC, IFL was affiliated to the radical Democratic party of M.N.Roy, the
Indian National Congress controlled the INTUC and the Socialist Party members dominated the Hind
Mazdoor Sabha(HMS). The HMS splited further and UTUC was formed. The AITUC also split in 1970 and
the Centre of Indian Trade Union (CITU) was born and affiliated to CPI(M).
After 1970, the situation, with regard to the working class, was not very encouraging; the capitalist
resorted to offensives which were met with workers lockouts. For example, in the period 1971-75 , the
average annual workday, lost through lockouts was as high as 60.23 thousand, which figure rose to 105.46
thousand during 1976-80. Rudolph and Rudolph sat that during 1965-75, the number of workdays lost
increased by almost 500 per cent.
During emergency, the working class faced a number of offensives from the employers. Lockouts in
the private sector increased as a result, of which a large percentage of workdays were lost. During the years
1980-87, 29 to 65 per cent of workdays lost to lockouts in the industrial disputes. The loss of workdays in the
1980s went on increasing. According to one estimate during 1985,1987 and 1988, workdays lost in lockouts
actually exceeded those lost in strikes by as much as 55, 52 and 71 per cent respectively. This growth in
lockouts has adversely affected the industrial working class in the country since it throws workers out of
employment.
The problem of lockout continues even today and has assumed a serious proportion. In 1999, according to the
Labour Bureau, there were 387 lockouts; n 2000, there were 345 and in the year 2001, there were 302
lockouts.
The introduction of the New Economic Policy since 1991 had severely affected the working class in
the country. There are different components of this New Economic Policy but the core emphasis is on
liberalization, privatization and globalization. Liberalization has meant reduction of government control over
the private sector; as a result, the bargaining position of workers vis-à-vis capital declined. The policies of
privatization under which several important public sector units in the country are being sold to private
companies has opened up new challenges for workers and trade unions in the country.

(v) DALIT MOVEMENTS

Dalits are the oppressed people at the last rung of the caste-based hierarchy. Their inferior occupation
and low levels of inscriptive status make them vulnerable to attacks at the hands of the upper caste people.
The effort made by the dalits leadership to uplift their status in the society is called Dalits Movement. The
Dalits movement is a protest against untouchability, casteism and discrimination faced by the dalits. This
movement indicates protest against Hinduism and its high varna view of Brahminical virtues. Anti-casteism
stands at the basis of the dalits movement. For example, the Satnami movement of the Chamars in the
Chhattisgarh plains in eastern Madhya Pradesh that eventually became an independent religious sect; the
Dravid Kazhagam movement of Periyar EVR Ramaswamy Naicker which created a stir by publicly burning
the effigy of Rama and celebrating virtuousness of Ravana; the Nadar Mahajana Sabha in Tamil Nadu; the
Ezhava movement of Narayana Guru which culminated in establishment of a new religious sect called Sree
Narayan Dharma Pratipalana Yogam in Kerala and the most pervasive Dalit movement led by Bahasaheb
Ambedkar curiously reaching its climax in mass conversion to Buddhism- they all signify an overriding
hatred against the religious code of Manu. The dalit movement essentially embodies rejection of Brahminism,
which is perceived to be the root cause for dalits‟ sufferings. The most articulate expression of this rejection is
found in Ambedkar‟s own analyses that hold the overthrowing of „Hindu‟ religious ideological hegemony as a
necessary condition for the liberation of Dalits.
One of the factors, which prepared the ground for the Dalit movement in India, was the colonial rule
of the British. The institutional changes (which the British introduced in India like the changes in the
judiciary, civil administration, commodity markets), the cultural changes (modernity, western mode of living,
English education, etc.), the economic changes (Zamindari and Ryotwari System) and the emergent social
changes which came in during the British rule gave impetus to the aspirations of the lower castes, leading to
conflicts with the traditional social relations. This aroused anti-Brahmin, anti-castes, anti-Manu sentiments,
which led by numerous social reformers, like Mahatma Phule and Dr. Ambedkar, became a movement of
national prominence. Both, Phule and Ambedkar, hated the parasitic class of priests, landlords, money lenders
and capitalists and sought to organize their victims; both emphasized the importance of education in the
scheme of the liberation if Dalits and backward classes and castes. Mahatma Gandhi worked for the
Dalits‟ welfare in his own way, describing them as the Harijans.
Ambedkar‟s role in the Dalit movement cannot be denied. He was a great scholar and his penetrating
intellect carried him anywhere, at all times; he was, indeed, one of the great Indians of the twentieth century.
He viewed the Indian social history as the glorification of the upper castes and degradation of the lower castes
and lower strata of society. He regarded caste system, untouchability etc. as an artificial creation for vested
interest. Throughout his life, he fought to organize the Dalits; seek for them their rights; attain for them their
rightful place in the society. He wrote for the Dalit cause, sought political concessions during the colonial
rule, organized the Independence Labour Party and, as the chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Indian
Constitution, got numerous constitutional safeguards for the depressed classes. His efforts did not go in vain
in so far as he was able to seek the Dalit identity and build a Dalit movement which brought for the Dalits
numerous legislations for the protection and promotion of their interests. The National Commission on the
Scheduled Castes (NCSC), the National Commission on the Scheduled Tribes (NCST) and for the National
Commissions on the Backward Classes (NCBC), which monitor the welfare activities of these classes, speak
volumes for Dr. Ambedkar‟s efforts. There are political parties (from the old Republican Party to the Bahujan
Samaj Party) and numerous political leaders, both from the Dalits and the non-Dalits, who are working for the
interests of the weaker sections of society.

(vi) WOMENS MOVEMENTS

The women‟s movement in India is a important movement which has taken different forms in different
parts of the country, though women, in general, display profound apathy towards public life. Politics had kept
women outside its ambit for a greater part of the Indian history. In consequence, politics has, to a great extent,
been men‟s affairs and women confined to the four walls of the house, leading, thus, to their subordinate
status in the society. Public-private divide remained significant during the ancient, medieval and early modern
period of the Indian history. Numerous socio-religious movement led by Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Swami
Dayanada Saraswati, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and the like sought to improve the status of women in the
society. The English colonial rule and its oppressive role on the hand and the spread of the English education
and culture on the other led to the awakening of the mass consciousness among the people, women including.
The national liberation struggle led by Gandhi witnessed women‟s participation. Sarojini Naidu became the
first women President of the Indian National Congress in 1925 before independence, Smt. Indira Gandhi the
first women Prime Minister in 1966 and Smt. Pratibha Patil, the first women President of India in 2007, after
independence.
 During the national struggle, women‟s involvement was quiet visible. At the beginning of the
twentieth century, numerous Mahila Samitis came to be founded. Saroj Nalini Datta (1913) in Bengal and
Sarla Devi Chaudharian (1917) sought to assert women‟s independent identity while women‟s organizations
such as Women‟s Indian Association (WIA, 1917) and the All India Women‟s Conference (AIWA, 1917)
came to be formed at the national level. Under the leadership of Gandhi, women participated in the non-
cooperation movement (1920-22), the civil obedience movement (1930-34), the individual Satyagraha (1940)
and without Gandhi in the Quit India movement (1942). Women wore Khadi, made salt, picketed liquor and
foreign-made product shops, faced lathis and bullets and filed jails. Some women were associated in
revolutionary activities such as Kalpana Dutta, Kanaklata Barua, Preetilata Wadekar in Chittagong Armoury
case. In Tebhaga movement (1946-50) and Telengana movement (1946-51), women formed their respective
„brigades‟. On the Hindu Code Bill, women made their presence felt.
During the first few years after independence, women‟s movements went into almost oblivion. The
Mahila Samitis became appendages to the government while AIWC lost its unity and almost in the process,
faded. However, there was a resurgence of women‟s movement, especially relating to gender identity and
gender consciousness, after 1970 owing to factors such as
(i) Jayaprakash Narayana‟s democratic movement,
(ii) Post-emergency upsurge favoring civil rights,
(iii) The publication of the report of the Committee on the Status of Women in India (CSWI).
The post-1970 women‟s movement came to focus on the autonomy of the women, gender justice, and
women‟s identity. The post-1980s witnessed yet another phase of women‟s movement with emphasis on
increased political and organizational activities of women and is now focused on issues such as violence
against women, especially Dalit women, divorce, equal opportunity for work and equal wages etc.
Women‟s representation in the Parliament and state legislatures has not been encouraging, through
one-third reservation at the local level has been constitutionally guaranteed through the 73rd and 74th
amendments. Numerous provisions of the Constitution provide safeguards to women while numerous
legislations guarantee them the protection of their rights and interests. The National Commission for Women
(1992) and the National Policy for the Empowerment of Women (2001) are certain steps towards women‟s
welfare.

(vii) ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENTS

Environmentalism, as a social movement seeks to influence the political process by lobbying, activism
and education so as to protect natural resources and ecosystem. All the environmentalist movements are
centered on ecology health and human rights. The environmentalist generally advocate the sustainable
management of resource, and the protection(and restoration when necessary) of the natural environment
through changes in public policy and individual behavior. The environmentalist movements in India are the
movements of the people of various regions which seek to protect, for the people, their environment, their
livelihood and their way of life. These movements have emerged from Kerala, from Gujarat to Tripura. In
north , these movements are launched by middle and upper class people ,hence called “full stomach”
movements, while in the south , they are being launched by hill peasants, tribal communities , fisherman , and
the unprivileged people, and hence are called “empty belly “ movements.
The emergence of the environmentalist movements in India can be attributed to numerous reasons.
The control over natural resources for purposes of economic development by the state is one potent reason.
The Chipko movement was an example of controlling the forests whereas the Narmada Bachao Andholan was
an effort by the state to control water. Industrialization requires sources of energy and raw materials. The post
independent India was to be so geared that it could develop industrially as quick as possible and without
looking to the environment for natural resources, it would not have been made possible. In the process of
industrialization and socio-economic development, the state was forced to exploit the natural resources,
leading thus to the emergence of environmentalist movements by the people not only for the purpose of
protecting the environment , but also to combat the efforts of the government so to save their means of
livelihood as also their cultures. For most of the local tribal groups, forest and land constituted an integral part
of their traditional life style.
The well known Chipko movement literally means,”hugging the tree” movement. The movement
originated from an incident in a remote village high up in the himalayas in 1972. The basic facts of the
incidents are that there was a dispute between local villagers and logging contractor who had been allowed to
fell trees. On a particular day, there was a meeting with concerned government officials in their office, away
from the village. When the villagers had gone to the official‟s office, the contractor‟s works appeared in the
forest to cut the trees. Undeterred the women of the Reni village reached the forest quickly, clasped the tree
trunks thus preventing the workers from putting their axes and saws to the trees. Thus thwarted, the workers
had to withdraw and incident spread like wild-fire across communities and the media and forced the
government, to whom the forest belongs, to negotiate with the community, mostly women. The women began
setting up their committees in the region that began articulating larger issues about eco-friendly development,
as a partnership between the community and the government. In spite of the usual ups and downs, the
movement under the leadership of Sunderlal Bahuguna continues today as a major environmental movement,
inspiring as a large number of people in the country and the world. The movement has articulated the
concerns of forest based communities such as, depletion of forest, erosion of soil and consequent landslides,
drying up of local streams and other water resources and shortages of fuel and fodder for domestic
consumptions. It has fought against the construction of the Tehri Dam which threatened the eviction of around
25000 hill residents. Though the movement has not succeeded in all its endeavors it has achieved some
commendable victories. Getting a ban imposed on feeling trees above an altitude of 1000m and making the
government to announce certain forest areas as protected regions are some of the successes of the movement.
The Appiko movement was a revolutionary movement based on environmental conservation in India.
The “Chipko Andolan” (hug the tree movement”) in Uttarakhand in the Himalayas inspired the villagers to
the Uttara Kannada dist of Karnataka Province in Southern India to launch a similar movement to save their
forest. In Sept 1983, men, women and children of Salkani “hugged the trees” in the Kalase forest.(The local
term for “hugging” in Kannada Is Appiko). Appiko Andolan gave birth to a new awareness all over southern
India. The emergence of the movement is in 1950; Uttar Kannada district forest covered more than 81 percent
of its geographical area. The government, declaring the forest district a “backward area”, then initiated the
process of “development”. Three major industries-a pulp and a paper mill, a plywood factory and a chain of
hydroelectric dams to harness the rivers –came up. The industries have overexploited the forest resource, and
the dams have submerged huge forests and agricultural areas. The forests have shrunk to nearly 25 percent of
the district‟s area by 1980. The conversion of the forest to Teak and Eucalyptus plantations dried up water
resources, directly affecting forest dwellers. In nutshell, the three major p‟s-paper, plywood and power-which
were intended for the development, have resulted in a fourth P: poverty, and hence the appiko movement.
The Appiko movement is trying to save the forests of the Western Ghats by spreading their roots all
over Southern India. The movement‟s objectives can be classified into three major areas. First , the Appiko
movement is struggling to save the remaining tropical forests in
Western Ghats. Second, it is making a modest attempt to restore the greenery to denuded trees. Third, it is
striving to propogate the idea of rational utilization in order to reduce the pressure on forest resources. To
save, to grow and to use rationally-popularly known in Kannada as Ubsu (save) , Belesu (grow) and Balasu
(rational use)-is the movement‟s popular slogan.
Another important movement of the present times is Narmada Bachao Anadolan Samiti. This
movement, led by Medha Patkar, has sensationalized the issues of building huge dams as a solution to
growing stress on water resources. This movement is in opposition to the construction of nearly 3000 major
and minor dams across the river Narmada which would submerge an estimated 350000 hectares of forestland
and 200000 hectares of cultivated land. About one million people are estimated to be affected by the project.
Medha Patkar has undertaken fasts several times and exposed numerous deficiencies, especially the hardships
being affected people. Baba Amte, Arundhati Roy and actor Aamir Khan have supported the movement. The
Supreme Court‟s order to build the Sardar Sarovar Dam and other projects at the Narmada River has lulled
the Andolan‟s activities, but it is expected that the Andolan would create high-level awareness about
environmental issues and rehabilitation and relief aspects of the people in the region.
The Silent Valley movement is known as “Save Silent Valley” movement. The movement aims at
protecting the Silent Valley, an evergreen tropical forest in the Palakkad district of Kerala. The movement
started in 1973 to save the Silent Valley Reserve Forest from being flooded by a hydro-electric project. The
valley was declared as Silent Valley National Park in 1985. Activist poet Sugathakumari, ornithologist Salim
Ali, agricultural scientist Swaminathan supported the “Save Silent Valley” movement. Some other
environmental movements include “Mitti Bachao Andolan”, “Beej Bachao Andolan”, and “Koel Karo
Andolan”.
 UNI-1

MEANING, NATUTURE, SCOPE AND APPROACHES OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

JJ Rousseau once said, “Man is born free but everywhere he is in chains. How to free man from chains and
bondages is also a subject matter of Political Science.”

God is considered as the creator and the source of all types of knowledge in the universe. Besides the
religious beliefs and scientific explanations, universe is sustained as an ultimate reality. Universe and its all
elements like stars, sun, moon etc. are guides man to the right path of universal wisdom. The history of society
was started with the beginning of man‘s unified life to mingle with his environment and animals, and for
collective security and collection of food items. This type of social life of man gradually became large societies
and finally the concept of a nation. The seeds of political science developed from the concept of nation. Political
science tries to explain the social life of man within the framework of a nation.

Man is a social animal. He cannot live in isolation, because he is not self-sufficient and the natural
instinct to survive compels him to live a collective life. According to Aristotle, this collective life necessitates a
political mechanism of rules, regulations and leadership. An organized society needs some system to make and
enforce rules for orderly behaviour in society. This led to the evolution of a political system with elaborate
governmental institutions & procedures in each society. Therefore, man is also a political animal. Political
science is one of the oldest subjects of study of this political life of man.

ORIGIN

The antecedents of Western politics can trace their roots back to Greek thinkers Socrates, Plato (427–347 BC)
and Aristotle (384–322 BC). The studies were philosophy oriented. Plato wrote The Republic and Aristotle
wrote the Politics. Aristotle is known as the Father of Political Science. He is famous for his statement ―Man is
a political animal‖. The word ‗politics‘ is derived from the Greek word ‗polis‘, which means a city-state.

In ancient India, the antecedents of politics can be traced back to the Rig-Veda, Samhitas, Brahmanas, the
Mahabharata and Buddhist Pali Canon. Chanakya (c. 350-275 BC) was a political thinker in Takshashila. He
wrote the Arthashastra, a treatise on political thought, economics and social order, which can be considered a
precursor to Machiavelli's The Prince. It discusses monetary and fiscal policies, welfare, international relations,
and war strategies in detail, among other topics. Manusmriti, dated to about two centuries after the time of
Chanakya is another important political treatise of ancient India.

DEFINITIONS

From the traditional point of view we may define political science as ―the study of the state and
government in all their manifestations, aspects and relationships‖. In this sense, politics can be domestic,
national, federal, municipal or international. These early definitions of political science dealt generally with
state and government.

J.W. Garner: ―Political Science begins and ends with the state‖;‖Politics is the study of State &
Government‖.

Page 1 of 16
 R.G. Gettel: ―Political Science is the historical investigation of what the state has been, an analytical
study of what the state is and a political, ethical discussion of what the state ought to be‖.

Leacock: ―Political science deals with government only‖.

Paul Janet: ―Political science is that part of the social science which treats the foundations of the state
and the principles of government‖.

In the beginning of the 20th century there developed a new way of looking at political science. This new
approach is known as behavioural approach. The main thrust of the new view is the treatment of politics as
an activity and a process. In this context, new definitions emerged.

Harold Laswell: ―Politics is the study of influence and the influential‖ or ―the study of the shaping and
sharing of power‖

David Easton: ―Politics is the authoritative allocation of values.‖

Catlin: ―Political Science is the study of the act of human and social control‖.

Andrew Heywood: ―Politics can be defined as an activity through which people make, preserve and
amend the general rules under which they live.‖

Modern political scientists consider politics as a process centering around power and influence. They are
concerned with not just the state and the government, but also the study and evaluation of political activities,
political power, processes and non-governmental institutions.

NATURE OF POLITICS -DIFFERENT VIEWS

Though efforts have been made to give the definition of Politics above, yet it will be difficult to
understand the real meaning of Politics until we understand various points of view regarding the nature of
politics. All the points of view from the ancient Greek to the present day philosophers have been given below:
(1) Ancient Greek view.(2). Traditional view.(3). Modern view.(4). Behavioral view.

Ancient Greek view

Systematic study of Politics started with the Greek philosophers. Plato and Aristotle provided it with a
definite basis. Aristotle named his book itself as Politics. It is a derivative of a Greek word 'Polis' which means
a city-state, which is called states now-a-days. We may compare the Greek city-states with the big villages of
India because no city state had a population of more than a few thousand citizens. Not only this, many persons
in those city-states did not have the rights of citizenship because, according to their rules and traditions, the
slaves, foreigners and women did not have the rights of citizenship. The remaining ten to fifteen per cent
persons had the rights of citizenship and these citizens ran the administration of their city-state. In such
conditions, the Greek philosophers put forth their ideas of politics which are being discussed, in brief, below.
1. Greek philosophers did not make any distinction between state and society. Greek city-states can be very
well compared with the Indian villages. There seemed to be no difference in the social, political, ethical and
individual life. Because of it, the Greek philosophers did not differentiate between the state and society and both
of them were conveniently used for each other. Aristotle said that 'Man is a social animal' and because of his
Page 2 of 16
nature and necessities man lives in such a state which is an association of villages that has an ideal and self-
sufficient life. According to his point of view, the state has an independent identity and that is natural and has
not been created by man.
2. State is moral organisation and individual can realise the ideal of moral life in the state, maintained the
Greek philosophers. The aim of the state is to develop moral qualities in citizens and to do their welfare.
3. Greek philosophers wanted an ideal state. Greek philosophers were idealistic and they produced an idea of
the establishment of an ideal state. They not only discussed the nature of an ideal state but also produced a
complete plan for its establishment. They did not explain the nature of state and society, but discussed as to
what the state should be, they were busy in factually establishing an ideal state. According to Plato, the actual
state did not allow the individual to become fully moral. Therefore, it is only in an ideal state that the individual
can live a moral life.
4. Aristotle adopted scientific method. He gave scientific basis to politics and named it the Master Science. His
idea was to understand the environment around us and to solve the problems, it is essential to study politics
scientifically. He drew very significant conclusions by comparing his contemporary constitutions.

Traditional View

Traditional View of politics means that view which the political thinkers adopted up to the decades in
the beginning of the 20th century. During this long period, efforts have been made to define Politics with
reference to the various institutions of political life. That is why, the thinkers of this period— Plato, Hobbes,
Rousseau etc.—kept their study limited to the state, the government and the political institutions concerned
with them. Therefore, their view became narrow, formal and institutional. This very view is called the
Traditional View. From this point of view, political thinkers kept their study limited to the following three
institutional bases and named politics as Political Science:
(a) Relation of political science with state.
(b) Relation of political science with the government.
(c) Political science as a study of institutions concerned with state with government.

(a) Political Science is concerned with the state. With the rise of nation-states, the writers of Politics started
studying various aspects of these states under the name of Political Science. According to Bluntschli and Garner
the pivotal point in political science is the state. According to Bluntschli, Political Science is the science which
is concerned with the state in its fundamental conditions, in its essential nature, in its various forms of
manifestation, its development. Similarly, Garner says that Political Science begins and ends with the state.
(b) Political Science deals with Government. The tradition of keeping the scope of political science limited to
the study of government and various institutions related with it is very popular. Even now-a-days, the traditional
writers of many countries support this point of view. Seeley and Leacock have mainly supported this point of
view. According to the English writer, John Seeley, Political Science investigates the phenomena of
government as Political Economy deals with wealth, Biology with life, Algebra with numbers and Geometry
with space and magnitude. Further, Leacock upholds that "Political Science deals with government."
(c) Political Science deals with general problems of state and government. Considering the above given two
points of view as partial and narrow, some traditional writers have maintained that Political Science studies
both—state and government. In fact, when we study state, government is automatically studied because

Page 3 of 16
government is not only a main part of state, but we come to know form of state through government. Without
the study of government, the study of state is meaningless. Similarly, government is studied as an agent of the
state. According to the French writer Paul Janet, Political Science is that part of social science which treats of
foundations of the state and the principles of government. Gettell says that "It (Political Science) is thus a study
of the state in the past, present and future of political organisation and political functions of political institutions
and political theories. According to Gilchrist, Political Science deals with the general problems of state and
government. Demock says that Political Science is concerned with state and its instrumentality—Government.
Characteristics of the Traditional View. After discussing the above given ideas regarding the traditional view,
we may now discuss its characteristic features.
1. It studies the state and the associations concerned with it in institutional form. Therefore, the subject matter
of its study includes state, government, political institutions etc.
2. Most of the writers of this view were influenced by ethics and philosophy. Therefore, they ried to fix the aims
of the individual and the society. For example, the Greek thinkers put forth the aim of achievement of ethical
life; the Medieval Christian thinkers imagined the establishment of a theological state, the Idealists put forward
the ideal of realisation of the reason.
3. The traditional thinkers neglected the scientific method normally. Their approach is subjective and they
adopted the deductive method.
4. A characteristic of the traditional ideas was that they were not only concerned with politics but with many
social sciences. That is why, Plato, Aristotle, Rousseau a Marx etc. are concerned with other social sciences
also.
5. Traditional thinkers used mainly historical and descriptive methods.

6. Traditional thinkers did not try to intermingle political science with other social sciences and,Consequently,
their study could not become interdisciplinary.

Modern View
The liberals limited the study of politics to state, law and the topics concerned therewith because of
which this study remained partial and limited. In the 20th century, emphasis was laid on the modern point of
view of politics and it was set free. Therefore, many basic activities, which were beyond the scope of state,
began to be studied in politics which, thus far, were not its subject matter. The Modern View of Politics may be
discussed, in brief, as under.
(1) Allocation of scarce resources is politics. Resources here do not mean only material resources, but human
and spiritual resources are also included in them. According to David Easton, Politics is the process by which
scarce resources (human, material and spiritual) are allocated within a social unit for the purpose of providing
for human needs and desires. In fact, the individual makes hectic efforts to get the material and non-material
resources which include the political position and offices of profit. Those resources are limited and are not
easily available. Therefore, there is competition to achieve them. Struggle is unavoidable for achieving these
scarce and priceless resources. Various types of efforts are made by individuals and their groups to achieve
them. As a result of these efforts, the process of allocation of theseresources is called Politics. Discussing this
fact about resources, H.D. Lasswell, using some different words, says "Who gets what, when and how?".
(2) The study of Politics is wider than the study of State and Government. The traditionalists had limited
Politics to the study of various institutions concerning State and Government but the proponents of the Modern
View say that Politics is concerned with everything which is related with political life of the individual, and,

Page 4 of 16
which may not be directly related with state or government. Therefore, associations, society, labour
organisations, political parties, pressure and interest groups are also included in the subject matter of politics.
According to Lipson, like other human associations, state also is born in the society and is a part of it. State is
that association through which the process of politics is organised and set in order. According to Lipson the idea
of state is much more limited than politics. He, further, says that wherever state exists, there is also politics. But
the converse is not true—that wherever politics exists so does state. We can rightly speak of international
politics but we know that there is not yet a supranational state. We can talk of politics within churches or
corporations or trade unions, although, none of these is a state.
(3) Politics is the art and practice of Government of human societies. The conclusions can be drawn from this
definition of Politics given by Robert. Firstly, Politics is an art and the behavior of the individual is studied in it,
i.e. the study of political activities of man is Politics. Secondly, here government means the organised power,
i.e., where the activities concerning issuing of orders and establishing of control take place. Thirdly, Politics is
concerned with the whole human society and not with a limited association like state. Thus, Politics is
concerned with those activities of human society also which are not related with the state.
(4) Politics is the study of power. Now-a-days, there is an agreement about the study of state as power.
According to Lasswell, Politics is the study of the influence. He further says that Politics is the "study of
shaping and sharing of political power". Defining power, Wiseman has said that it is the "ability to get one's
wishes carried out despite opposition." Thus, in view of such writers power is Politics. They study the questions
like as to what is Power in politics, how is it achieved, how is it maintained, what are its aim, its ideals, its scope
and bases and how is it lost? This point of view has been studied in this chapter elsewhere.
(5) Politics is an effort to bring about the rule of order and justice. Politics is normally viewed as a conflict
and struggle and it is said that Politics is that struggle in which those who have power try to maintain it and
make use of it and those who are out of power try to get it by controlling the government. But it is only one
aspect of power. The other aspect is that Politics is an effort to establish law and order and justice in the society
where balance is maintained in the interests of the society and the individual and the common interest is
secured. Thus, there are two aspects of Politics. First, Politics protects the privileges of minority and, secondly,
Politics teaches about the organised unity of individuals as society. In fact, politics is concerned with both the
aspects discussed above. However arbitrary a ruler may be, he has to work for common interest also and law
and order has to be established in society. Thus, Politics is also an effort for the establishment of law and order
and justice in the society.

Behavioral View
In Politics, Behavioralism started in the 20th century. Its roots can be seen in the ideas of Graham
Wallas etc., before the First World War, and, it was developed by the American writers after the Second World
War. The pivotal point of behavioralism is the political behaviour. These thinkers study the attitudes,
motivations and perceptions of man through political behaviour with the help of which political processes etc.
may be studied in a scientific way. For this they adopt new scientific methods and techniques which have been
borrowed from other social and physical sciences. The birth of behavioralism is based on the dissatisfaction
with the achievements of traditional political science. They felt that the methods— historical, philosophical
analytical etc.—used in the traditional analysis were not adequate. So, they tried to search the new scientific
methods. Krikpatrick mentions the following four characteristics of behavioralism:

Page 5 of 16
 (i) It is a study of the individual behaviour. In behavioralism, the behaviour of the individual, instead of
the political institutions, is analysed. This is its main characteristic.
(ii) It is inter-disciplinary. Behavioralism can be studied only in relation with other disciplines. In the
absence of the knowledge of other social sciences, Politics cannot be studied. Therefore, they lay
emphasis on interdisciplinary method.
(iii) For analysis, it lays emphasis on the scientific method. Behavioralism emphasises thecollection of
statistics, instead of facts, and their evaluation with scientific methods. (iv) The behavioralists
want to establish systematised pragmatic theory.
Major Tenets of Behavioral View. In the recent past, many Western writers—David B. Truman, Robert A.
Dahl, David Easton, Heisz Eulau, Krikpatrick, Malford Q. Sibley etc.—have thoughtfully analysed this
movement.
There are many writers of behavioralism and all of them are not unanimous on every point but on the point of
behavior almost all of them agree. Sonit and Tenenhans have explained the Following main bases of
bahavioralism in their essay named "The Behavioral Traditional Debate
in Political Science".
(i) It is capable of predicting. Behavioralists agree that if a student of politics adopts strictly analytical method
for organised development of political knowledge instead of wholly explanatory method, politics can be made
capable of making predictions.
(ii) Politics should concern itself primarily with observable behaviour. The main topic of the study of politics
should be that bahaviour of the individual or the group which can be observed, only that should be studied
which is said or done by individual or a group.
(iii) Data should be quantified. Every behaviour should be collected in such statistics which can be measured
and their conclusion may be drawn from various sides. To base one's conclusions of study of such statistics is
correct.
(iv) Its values are beyond the scope of measurement. The topics of political science, which are related with
values, e.g. democracy, liberty, equality and justice, are beyond the limit of legitimate enquiry because such
values cannot be established as true or false on the basis of science.
(v) Political Science should be more inter disciplinary. Study of politics is not possible in a limited field. The
study of the political activities of the individual is possible only in the social atmosphere. Therefore, it is
essential for a political scientist to achieve the knowledge of the other social sciences. Moreover, he is
dependent on other sciences for scientific technique of enquiry. Therefore, the behaviouralists lay emphasis on
inter-disciplinary study. The inter disciplinary approach to the study of political Science gives a broader
perspective and thus enables to understand problems more thoroughly and more fruitfully. The study of political
Science as a social process provides ample scope for an lnter-disciplinary approach. The inter-disciplinary is
based on the assumptions that the social reality is one and different disciplines study different aspects of this
reality for the sake of convenience. A comprehensive understanding of this reality requires combined efforts of
all disciplines.

SCOPE OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

The scope of Political Science implies its jurisdiction or subject matter. Political Science is a very wide
and comprehensive subject. There is no agreement among the Political Scientists as regard to the scope of

Page 6 of 16
Political Science. Despite this disagreement, we may make an attempt to define the scope of Political Science
which includes the followings:

1. A study of the State and Government:

Political Science primarily studies the problems of the State and Government. The state is defined as a
group of people organised for law within definite territory. The State possesses four characteristics, viz.
Population, territory, government and sovereignty. Government is an agent of the Stale. Political Science
studies the activities of the State and explains the aims and objectives of the State and government.

2. A Study of Political Theory:

Political theory is a major branch of Political Science. On the basis of the political ideas or thoughts of
political thinkers, political theory formulates definitions or concepts like democracy, liberty, equality, grounds
of political obligation, etc. A student of Political Science must start his lessons with political theory. Political
theory explains the rudimentary concepts of Political Science. It also includes the study of political philosophy.

3. Public Administration:
` Public Administration is a major branch of Political Science and is emerging as an independent
discipline in recent times. It deals with the organization, control and coordination of administrative machinery,
personnel administration, financial administration, public relations, management, administrative law and
adjudication etc. It also covers the study of local self-governing institutions like corporations, municipalities and
Panchayati Raj institutions.

4. Political Philosophy:
It is concerned with the theoretical and speculative consideration of the fundamental principles used by
Political Science. Eminent political philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau,
Hegel, Mill, Marx, and Gandhi have expressed their views on nature, functions and ends of the state and
government. On the basis of their ideas, political theory defines political concepts. An important function of
political philosophy has been to project values and ideals which political institutions strive hard to attain.

5. A Study of Political Institutions:

The field of Political Science is rather vast. It includes the study of political institutions. This covers a
study of constitutions and comparative government, explains their merits and demerits, their structure and
working and arrives at different conclusions on comparative basis. Besides, the study of public administration
and local government may be included in this area. These institutions are useful to the nation and hence they are
studied along with the State.

6. A study of Political Dynamics:

The study of political dynamics has become significant in the 20th century. It means the current forces at
work in government and politics. It covers a wide range and includes the study of political parties, public
opinion, pressure groups, lobbies, etc. A scientific study of the working of these political dynamics helps to

Page 7 of 16
explain the political behavior of individuals and different groups. The study in this field is often done in
collaboration with other social sciences like sociology, anthropology and psychology.

7. A Study of Adjustment of the Individual with the State:

The scope of political science also includes a study of the nature of relationship between the individual
and the State. It examines how man should adjust himself with the society. Man is the root of politics. The
process of adjustment of men with the society is an important aspect of Political Science.

8. A study of International Relations and international law

Lastly, the scope of Political Science includes a study of international relations which has become
significant since the first quarter of the 20th century. It covers a wide range and includes diplomacy,
international politics, international law, international organisations like the United Nations, etc. The States are
the subjects of international law. International law has assumed greater importance in recent times.

The above contents show the wide range of subjects that come under the fold of Political Science.
Broadly speaking, political science contains the topics dealing with both empirical facts and philosophical
values. Questions of facts are concerned with ―what is‖ and those dealing with values are concerned with ―what
should be‖. The contents of political science fall in either of these two broad categories.

MAJOR APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

In simple terms, an approach may be defined as a way of looking at and then explaining particular
phenomena. Approaches and methods to the study of politics are many and most of them seem to overlap each
other in varying measures. From Plato and Aristotle in the remote past to Laski and Laswell in the present we
have a very large number of great thinkers, theorists and analysts who have made an attempt to understand and
explain political reality in their own ways, with their own approaches.

TRADITIONAL APPROACHES

The traditional approach was basically normative in character and was mainly concerned with the question of
‗what ought‘. It was more descriptive in nature. The focus of the study revolved on the state and its institutions
and constitution of particular country. It paid little attention to the general social framework within
whichtheinstitutionandconstitution operated. Furthermore, it was also characterized by methodological
insensitivity.
The traditional approaches to Political Science was widely prevalent till the outbreak of the Second World
War. These approaches were mainly related to the traditional view of politics which emphasized the study of the
state and government. Therefore, traditional approaches are primarily concerned with the study of the
organization and activities of the state and principles and the ideas which underlie political organizations and
activities. These approaches were normative and idealistic. The political thinkers advocating these approaches,
therefore, raised questions like ‗what should be an ideal state?‘ According to them the study of Political Science
should be confined to the formal structures of the government, laws, rules and regulations. Thus, the advocates
of the traditional approaches emphasize various norms - what ‗ought to be‘ or ‗should be‘ rather than ‗what is‘.
Page 8 of 16
Characteristics of Traditional Approaches:

1.Traditional approaches are largely normative and stresses on the values of politics
2. Emphasis is on the study of different political structures.
3.Traditional approaches made very little attempt to relate theory and research
4.These approaches believe that since facts and values are closely interlinked, studies in Political Science can
never be scientific.

Various forms of Traditional Approaches: The traditional approaches can be sub-divided into the following-

1.Philosophical
2.Historical
3.Institutional
4. Legal approaches.

1. Philosophical Approach:

This approach is regarded as the oldest approach to the study of Political Science. The emergence of this
approach can be traced back to the times of the Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle. Leo Strauss was
one of the main advocates of the philosophical approach. He believes that ―the philosophy is the quest for
wisdom and political philosophy is the attempt truly to know about the nature of political things and the right or
good political order.‖ This approach firmly believes that the values cannot be separated from the study of
politics. Therefore, its main concern is to judge what is good or bad in any political society. It is mainly an
ethical and normative study of politics and, thus, idealistic. It deals with the problems of the nature and
functions of the state, citizenship, rights and duties etc. The advocates of this approach firmly believe that
political philosophy is closely linked with the political ideologies. Therefore, they are of the opinion that a
political scientist must have the knowledge of good life and good society. Political philosophy helps in setting
up of a good political order.

2. Historical Approach:

According to the advocates of this approach, political theory can be only understood when the historical
factors like the age, place and the situation in which it is evolved are taken into consideration. As the name of
this approach is related to history, it emphasizes on the study of history of every political reality to analyze any
situation. Political thinkers like Machiavelli, Sabine and Dunning believe that politics and history are intricately
related and the study of politics always should have a historical perspective. Sabine is of the view that Political
Science should include all those subjects which have been discussed in the writings of different political
thinkers from the time of Plato. This approach strongly upholds the belief that the thinking or the ideology of
every political thinker is shaped by the surrounding environment. Moreover, history not only speaks about the
past but also links it with the present events. History provides the chronological order of every political event

Page 9 of 16
and thereby helps in future estimation of events also. Hence, without studying the past political events,
institutions and political environment it would be wrong to analyze the present political scenario/ events.

3. Institutional Approach:

This is a very old and important approach to the study of Political Science. This approach mainly deals
with the formal aspects of government and politics emphasizes the study of the political institutions and
structures. Thus, the institutional approach is concerned with the study of the formal structures like legislature,
executive, judiciary, political parties, interest groups etc. The advocates of this approach includes both ancient
and modern political thinkers. Among the ancient thinkers Aristotle is an important contributor to this approach
while the modern thinkers include James Bryce, Bentley, Walter Bagehot, Harold Laski, etc.

4. Legal Approach:

This approach regards the state as the fundamental organization for the creation and enforcement of
laws. Therefore, this approach is concerned with the legal process, legal bodies or institutions, justice and
independence of judiciary. The advocates of this approach are Cicero, Jean Bodin, Thomas Hobbes, Jeremy
Bentham, John Austin, Dicey and Sir Henry Maine.

Criticism

The various traditional approaches to the study of Political Science have been criticized for being
normative. These approaches were idealistic also as their concern went beyond how and why political events
happen to what ought to happen. In the later period, the modern approaches have made an attempt to make the
study of Political Science more scientific and, therefore, emphasize empiricism.

MODERN APPROCHES IN POLITICAL SCIENCE AND POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY

POLITICAL SCIENCE: (Behavioural, Post-behavioural and Marxian Approaches)

The scientific or modern approach attempted to make the study more scientific and analytical and was concern
with the question of ‗what is‘. In other words it was based on facts. It not only focused on the state but also laid
much emphasis on the system taking into account the general social framework within which the state operated.
It has a general concern with analyzing similarities and uniformities common to many systems. Unlike the
traditional approach it devoted itself and laid much emphasis on refining a method of study
1. BEHAVIORAL APPROACH
Behaviouralism, is regarded as a turning point in the history of political science, thought and analysis. It has
been widely acclaimed as a great revolution which has transformed the goals, nature, scope, methodology, and
theoretical formulations of political science. Emergence of behavioral studies reflects the determination of new
scholars to derive their findings on the basis of direction or indirect observation of human behaviour. It is to be
regarded as a first real attempt to make political studies as a ‗science of politics‘.
Meaning
Page 10 of 16
 The behavioural approach in political science is concerned with what man does politically and the
meaning he attaches to his behavior. It is concerned with the motivation and mechanism of human behavior.
According to Robert Dahl ―behaviouralism seeks to explain the phenomina of government in terms of the
observed and observable behavior. He further described Behaviouralism as a movement for bringing political
studies into close relationship with theories, methods, findings and outlooks in modern Psychology, Sociology,
Anthropology and Economics.
Behaviouralism is an intellectual tendency and academic movement. It has so many facets:a revolution,
a reform movement, a mood, an approach and an attitude. It has been adopted because of its objectivity,
observability, value-neutrality and verifiability. Behaviouralism maintains that there are certain fundamental
units of analysis relating to human behaviourout of which generalisations can be formed. These generalizations
offer a common base on which a ‗science of man‘ can be appropriately built.
The reasons behind the growth of Behaviouralism are;
1. A growing dissatisfaction with the traditional knowledge and methods of study of political science.
2. After the second world war a number of political scientists involved in large scale government research
projects.especially in united states.
3. Arrival of sociologically oriented research scholars like Harold Lasswell, Robert Dahl, A.F Bently, who
promoted scientific studies.
4. Financial assistance from the social science research council like Ford Foundation etc.
5. Growth and use of new research techniques and methods like survey method, interview method, case
study method, statistical method, questionnaire method in political science research.
So far behaviouralism remained only a ‗movement of protest‘ against traditional methods of analysis.
After the Second World War, the movement came out in the form of an academic revolution.Evalution of
behaviouralism has witnessed certain trends also. In its first phase (1920- 30), it paid more attention to
qualitative aspects and less on substantive and theoretical problems. In its second phase, up to 1950,
behavioualists moved in both substantive and non-substantive areas. After that, they began to specialise in
various directions: multi-methodologism, behavioural theories, behavioural positivism and watsonian
Behaviouralism
. Behaviouralism can be also being broadly divided as (a) pure behaviouralism, and (b) applied
behaviouralism. Pure behaviouralism aims at contributing to theory and techniques of the discipline, and
remains ready to study any problem. It purpose is ‗pure research‘, or knowledge for the sake of knowledge,
seeking generalisations on the basis of technical judgments. Applied behaviouralists take up problems of
important social consequences and collaborate with several disciplines to solve them. Often they behave like
social reformers, administrators or engineers and have some consideration towards persons and situations.
Basic Tenets of Behaviouralism

(1) Regularities- These are certain discoverable uniformities in political behavior of human beings that can be
expressed in generalisations or theories capable of explaining and predicating social phenomena.
(2) Verification- The validity of such generalisation must be tested and verified in principle by reference to
relevance to relevant behavior.
(3) Techinques-Appropirate techniques should be used for observing, recording, acquiring, analyzing or testing
and interpreting the data.

Page 11 of 16
(4) Quantification-Ample care should be taken by a researcher not merely to collect data but also to measure
and quantify the same. Quantification and measurement are the essential ingredients that determine the
scientific method.
(5) Values- Facts and values may be studied separately. Ethical evaluation and empiricalexplanation should be
kept analytically distinct and it should be value free or value neutral.
(6) Systematization- It means that research in the field of political science should be systematic.
Attempts should be made to build systematic theories on the basis of logically interrelated body of concepts and
propositions.
(7) Pure Science- The behaviouralists contented that both theory and its application are parts of scientific
method and must be closely linked.
(8) Integration- The study of political Science should be integrated with other social sciences and inter-
disciplinary approach should be adopted. It will facilitate cross fertilization of ideas and results in more
generality and validity of political studies.
The behavioral approach originated due to dissatisfaction with the traditional approaches. It was opined
that the traditional approaches laid emphasis on organized formal institutional structures which made political
Science functionally irrelevant as it lacked an insight into operational dimensions. Many developments in other
social sciences like sociology, psychology and anthropology influenced the behaviouralist to restructure the
study of political science. The behavioral approach focuses on political behavior. It calls on political behavior.
It calls for the study of acts, attitudes, preferences and expectations of man in the political context. It lays
emphasis on the collection and examination of facts relating to actual behaviour of man as a social and political
being. Thus, behaviouralism shifts its focus from study of politics, from formalism and normative orientations
of the legalistic and philosophical schools to political behaviour, i.e., the behaviour of actual actors in the
political field like power-holders and powerseekers as well as voters.

Characteristics of behvioural approach

Movement of protest: - Behaviouralism primarily sort of protest movement against the inadequacies of
conventional political science mainly led by the American political scientists. They are highly dissatisfied with
the achievements of conventional political science because of its inadequacies. The conventional political
science confined its study only to the state and government and he did not take into account the political
phenomena and the behavior of men. Therefore, behaviouralism has shifted its emphasis from the ideal state,
government and political institutions to the day today political problems of the citizens. Consequently new
methods of study and research have developed in political science.
Focus on behaviour: - Behaviouralism is a sort of protest movement against traditional approaches in political
science; therefore, behaviouralism has made the individual as centre of attention in the study of political
phenomena. Behaviouralists are concerned with the individual‘s political behaviour as a member of group and
institutions.
Scientific outlook and objectivity:- Behaviouralism stress the special importance of the scientific outlook and
objectivity. Behaviouralists overlook the ethical values because they cannot be studied scientifically and
objectively. Instead they advocate value free science of politics. They emphasize empirical values which are
arrived at after a lot objective study and scientific investigation.
Methodological revolution:- Behaviouralism brought about altogether a new approach in the study of political
research. Consequently, some scholars regard behaviouralism as nothing but a methodological revolution in

Page 12 of 16
political science. Whereas the traditional political scientist employed philosophical, historical or comparative
methods for thief study, the behaviouralists emphasis such techniques are observation, interviews, survey,
research, case studies, data collection, statistical analysis, quantification etc.,the behaviouralists have drawn
frequently from natural sciences such as Mathematics, Statistics, Physics, Biology etc.
Inter-disciplinary study:- The political behaviour of an individual is a part of the total social behaviour of all
the individuals. In order to get a proper understanding a modern researcher in political science has to take the
help of various social sciences or different disciplines like Sociology, History, Economics and Anthropology
and so on. Great anthropologists and sociologist like Durkheim,Malin Dwaki, Tallcot Parsons. Edward Shills
have made unique contribution to systems theory and the structural-Functional approach. The modern political
scientists have also started studying the works of the above famous sociologists and anthropologists because the
behavioral method cannot be understood fully without studying deeply other disciplines (social sciences).
Invention of scientific theory:- The main aim of the behaviouralists is to build a scientific theory with the help
of observation and experimentation, which may be able to predict things and be applied universally.
Criticims of behaviourl approach
Though behaviouralism made a breakthrough in the field of political Science, it has been critized on
many fronts. Some of its weaknesses have been identified as follows:

(1) Behaviouralism concerns more with Techniques than Results:-Behaviouralist attach too much importance
to the techniques and methods and do not worry at all about the theoretical importance of the subject. While
doing the research, the behaviouralists have chosen only such topics for research in which better techniques are
a available and they have ignored the rest. Besides that they have not bothered about the results.
(2) Behaviouralism emphasis the importance of behavioral effect at the cost of institutional
effects:- it should be noted particularly that American behaviouralists have altogether neglected the effects of
the institutions upon the society and concentrated their efforts only at the behavioural aspect of the individuals
and groups confined mainly in America.
(3) Study of politics can never be value-free: - the critics of behaviouralism contend that politics can never be
value free as held by the behaviouralists. In politics very selection of subjects for investigation is determined by
values.
(4) Behaviouralism emphasis static rather than current situation: - Behaviouralists have been concentrating
their study mainly on the static subjects rather on the current problems. In the beginning behaviouralists
justified they were filling the gap left by the institutionalists but now it cannot be justified as the burning
problems such as threat of nuclear war, hunger, famine, undernourishment etc. The behaviouralists have so far
ignored all these urgent problems because that does not suit their study.
(5) Difficulties in studying ever changing behaviour: - it is very difficult to study the ever changing behaviour
of man because the emotions, ideas and thinking go on changing continuously. Therefore, absolutely no correct
predictions can be made about thebehaviour of man. Moreover, it is very difficult to measure the role of various
factors governing the behavior of man.
(6) Behavioral research depends too much on other sciences:- political science is depending upon other social
sciences particularly sociology and anthropology and borrowing so much from them that it is apprehended that
the very identity, integrity and autonomy of political science may be lost. Inter-disciplinary approach can be
helpful in understanding many political problems but it cannot solve all the complexities about human
behaviour. Despite the criticism, the contribution of behavior revolution to political science needs to be

Page 13 of 16
acknowledged. Certain specific areas in political science for example study of voting behaviour, enquiry into
political process etc, have been benefited greatly by the new approach. The salutary results of behavioral
movement may be summed up as new awareness about the needs of scientific research greater degree of
empiricism and an increasing use of new analytical technique.

2. POST-BEHAVIOURALISM
Post-Behvioralism is the next step or reform movement of behavioral revolution. Like behaviouralism, it
was again propounded by David Easton in his presidential address to the American Political Science
Association in 1969 which relied on relevance and action? It laid new emphasis on ‗values‘, on issues of justice,
freedom and equality. David Easton pointed out that post-behaviouralism was future oriented, seeking to propel
political science in new directions, and to add rather than deny its past heritage. It was both a movement and an
intellectual tendency.
Post-behaviouralism emphasis on the facts as well as values. It is a reform movement within the
discipline of political science. The two basic motivation of post-behaviouralism is relevance and action.
Relevance means the development of such theories which can be utilized for the good of the society. The
research techniques are good but emphasis should be on using these research techniques to make theories which
will answer the problem of the society. While behaviouralism was a movement against traditionalism, the post-
behaviouralism was also a movement against behaviouralism itself but instead of condemning either of the two
methods of thought, it was synthesis between the two contending schools of thought. Behaviouralism was not a
new discipline; rather it was just a new technique, a new approach, with a new focus in view for the study of
political science.
The behavioral approach was trying to convert the study of politics into a discipline based on the
methodology of natural sciences. Mathematics was making its way in political science to the extent that it began
to look more of mathematics than a science related to the realities of social life. In their efforts at research and
application of scientific methods. The behaviouralists had gone for away from the realities of social behaviour.
In this way political science again lost touch with the current and contemporary world.
The behaviouralism which failed to solve any practical problem of the world even after spending cores
of rupees on research in regard to developing new methodology and techniques. Therefore post-behaviouralism
arose as a protest-movement against behaviouralism. The action part involves bringing about changes in the
society by social action. David Easton who had once enumerated eight main characteristics of behaviouralism
and call them the ‗the intellectual foundation stones ‗ of the movement, now came out with seven major traits
of post-behaviouralism and described them as the ‗credo of Relevance‘ or ‗a distillation of maximal image‘
they can be summarized as follows:
1. Substance must have precedence over the technique: it may be good to have sophisticated tools of
investigation, but the more important point was the purpose for which these tools were to be applied. Unless the
scientific research was relevant and meaningful for the contemporary urgent social problems, it was not worth
being undertaken. To the slogan raised by the behaviouralist that it was to be wrong than vague, the post-
behaviouralist raised the counter-slogan that it was better to be vague than nonrelevantly precise.
2. Political science should not lose touch with brute realties of politics: political science, during the behavioral
movement, had broken itself from the brute realities of politics. With its enormous wealth and technical
resources, and a fantastic rate of increase in man‘s material comforts, the western world was, at the same time,
moving towards increasing social conflicts and deepening fears and anxieties about the future. If it was not the

Page 14 of 16
responsibility of the political scientists to reach out to the real needs of the humanity, of what use political
science was to society.
3. Political science must not be value force: behaviouralistts had put much emphasis on scientism and value-
free approaches. This was a very unhappy situation. It was on value premises that all knowledge stood and
unless values were regarded as the propelling force behind knowledge, there was a danger that the knowledge
was to be used for wrong purposes. Values played an important role in politics, and research. They should not
be thrown out from political science in the name of science.
4. Political Science should aim for social change and not for social preservation: Contemporary political
science should place its main emphasis on social change and not on social preservation as the behaviouralists
seemed to be doing.
5. Political science should preserve the human values of civilization: The post behaviouralists anted to remind
the political scientists that, being intellectuals, they had a role to play in the society. It was responsibility to do
the best to protect the humane values of civilization.
6. There is a need for action in place of contemplative science: if the intellectuals understood the social
problems and felt themselves involved in them they could not keep themselves away from action. Knowledge
must be put to work. As Easton point out, ―to know is to bear the responsibility for acting and to act is to engage
in reshaping society‖. Contemplative science might have been all right in the nineteenth century, when there
was a broader moral agreement among the nations, but it was completely out of place in the contemporary
society which was sharply divided over ideals and ideologies. The postbehaviouralists ask for action science in
place of contemplative science.
7. There is an urgent need to politicise the profession: once it was recognized that the intellectuals had a
positive role to play in the society and this role was to try to determine proper goals for society and make
society move in the direction of these goals, it became inevitable to draw the conclusion that the polarization of
the profession of all professional associations as well as universities- became not only inescapable but highly
desirable.
The post-bhaviourlists reply to the argument that science had some ideal commitments of science and that
behaviouralism shared these ideal commitments of science, is that if science led its votaries to close their eyes
in the face of urgent social problems the very image of sciences should change. The post behaviouralists did not
deny the importance of technical technician proficiency, but they did not agree that the search for basic
understanding and reliable knowledge necessarily implied that the scientists should not cut him adrift from the
practical concerns of society, nor did they believe that values could be kept out of all scientific pursuits.
Research according to the post-behaviouralists was to be related to urgent social problems and was to be
purposive. If the present crisis in society arose out of deep social conflicts, these conflicts had to be resolved. If
the resolution of the conflicts needed breaking up of the existing political order, the political scientists should
fairly and boldly ask for that, and he must not only rest content with suggesting reforms or, if need be
revolution, but also contribute his best to the reshaping of society in the direction in which it could serve the
desired goal more effectively. To conclude, post–behavioral approach does not mean a new wave of
methodological innovations. It signifies stock-taking and re-appraisal. There is a noticeable trend back to the
vital aspect concerning value-preferences, identified with the normative approach. The post-behaviouralists did
not deny the importance of technical proficiency, but they did not agree that the search for basic understanding
and reliable knowledge necessarily implied that the scientist should not cut himself adrift from the practical
concerns of the society, nor did they believe that values could be kept out of all scientific pursuits. It was the

Page 15 of 16
duty of the political scientists to find out solutions to contemporary problems. If the present crisis in society
arose out of deep social conflicts, these conflicts had to be resolved. If the resolution of the conflicts needs
breaking up of the existing political order, the political scientists should fairly and boldly ask for that, and he
must not only rest being content with suggesting reforms but also contribute his best to the reshaping of society
in the direction in which it could serve the desired goals more effectively. Thus it can be concluded that from
the traditional approaches to the post-behavioral approach, there is not only change but also continuity.

3. MARXIAN APPROACH
In the entire history of political thought both on influence in criticism, few political theorists can match
Karl Marx. He was truly the last of the great critics in the western intellectual tradition. His ideas exerted a
decisive influence on all aspects of human Endeavour and transformed the study of history and society. He was
the first thinker to bring together the various strands of socialist thought into both a coherent world view and an
impassioned doctrine of struggle. Along with Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), with whom he shared an
unparalleled partnership, Marx dissected 19 the century capitalism as scientific socialism or communism.
Marxism is not only a critical appraisal of capitalism but also a viable or credible alternative to it. Marxism is at
once an orientation, programme of action and a working class movement.

Page 16 of 16
 PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
UNIT-II- STATE:-MEANING, ELEMENTS AND NATURE

Origin of the state

Various attempts have been made in a speculative manner to explain the method by which the state
came into existence. These efforts were concerned, not primarily with the actual historical process of state
origin, but rather with a reasonable explanation of the way in which the state may have been supposed to
originate. They were attempts to give rational answers to the questions of why men lived in political
organisation, or why they should submit to political authority, and of what limits should be placed to such
authority.

The Social Contract Theory

The social contract theory starts with the assumption that man lived originally in a “state of nature”;
antecedent to the formation of a political organisation. During that time he was subjected only to such rules of
natural law as are prescribed by nature itself; and was the processor of natural rights. Later on, in its place man
deliberately formed an agreement or contract by which they setup a body politic. Submitting to the control of
all, they received in return the protection of all, thus losing their natural liberty but receiving in return security.
Human law replaced natural law, and each individual became the processor of political rights and obligations.
The state was thus of deliberate human creation, and authority was derived from the consent of the people. The
chief exponents of social contract theory were Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau.

Though there is general agreement about State of Nature, thinkers differ about its details. Hobbes gave
a gloomy picture about the State of Nature. In his opinion it was a state of war, a savage state. Men were selfish
and aggressive brutes. Every man was the enemy of other man. Might was Right. To avoid the fear and danger
of this terrible situation, man agreed to set up an authority.

To Locke, life in the state of nature was one of peace and ease. Freedom and tranquility was prevailed.
Men were bound by the law of nature and processed some natural rights. But there was the absence of an
agency to interpret and implement the law of nature. So, men agreed to create a common authority.

According to Rousseau people led an ideal life and enjoyed „idyllic happiness‟ in the state of nature.
But the rise of population and the rise of property create some evils in the society. To eliminate these evils from
the society they tried to settle a contract. As a result of this contract state was formed.

Evolutionary Theory of State

This Evolutionary theory is also known as sociological or the correct theory of the origin of the state. So
long as social sciences had not made any development and it was very difficult to determine the correct theory
the origin of the state. The advancement of the fields of history, anthropology and archaeology helped in finding
out various forces and factors responsible for the creation of the state. The Evolutionary Theory is regarded as

Sj-csicls
the true and correct theory regarding the origin of the state. This theory helps in understanding the forces and
factors, which created the state and historical stage through which it passed.

Factors of Evolutionary Theory of State

Following are the forces and factors evolutionary theory of sate

1.Kinship
2.Magic and Religion
3.Property and the rise of Economic Classes
4.War and Force
5.Political Consciousness
Kinship
The state is based on the principle of command and obedience. In the earliest stages we find such a
relationship in the family based on blood and birth. In this respect the matriarchal and patriarchal societies
became the basis of the origin of the state. There were families, clans and tribes, whose Memberships were
based on blood relationship which was the first element of social unity and the first basis of organization and
discipline. There used to be a council of elders with a chief as political authority whose command was obeyed
by all the members of the tribe.. In this way the path was paved for the development of the state

Magic and Religion

In ancient times people were not civilized and advanced. So they did not understand the forces of nature.
At that stage man was at the mercy of nature. So he tried to control them by different practices which later on
got the name of magic. Some people tribes had the knowledge of these forces. So they acquired superiority over
others and became their leaders. With the passage of time such men became the priest-kings. Slowly and
gradually religion became a powerful instrument for keeping control over the people. Even today religion plays
an important role in the state activities.

Property and the rise of Economic Classes

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. It is said where there is no property there can be no
government. This means that the government and the state came into existence with the beginning of the private
property and the division of the society with classes.

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

Sj-csicls
 became the king. In this way a tribal state was changed into kingdoms and in this way the modern state came
into being.

Political Consciousness
This means the thought of knowledge as to why political organization is needed. In the beginning there
was the need for defense and protection of life, liberty and property, regulation of social relations etc. Political
consciousness began in ancient times. It is a very slow process. It took a very long time for man to ask about the
political authority. The day people asked the question why political consciousness began and about its
progresses and development. This also helped in the growth and development of the state and government.

Meaning of State

The state existed under different names in different periods as an authority for maintaining the order and
protection in the society. The early Greeks used the term „Polis‟, while Romans used Two other terms such as
„civitas‟ and „republica‟. During the medieval period it was known as „Christian Commonwealth‟. It was in the
16th century that Machiavelli used the Italian term „stato‟ (state) in a modern scientific sense.

By the end of the 18th century, the term “state‟ come into use to represent that human association which
is composed of four essential elements such as population, territory, government and sovereignty.

Key Features of State

The state exercise authority through a set of permanent institutions referred as the government. The key
features of a state are as follows;

1) The institutions of the state are „public‟ in contrast to the private institutions of civil society. State bodies are
responsible for making and enforcing collective decisions in society and are founded at the public expense.
2) The state has legitimacy. Its decisions are usually accepted as binding on its citizens because it is claimed; it
reflects the permanent interests of society.
3) The state is an instrument of domination. It possesses the coercive power to ensure that its laws are obeyed and
those who disobey the law are punished.
4) The state exercise sovereignty. A state must be able to make and enforce policies on its citizens without any
form of external control.

5) Population- Without people, there is nothing like a state because people are the one who make up the state.

6) Boundaries/Defined Territory- A state must have specific boundaries separating it from other states.

7) Permanence- The state stays permanent unlike the government which changes periodically.

8) Recognition- A state must be recognized internationally to participate in nationwide activities like international
trade, global summits, Olympics, etc.

9) Government- The last but not the least. A state must have a government even though it is not permanent.

Sj-csicls
 Important Elements of State
1. Population:
The state is a human institution. So population is its primary element. There is no hard and fast rule
about population. The ancient Greek writers like Plato and Aristotle preferred a small population. According to
Plato, an ideal state should have a population of 5040. Aristotle laid down a general principle that the
population of a state should be large enough to make it sufficient and small enough to make good government
possible. It must be remembered that both of them were thinking in terms of small city-states.

In modern times, Rousseau, prompted by considerations of direct democracy, fixed the number at
10,000. In modern times states vary greatly from the few thousands of Monaco or of San Marino to the crores of
China or of India. The modern tendency is in favor of large states. To recapitulate(summarise) a large
population is an advantage from the point of view of military defense.

However, a large population can be a liability if the resources of the state are not adequate for its
maintenance. One of the main problems faced by developing countries is over-population. Thus there should be
a well balance between the size of the population and material wealth of a state.

2. Territory:
A definite and more or less permanent territory is also regarded as an essential element of the state. In
modern times, the citizens are bound together by residence on a common territory. Land, water and air space
comprise the territory of a state. As in population, so in territory, no limit can be laid down. Small states and
large ones exist side by side. We have tiny states like San Marino with an area of less than twenty-five square
miles. On the other hand, there are giant states like the Russian Republic, China, U. S. A., and Australia with
millions of square miles.

According to international law, all states are equal in status and right, no matter how unequal they are in
population and area. It is claimed that small states are good for efficient administration and inculcating a sense
of unity and love for the state among the people. However, the truth is that a small state is a disadvantage in its
relations with larger ones. Small states are under the influence of other large and powerful states. It is said in
favour of large states that they are strong in defense and because of availability of resources they are
economically self-sufficient.

It can be pointed out that the power and security of a state are not determined only by the size of its
territory. Some other factors in this regard are geographical location, resources and climate.

3. Government:
A group people occupying a definite territory cannot form a state unless they are politically organized
i.e., unless they possess a government. Government is the political organization of the state. It is the concrete
and visible instrument of state power. According to Garner, government is the agency through which "common
policies are determined and by which common affairs are regulated." The actions which have to be taken place
in a state are act through the government. Government must be effective; it must possess the capacity to
maintain order and enforce obedience. Without a government there would be lawlessness and anarchy and
ultimately the state would be dissolved.
Sj-csicls
 Government consists of three organs, namely, legislature, executive and judiciary. The legislature makes
laws; the executive enforces laws while the judiciary adjudicates cases or disputes.

There are different kinds of government in different states such as monarchy, democracy and
dictatorship. Most of developed states are democracies. Many developing countries including India have
democratic governments. Whatever might be the form of government, one thing is clear that there will be no
state without government.

4. Sovereignty:
By far the most important characteristic of the state is its sovereignty. It is the characteristic which
distinguishes the state from all other associations. It denotes the supreme power or the final authority for which
there is no appeal. Sovereignty has two aspects such as internal and external. As per internal aspect, the state
has supreme power over all individuals and associations within its fixed area. It can compel obedience of its
people to its laws and commands. And as per external aspect, the state is free from control of any foreign state
or alien rule. Before independence India was not a state as it was ruled by the British.

It should be noted that however, absolute sovereignty is a legal concept, in actual practice no state is
able to exercise unlimited power either over individuals and associations within its territorial domain or in its
international relations.

A state respects and abides by international laws, treaties and the policies of the international
organizations like the UN and its agencies. A number of writers who have attacked the concept of absolute
sovereignty on theoretical grounds also hold that it is undesirable. H. J. Laski, for example, regards it as
incompatible with the interests of humanity and world peace.

5. International Recognition:
In modern times relations among nations have grown and many international organisations and
institutions have come into being. Therefore some scholars argue that international recognition is an essential
element of state. The recognition of the sovereign status of a new state by other states is called international
recognition.

Nature of State
The state has always been central to political analysis, to such an extent that politics is often understood
as the study of the state. This is evident in two key debates. The first and most fundamental of these focuses
upon the need for the state and the basis of political obligation. The classic justification of state is provided by
social contract theory, which constructs a picture of what life would be like in a stateless society-called as state
of nature. In the view of thinkers such as Hobbes and Locke, as the state of nature would be prepared to enter
into an agreement-a social contract- through which they would sacrifice their liberty in order to create a
sovereign body without which orderly and stable existence would be impossible. Individuals should obey the
state because it is the only safeguard they have against disorder and chaos (a state of extreme confusion and
disorder).

Sj-csicls
 The second area of debate concerns the nature of state power. Much of the political theories deal
specifically with rival theories of the state. The major positions in this debate can be summarized as follows.
Liberals view, the state as a neutral arbiter amongst competing interests and groups in society, a vital guarantee
of social order-an it is considered as a necessary evil. Marxists considered state as an instrument for class
oppression. In the view of democratic socialists‟ state is an embodiment of common good. Conservatives have
generally linked the state to the need for authority and discipline to protect society from any type of disorders.
The feminist thinkers considered state as an instrument for male domination and power.

The following discussion analyses the various nature of the state under different ideologies:

1. Idealist Theory of State

Plato and Aristotle are considered to be the founders of the idealist theory of the state. They started with the
premise that man by nature a social and political animal. It is only by living in society, man can develop his
personality and realize all that are best in him. They never differentiated society from the state. They regarded
the state as a self-sufficing entity identical with the whole of society, existing for itself and by itself. The state is
an ethical institution and therefore, an end in itself. The true state is a partnership in a life of virtue.

When coming to the modern period Hegel, the founder of modern idealism proposed the state as an ethical
community. According to him state is an ethical ideal and the highest expression of human freedom. The
modern idealists developed a philosophy which magnified the state into a self-sufficing entity. They regarded
the state as an organic unity and held it as the highest expression of social morality. State exists to create and
maintain those conditions in which free and moral life is possible. It is accordingly the best and highest of all
other associations. Modern Idealists idealize the state and glorify it to the point of deification. They regard the
state as a vehicle of individual development and progress.

The individual apart from state has no meaning. The life of the individual, his rights and liberties are depend
upon his being as a part of the state. The state is the guarantor and the creator of rights. It guarantees rights by
creating conditions for the full moral development of the individual‟s personality. The state, in this way
becomes the source as well as the guardian of social good. It is an end rather than means. Its authority is
unlimited and its competence unrestricted. The idealists, such as, place the state “upon a pedestal at the foot of
which its members are expected to bow down and worship.” They teach that state cannot do wrong and its laws
can never be unjust. Its authority must be obeyed without any grumbling, and resistance to its commands
however oppressive, is not justifiable.

2. Capitalist State

The capitalist nature of the state was analysed by Karl Marx, who is the architect of Marxist political
philosophy. Here capitalism means the domination of an elite class in the state. In other words, in the capitalist
state the means of production is under the control of this elite group. The elite class means the Chosen Few/
Master Class/Bourgeoisie. The owners of Means of Production determines the three basic questions of
production, that is, What Produce? How to Produce? And Whom to Produce? The basis of capitalist state was
wage labour and the private ownership of the means of production. The ownership in the state was restricted
into a small group. According to Marx, “the men who possess no other property than his labour power must, in

Sj-csicls
 all conditions of society and culture, be the slave of other men, who have made themselves the owners of the
material conditions of labour. He can work only with their permission, hence live only with their permission.”

Marx identified some reasons behind the attractive nature of the capitalist state. These are:

i. Remarkable economic progress through technological development.

ii. The growth of commerce and factories.
iii. Instituting the cooperative social production.

Capitalism was cosmopolitan and international. Because it crossing national boundaries and penetrated
every corner of the world for searching raw materials and markets. It eliminates the distinction between town
and country.

Benefits

 It undermined national barriers

 Abolition of the idiocy of rural life.
 Centralized production.
 Use of advanced technology.
 Attainment of maximum level of profit.

Disadvantages

 Exploitation of labour
 Eviction of peasants
 Alienation of workers
 Decline of Human Resource Development.
 Profit centered production.
 Emergence of Bourgeoisie
 Economic inequality.

3. Marxian State

The early Marxist thinkers considered the state as an instrument of exploitation in the hands of the dominant
class. The state doesn‟t stand for the good of all. rather it protects and promotes the interests of the few at the
coast of the many. The state is an agency of class coercion in the hands of the dominant economic class. The
state maintains its exploitative class character right from its origin through various phases of its developments.

Society is a natural institution, the state is not. The state does not come into existence for the fulfillment of
moral purpose, nor does it emanate from the will of the people. The state did not exist from eternity but came
into existence at a certain stage of social development. The state is neither originated out of the will of society
nor it is maintained for the benefit of all sections of society.

Sj-csicls
 Features

 State is an instrument of class domination.

As soon as mankind emerges from the stage of primitive communism, at every stage of history a particular
class assumes ownership and control the means of production and becomes the dominant class in all spheres of
social life. This class exploits the rest of society which is subjected to its domination.

Marx had indicated the broad outlines of the circumstances which led to the emergence of the state. These
ideas were later developed by his illustrious associate, Friedrich Engels. When the development of productive
forces reached a stage that was marked by surplus production, a class arose in society which managed to secure
ownership of the means of production and forced the rest of the society to labour for their masters. The
machinery of the state was created by the dominant class to maintain its hold on economic power.

 State comes into existence for the protection of private property.

Both the institution of private property and state began at the same period. When the means of production
was just enough for survival, the concept of private property was unknown. But when surplus production
became possible private property came into existence and correspondingly the emergence of two classes-the
haves and the have-nots, exploiters and exploited, master and his slave. The machinery of the state was created
by the dominant class with the primary purpose of protecting its private property.

 State is a symbol of injustice

The Marxist concept of the nature of the state is fundamentally different from the idealist as well as liberal
theories. Liberal thinkers regarded the state as an instrument of order and justice; the idealist regards it as the
expression of superior reason; but the Marxist have found it to be a symbol of social injustice, because the state
creates two different classes in the society. Political power is merely the organized power of one class for
oppressing another.

4. Socialist State

Socialism arose as a reaction to the rise and development of capitalism. It arose at a certain stage of
development when capitalism failed to deliver goods. It arose against the concentration of wealth in fewer
hands; against the deteriorating conditions of the workers; and against over-production, exploitation and
unemployment.

The socialist state stands for the following things:

i. An egalitarian society- a society of human fellowship where genuine liberty exists with reasonable equality.
ii. The satisfaction of man‟s basic needs-a system where there is a sufficiency for all before surplus is available for
some.
iii. Social ownership of the means of production, at least, of some major ones- say, of land, power, banks,
insurance, leading ultimately to a situation of equality of wealth and opportunities.

Sj-csicls
iv. A system where all the citizens have to contribute to the common good or general or social welfare.

The socialist state running on the basis of the equitable distribution of income, resources and wealth.
Unlike the capitalism, here the ownership of the means of production under the control of state. the state doing
the whole productive work for the welfare of all and it is not profit motive. The production process in the
socialist state is service oriented. The common ownership of the wealth and resources are the results of this
service centered production.

Features

 State ownership
 Preservation of social justice, economic justice and political justice.
 Material resources of the society should be distributed on the basis of needs. (“from each according to his
ability, to each according to his need”- Karl Marx)
 Production should be service oriented.

5. Liberal State

Liberal states adopt a liberal attitude towards the rights and privileges of citizens. It has been assumed
that the restrictions of any type adopted by the government will curb the liberty and natural growth of the
individuals. It will increase the growth of mans personality and inherent qualities. So a liberal state denotes a
limited government or limited state. In other words liberal state means limited functions and role of the state in
human affairs.

A state is liberal when it acknowledges the opinions, attitudes and behavior of individuals and doesn‟t
think these as threat to the existence and administration of state. There are differences among the political
philosophers as to the functions of a liberal state, but there is a common strand among them all-and it is that
individuals must have maximum freedom so that their free development does not receive any setback due to
state policy or action.

Features

i. The liberal state embraces multiplicity of ideas, views and existence of numerous groups and parties. This
indicates a competition among them for seizure of political power through constitutional and democratic ways.
The characteristic feature of a liberal state is that these groups are engaged in cooperation and conflict
depending on their interests on public issues.
ii. The liberal state maintains absolute neutrality towards all groups. Since multiplicity of groups and organizations
and coexistence among them are the characteristic features of a liberal state, clash of interests can be seen as an
inevitable consequence.
iii. The important feature of a liberal state is that it is accountable to the citizenry for all its activities, decisions and
policies. The consent and accountability are the twin ideas associated with the liberal state.

Sj-csicls
 iv. A liberal state always adopts a liberal attitude towards the rights of citizens. Mention has been made that the
most vital precondition of individual‟s development is granting of rights and privileges to all individuals
equitably.
v. A liberal state cannot be imagined without political parties; and this is not all. In any liberal state there are
number of ideas number of political parties and they struggle to capture power. Here lies a major difference
between a liberal state and authoritarian state.
vi. A liberal state is sometimes called a pluralist state because of the plurality of ideas and organisations.
vii. Separation of power is generally regarded as a feature. A liberal state means limited state and it again implies
the three organs of the government and it will discharge this function keeping them within the confinement
decided by law and constitution. When this is implemented no organ of the government will interfere with the
functions and jurisdiction of another organ.
viii. A liberal state does not endorse the domination of a particular ideology, various opinions or ideologies work
and exist side by side. It is a state of multiple ideas, ideals ideologies and views and all of them enjoy ample
opportunities and atmosphere for work. In a non-liberal state such a situation is unimaginable.
ix. In all liberal states there are mainly two centers of power—one is economic and the other is political. But the
interesting fact is that economic power-centre controls the political power. Marx emphasizes this aspect of
liberal state.
x. There is no fixed form of liberal state. For example, we find in Britain a constitutional monarchy. There is clear
incongruity between monarchism and liberalism. But the mere fact is that Britain is a liberal state. On the other
hand, United States is also a liberal state with constitutional republic in character.

Functions of a liberal state

 It will have to do those functions which could help to maintain free society.

 It must see that rights and liberties are properly protected.

 It must encourage the moral development.

 Basic requirements of the citizens are met.

 The state should launch welfare schemes.

 Coercion should be reduced to the minimum.

Sj-csicls
 POLITICAL SCIENCE-I- PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

MODULE-III

MAJOR CONCEPTS IN POLITICAL SCIENCE

1. CONCEPT OF EQUALITY

The term equality means the quality of being the same in quantity or a state of being essentially equal or
equalent. Equality is sometimes referred to as equality of characteristics in men. The obvious inequalities
among men in terms of intellectual and physical strength, sex, color, character traits, natural endowments,
religion, age, social rank, property and other factors do exist. According to Robbins, „equality is not in
regarding different things similarly, it is in regarding different things differently‟.

The basic principles of equality are as follows:

 Equal opportunities for all

 Absence of privileges
 A system that doesn‟t admit discrimination
 Equals to be treated equally, unequals, unequally.
 Uniform apportionment
 Equal respect and recognition.
 Equality or resources

The meaning of equality in any sense and in any age neither admits distinctions and discrimination nor
anything leading to it, nor anything being disadvantageous.

Types of equality

In understanding the concept of equality, the attempt has been made to clarify numerous connotations of
equality; numerous types of equality have emerged in course of time. It is therefore, important that one refers to
some such types to help us know what equality really means.

1. Formal, Substantive, Foundational

a. Formal
Formal equality refers to the individual or group status in the society in relation to one‟s rights,
duties, benefits and entitlements. It is, in a way, legal equality or its form. It is a principle of equal
treatment. According to formal equality, all men are created equal only means that they are equals
because they are all human beings.

SJ-CSICLS 1
 b. Substantive
Substantive equality has been initially formulated as critique of formal equality. Substantive
equality corrects the wrong commitment by formal equality. It demands the allocation of benefits for
the disadvantaged. Individuals cannot compete equally if they begin at different starting points.
“Equal consideration for all may demand very unequal treatment in favor of the disadvantaged”.
c. Foundational
Foundational equality is the idea that human beings are born equal in the sense that their lives are
of equal moral value. The idea underlining this proposition is that all the human beings have equal
worth and importance and therefore, are equally worthy and respect. This type of equality can be
called moral equality, the basic or the foundational quality. It means that the individuals are alike in
important, relevant, and specified respects alone, and not because they are all generally the same.
2. Equality Of Conditions, Equality Of Opportunities, Equality Of Outcomes
a. Equality of conditions
Equality of conditions, or what one may call equality of access, means not as much as making
inequalities fairer, nor giving people a more equal opportunity to become unequal, as is ensuring that
everyone has roughly equal prospects for a good life.
b. equality of opportunities
It refers to a situation where all have the equal start with equal opportunities; the same starting
point and equal life chances. This amounts to carrier open to talents, where obstacles do not prevent
people achieving their public positions which their talents fit, and where birth, caste, creed, color,
sex, or any other like characteristic does not determine the opportunities which are open to a person
or a group of persons; what matters and what decides is the talent, the merit.
c. Equality of outcomes
Equality of outcomes refers to an equal distribution of rewards. A radical concept as it is,
equality of outcomes ensures that everyone finishes at the same time; everybody must win and all
must have prizes. Like the equality of opportunities, equality of outcomes is not equal life chances, it
is equal rewards.
3. Numerical, Proportional, Distributional

With regard to the distribution of benefits, rewards, results, the types of equality which are usually referred
to are; the numerical, proportional, and distributional. A brief discussion of each is being given below:

SJ-CSICLS 2
 a. Numerical Equality.
Numerical equality refers to the sameness in number and size. In other words it is a form of
treatment of others and as a result of it, is a form of distribution.
b. Proportional Equality
It is the notion that man is unequal in what he is naturally given as a talent. The individuals are
always equal to neither one another nor are the relevant respects or situations always equal. In other
words man is unequal in his natural potentialities. So distribution should be proportional on the basis
of their necessities.
c. Distributional Equality
There are numerous theories which seek to make a case for distributional equality. These
represent a host of views stating grounds on which distribution of benefits/results/awards is accorded
so to satisfy the claims of equality in the society.

Forms of Equality: Social, Political, Economic.

Social equality

Social equality means the absence of social classes and caste boundaries. In other words it is the
elimination of unjustified discrimination on the basis of caste, class, gender, age, creed, origin, disability and the
like.

Characteristics

 Individuals or groups of individuals have the equal social status in certain respects.
 Equal status refers to equal social identity.
 Equal social status demands absence of discrimination.
 Social equality makes no distinction between the rich and the poor, man and women,
Brahmin and Dalits; in the eyes of society all have the equal standing.

Economic equality

According to Gandhiji, economic equality means that everybody should have enough for his/her needs.
“Each according to his/ her needs.” In other words economic equality means the absence of economic
disparities. It is not, indeed, taking from John and giving it to Peter. It is full employment of all; it is the
abolition of exploitation of the workers; disciplining private property before it eats away nation‟s property. Of
all forms of inequality, economic inequality is the worst.

SJ-CSICLS 3
Political equality

Political equality refers to the situations were citizens have an equal voice over governmental decisions.
It, therefore, presumes principles, such as „one person, one vote; equality before law; right to free speech,
expression; right to contest elections; right to participate in political activities; right to hold public office‟- and
holds that each and every citizen should enjoy these liberties equally with others. Political equality works well
in the democratic framework. All are equals and all enjoy equal political rights and freedoms- enjoying equal
influence over government.

2. CONCEPT OF JUSTICE

The meaning of the word justice is, indeed, baffling. It is so not because of what it includes; it is because
of what it excludes. So, with numerous people, it has a different connotation. For a man of law, justice means
the judgment pronounced by a judge; for a man of religion, justice means a set of morals and values which we
should follow; for a poor man, justice means the abolition of poverty. The list is endless. What it means it that
justice depends on our view of society and its various aspects as also on our type of society. For a worker,
justice would include, among other things, adequate wages and for a feminist, abolition of masculinist
repression. The word justice derived from the Latin word jus and also included Justus and justitia.

Dimensions of justice

Legal dimension of justice assumes;

a) That law is the declared will of the state.

b) That it includes both the customary and statutory law
c) That is issued by a defined authority and is enforced and imposed by the court
d) That if violated, it is accompanied by a corresponding punishment;
e) That is limited by the provisions of the constitution or the conventions; and
f) That the constitution is its supreme form, regulating the activities of the government and prescribing the
rights and duties of the people

The characteristics of political dimension are as follows;

a) Establishment of a democratic order without any discrimination.

b) Political equality
c) One person- one vote
d) Rule of law and not rule by peoples whims
e) Enactment of the constitutional provisions
SJ-CSICLS 4
 f) Free press and democratic rights
g) Fair and impartial periodic elections

The social dimension of justice reflects a just social society; its features would include;

a) Elimination of all kinds of discrimination.

b) Abolition of privilages based on birth, race, caste, creed or sex
c) Socials roles to be determined by capacity
d) Social mobility to be an alternative to rigid stratification;
e) Equality of each with all and of all with each; and
f) Universal brotherhood

The features of economic dimension of justice are;

a) Establishment of a social order as the principle of mutual cooperation

b) Attainment of maximum production achieved through voluntary and independent economic enterprises
c) Equitable distribution of commodities so produced
d) Abolition of exploitation of man by man
e) Social security in the event of accident, illness, and old-age
f) Prohibition of concentration of material resources in the hands of few.

The socioeconomic dimension of justice is, by and large, a Marxist connotation of justice. Its features
include;

a) A classless society
b) Abilities be matched to work
c) Work to be matched with needs
d) An exploitation-free and oppression-free social order.

Types of justice

There are six types of justice that people can seek when they have been wronged.

Distributive justice

It is also known as economic justice, is about fairness in what people receive-from goods to attention. Its
roots are in social order and it is at the roots of communism, where equality is a fundamental principle.

SJ-CSICLS 5
Procedural justice

If people believe that a fair procedure was used in deciding what is to be distributed then they may well
accept an imbalance in what they receive in comparison to others. If they are both procedural and distributive
injustice, they will likely seek restorative and/or retributive justice.

Restorative justice

Restoration means putting things back as they were, so it may include some act of contrition to
demonstrate one is truly sorry. This may include action and even extra payment to the offended party.

Legal justice

Legal justice refers to the appointment of punishments and rewards as a result of wrongdoing in
particular, law breaking.

Social justice

Social justice refers to a morally justifiable distribution of material or social rewards, notably wealth,
income, and social status.

Platonic Theory of Justice

Platonic idea of justice was based on the theory of three classes and three souls. He pointed out that
every human soul had three qualities: rational, spirit and appetite. In each soul, one of these qualities would be
the predominant faculty. Individuals in whom the rational faculty was predominant would constitute the ruling
class, and the virtue of such a soul was wisdom. This soul, a lover of learning, had the power to comprehend the
idea of good. Those in whom the spirit was the predominant quality were the auxiliaries or warriors, and the
virtue of such soul was courage, implying the ability to hold on to one‟s convictions and beliefs in adverse
times. Together the rulers and soldiers would constitute the guardian class. They were lovers of gain and
money. These were the artisans, traders‟ farmers- regarded as the producing class. The quality of such an
appetitive soul was temperance, though Plato did not see temperance as an exclusive quality of the producing
class.

Justice in the individual meant that every individual was assigned a place in society according to one‟s
natural aptitudes and skills. In other words justice means departmental excellence.

Justice in the state meant that the three social classes (rulers, soldiers and producers) performed the
deliberative and governing, defense and production without interfering with the functions of the others. Justice

SJ-CSICLS 6
means “one class; one duty, one man; one work.” Plato drew a parallel between the three social classes and the
three elements of the human soul. Each soul had a corresponding social class. A just society recognized and
educated every individual talent according to the dominant element in one‟s soul, and ordered these elements
into coherent classes.

Any interchanges in the jobs between the three social classes would bring harm to the state and was the
worst evil. On the contrary, if rulers, soldiers and farmers performed their respective tasks, then such a state
would be just. Plato‟s concept of justice was distributive; giving what was due to an individual, namely good
training and skills, in return for proper discharge of one‟s responsibilities.

PLATONIC IDEA OF JUSTICE

SOCIAL CLASS SOUL VIRTUE

Ruling Class Rational Wisdom
Fighting Class Spiritual Courage
Producing Class Appetitive Knowledge

John Rawls Theory of Justice

John Rawls (1921-2002) was an American political scientist. His work a theory of justice has been
regarded as a significant contribution to liberal political theory. His interest in liberal sate and in the concept of
justice has led him to formulate and reformulate his theory of justice for about four decades. In 1958, for him, is
fairness, one that became the part and parcel of Rawlsian vocabulary on justice.

“First principle”

Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties
compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.

“Second principle”

Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both;

i. To the greatest benefit of the least advantaged.

ii. Attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.

Stated simply, Rawls conception of justice demands:

SJ-CSICLS 7
 i. The maximization of liberty subject only to such constraints as are essential for the protection of liberty
itself.
ii. Equality for all, both in the basic liberties of social life and also in the distribution of all other forms of
social goods, subject only to the exception that inequalities may be permitted if they produce the greatest
possible benefit for those least well off in a given scheme of inequality.
iii. „Fair equality of opportunity‟ and the elimination of all inequalities of opportunity based on birth or
wealth.
3. CONCEPT OF LIBERTY

The concept of liberty or freedom denotes a very important principle of political philosophy. Liberty is
sometimes regarded as the distinctive principle of liberalism, but freedom is acclaimed as a universal principle.
The ideal of liberty has inspired many revolutionary struggles against despotism and foreign regimes. It is
significant that the struggle for liberty is always informed by the spirit of equality. That is, when some
oppressed sections rise against their oppressors-as in peasant revolts or national struggles of independence-they
challenge the alleged superiority of their oppressors, demanding equality and justice on the universal principle
of human equality.

For the clearer view, the idea of liberty may be analyzed in terms of (a) freedom as the quality of human
being; and (b) freedom as the condition of human being.

Freedom as the quality of human being

When we consider freedom as the quality of human being, we assert that only a human being, as
distinguished from other living beings, is capable of freedom. Animals, birds and insects are governed by the
rule of the „struggle for existence‟ and „survival of the fittest‟-the fittest is the one physically strongest and
cleverest. They have no aim of life beyond mere existence. Man has distinguished himself from other living
beings as he claims to have an aim in his life. He has created the whole complex of institutions- civilization and
culture- in pursuance of this aim. Animals are mere slaves of nature; man has largely learnt to tame, control and
harness nature to serve his purpose of life. Freedom is the distinctive quality of man.

In short, freedom as the quality of human being is manifested in man‟s capacity for obtaining scientific
knowledge of inexorable laws of nature and applying them for the benefit of mankind. In the absence of such
knowledge, human beings are bound to remain slaves of nature; their ignorance could prove disastrous for them.
In other words, human being‟s ability to gain scientific knowledge is the source of their freedom.

SJ-CSICLS 8
Freedom as the condition of human being.

When we consider freedom as the condition of human being, we enter the realm of liberty which is
usually defined as absence of constraint. Constraint or restraint may be internal and external. In politics, we are
largely concerned with external restraint; in philosophy, we think of internal as well as external restraint.

Dimensions of liberty

Liberty may formally described as absence of restraint. This means that inorder to maintain liberty of the
individual, the state should not impose any restraints on his activities in variousspheres of life. In order to
identify the proper sphere of such activities, we may distinguish between civil, political and economic liberty of
the individual.

Civil liberty

Civil liberty is the liberty of man in the capacity of an individual person- his personal liberty. This
consists in three somewhat differently expressed articles;

(a) Physical freedom from injury or threat to the life, health, and movement of the body;

(b) Intellectual freedom for the expression of thought and belief; and

(c) Practical freedom of a person to enter into mutual obligations with others in consideration of their
mutual benefit- that is the freedom of contract.

Political liberty

Whereas a man enjoys civil liberty in the capacity of an individual person, he enjoys political liberty in
the capacity of a citizen. Political liberty means the power of curbing the government, from which it follows
that he conceived of government as something external. But in modern democracy, where government is
constituted by the people themselves, political liberty is „a liberty that not curbing the government, but of
constituting and controlling; constituting it by a general act of choice or election, in which we all freely share on
the basis of universal suffrage; controlling it by a general and continuous process of discussion, in which we all
freely share according to our capacities.

Economic liberty

Economic liberty broadly speaking belongs to man in his capacity as a worker whether with hand or
brain, engaged in some gainful occupation or service. In this sense economic liberty is implied in the articles of
civil liberty. Economic liberty is capable of conflicting interpretations by conflicting parties; employer and

SJ-CSICLS 9
worker, trader and consumer, landlord and tenant, etc. one party would interpret it as the freedom to secure
maximum profit; the other would insist on reasonable terms, reasonable price and quality, reasonable rent, etc.
under such circumstances, if the stronger party is not curbed to safeguard the interests of the weaker party, the
principle of liberty will be reduced to mockery. This is the sphere were the adjustment between the claims of
liberty and equality becomes most essential.

Negative and Positive Liberty

Liberal writers use the term liberty and freedom synonymously. For them, liberty or freedom is the
supreme value which must be the guiding principle of all public policy. It is generally the liberty of individual
which they wish to protect, and it is defined as „the absence of restraint‟ or „the absence of constraint or
coercion.‟

To illustrate this point, we may refer to the Atlantic Charter (1941), a declaration of four freedoms,
which was drawn up during the second world war by President Roosvelt of USA and Prime Minister Churchil
of UK to indicate their War aims. The four Freedoms were: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom
from fear, freedom from want.

It is significant that the two types of freedoms included in the said charter of four freedoms have a much
wider application than a statement of aims of the Second World War. They could be used to highlight the aims
of public policy in a modern state, particularly a welfare state. The first two types of freedoms, such as freedom
of speech and freedom of worship, symbolize the negative aspect of liberty. They imply a negative role of the
state, which is not to restrict the individual in pursuing his self-appointed goals. The second type of freedoms,
such as freedom from the fear and freedom from the want, symbolize the positive aspect of liberty. They call for
a positive role of the state, which is to remove certain impediments in the way of the individual in existing his
freedom.

Once the basic distinction between negative and positive aspects of liberty is recognized, the actual lists
of freedoms falling under each category can be suitably enlarged. It is also essential to remember that these two
types of freedom, namely negative liberty and positive liberty, are not opposed to each other. In fact, they are
complimentary; they are two sides of the same coin. They are incomplete without each other, although some
thinkers accord primacy to one over other.

SJ-CSICLS 10
 POLITICAL SCIENCE-I- PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

MODULE-IV-POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES

1. MARXISM

The theory of socialism developed by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels , is known as Marxism or scientific
socialism. Marxism is essentially a theory of revolution, of revolutionary policies and action. It is the creed of a
revolutionary party and the proletariat or the working class.

Basic Principles and Policies

The basic principles and policies of Marxism are given in the Communist Manifesto (1848) and elaborated in
the Capital. They are later interpreted and enriched by Marxist theoreticians and statesmen like F.Engels,
V.I.Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Leon Trotsky, Mao-Zedong and other neo- Marxist scholars- Althusser, Adomo and
Antonio Gramsci. The basic principles of Marxism are:-

 Dialectical-cum-historical materialism
 Class struggle
 Surplus value
 Theory of state
 Theory of revolution
 The dictatorship of the proletariat and the withering away of the state.

Dialectical-cum-Historical Materialism
The dialectical materialism is the metaphysical background of the communist philosophy. The
dialectical theory means that all things and movements result from the conflict of opposing elements or
tendencies. The dialectics is the continuous and on-going principle and process found always and everywhere. It
moves towards the direction of development ad never ends. Materialism means that the driving force behind the
dialectical process is not mental but material factors. Historical events occur as a result of the conflict of
opposing tendencies which are generated by material conditions.
The materialistic interpretation of history is the corner stone of communism. It starts from the Marxian
proposition that modes of production and exchange of things form the basis of all social structures appeared
hitherto in history. The final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be found in the changes
in mode of production and exchange. The salient features of this doctrine of economic interpretation of history
are mainly two. Firstly, it is not human desires and thoughts but the economic process that turns the ultimate
springs of change. Secondly, all elements which would makeup social institutions and cultural life of a
particular period-ethical, legal, religious and social are the by-products of its fundamental economic structure.
This is known as the economic determinism of Marx.
Class struggle
The social relationship has been the same throughout the period of recorded history. It is one of
exploitation. So society is divided into two opposite classes-the exploiting and the exploited. This relationship
of exploitation has assumed a variety of different forms in known history. Marx mentions three distinct stages
of social formations:1) the age of slavery 2) the age of feudalism and 3) the age of capitalism. Each stage has
its corresponding social relations of exploitation determined by the economic forces of that stage.” The history
of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles”. These struggles each time ended either in a
SJ-CSICLS
revolutionary re-construction of society or in the common ruin of the contending classes. This continuous class-
conflict-becomes all the more acute in the age of capitalism. It is marked by naked exploitation by means of
very high surplus value.
Theory of surplus value
The economic consequence of Marxism is centered around the doctrine of surplus value which depends
on the labour theory of value of the English classical economists. According to David Ricardo the value of any
commodity is determined by the labour expended in its production. The capitalist are unwilling to give the full
value of the workers who produced the commodity. The unpaid value actually goes to the producer. Marx calls
this unpaid value as surplus value. Thus, the capitalist accumulates his profit and capital by exploitation of
workers.
Theory of State
According to Marx the state is nothing but an instrument of exploitation and oppression in the hands
of those who rule the society. The owning class by force of its economic strength becomes the ruling political
class. The legal and political super structures (government, laws, religions) are based upon the economic
structure (forces of production and productive relations) of the society. The economically advanced class
exercise tremendous control over the government which in turn influence the policies of the government. The
state is only a tool of the capitalists to exploit the labourer. The state is an engine of tyranny and oppression.
The state is the product of private property and class structure of society. The power of the state rests on a
selected few who constitute the government and controls the economy.
Theory of Revolution
According to Marx a revolution of the proletariat (working class) is inevitable because capitalism
contains the seed of its own destruction. The system of capitalism is such that capital gets concentrated in to a
few hands. It ruins the lower middle class who are forced to become workers. Thus the number of workers goes
on increasing. They come closer and closer and live together in industrial towns sharing their hardships and
miseries amongst themselves. When they become conscious of their rights they rise in revolt against the
capitalists. Marx predicts the revolution will end in the final victory of the proletariat. Nobody could change the
dialectical process and the inevitable class mark. But one who understands the philosophy of history, can speed
up the advent of revolution.
Dictatorship of the proletariat and withering away of the State
Marx did not say anything about the social formation after the destruction of capitalism. But he
argues that between the defeat of capitalism and the realization of communism there will be a period of
transition. Marx refers to this period as “dictatorship of the proletariat”. The state is necessary during this period
to destroy the last remains of capitalism. The dictatorship of the preliterate will have all the characteristics of a
state. It becomes a tool in the hands of the proletariat to destroy the evils of the old order. When its historic role
is over, the “state will wither away” and a classless and stateless society will emerge. In such a society „each
would contribute according to his capacity and receive according to his needs‟.

2. GANDHISM
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948) the gentle prophet of the world‟s most extraordinary
liberation movement was a man of greatness and goodness. Gandhiji‟s whole life was an experiment with truth.
In fact he spiritualized politics. Gandhi was a great leader, thinker, teacher, preacher, nationalist, internationalist
and an enlightened soul. His ideas and ideals form a school of thought, a distinct, philosophy of life and is
known as „Gandhism‟. However, Gandhi never claimed to have enunciated any „ism‟.

SJ-CSICLS
 Gandhism is not merely a politival creed. It is a message and a philosophy of life. Gandhi was not a
systematic academic thinker or writer. What Gandhism lacks in the shape of a systematic major book on
political theory is more than compensated by the majestic life of the man. The fundamentals of Gandhian
philosophy may be briefly analyzed here.

Politics and Religion

Gandhiji was deeply a religious man. To him, politics is only a pathway to the service of God
Gandhiji observed “Politics with out religion is a death trap because its kills the soul”. By religion Gandhiji
meant observance of higher religious values- ahimsa, truth, love, compassion, non-possession, non-attachment
in one‟s own life. Gandhiji did not consider rites and rituals as important. He speaks about a higher religion
different from temple worship or church worship. To him a religious person should be a seeker after truth.
Gandhi identified truth with God. Truth is the eternal law of the whole universe. In order to realize truth one
should adhere to ahimsa.

Theory of Non Violence (Ahimsa)

Gandhiji was an apostle of non violence. Non violence or ahimsa means avoiding injury to anything
on earth in thought word or deed. In the positive sense it means extending love to all living creatures and even
to the nature. Ganghiji‟s idea of non-violence is rooted in the Hindhu doctrine of Ahimsa. Ahimsa and truth are
the two sides of the same coin. Ahimsa is the means, truth is the end. Ahimsa is the law of mankind, truth is the
ideal. A seeker after truth should adhere to ahimsa in word, deed and thought Ahimsa is the heart of all
religions. Non violence is not passivity or inaction. Non-violence is the symbol of spiritual strength. It is the
„bravery of the soul‟. Non violence is not cowardice. When a choice falls between cowardice and violence,
Gandhiji would prefer to violence. A violent man can hope to become non-violent some day, but there is no
hope for a coward.
Gandhiji stressed very much to the purity of means. “The means are as important as the ends”. To
him the ideal society was an association rooted in non-violence. The moral discipline of the individual is the
most important means of social reconstruction. According to Gandhi there are five principles of non-violence.
 Non violence implies complete self-purification as is humanly possible.
 The strength of non violence is in exact proportion to the ability, to suffer.
 Non-violence is always superior to violence.
 There is no such thing as defeat in non-violence. The end of violence is defeat.
 The ultimate end of non-violence is sure victory.

Non-violence (Ahimsa) envisages a complete philosophy of life. Non violence demands simple living
and high thinking. Non violence demands decentralization of political power and a decentralized economy. It
stands for sustainable development. It is against massive production. It demands production by the masses. It
emphasizes self reliance and the use of appropriate technology suited to local situation. A non violent economy
is distribution system. It is against affluent living styles. The mode of production and distribution should be
localized and eco-friendly.

Theory of Satyagraha

Satyagraha literally means to be firm with truth. It is a combination of two Sanskrit words „sat‟ and
„agraha‟ which means „to be firm with satya‟. Satyagraha as a political weapon means “the exercise of the

SJ-CSICLS
 purest soul force against all injustice, oppression and exploitation”. Satyagraha contemplates concerted mass
action for paralyzing the entire structure of a despotic government. Satyagraha is based on the theory of self
suffering. It upholds the truth not by inflicting suffering on the opponent but on oneself. Satyagraha is twice
blessed; it purifies the sufferer and the person whom against it is directed. Satyagraha is a method of solving
conflicts. The satyagrahi appeals to the reason or heart of the opponent by self suffering and sacrifice. Conflicts
can be resolved through the unison of herats. The conscious suffering of a satyagrahi evokes favourable public
opinion for the cause of the conflict.

Certain psychological and social conditions are necessary to make satyagraha effective. They
are:-

 The satyagrahi should not harbor any hatred within its heart against the opponent.
 The issue for which satyagraha is launched shall be true and substantial.
 The satyagraha shall be ready to undergo all kinds of humiliation and sufferings. He shall be
ready to sacrifice his life, if situation demands.

Techniques of Satyagraha
(a) Non Co-operation: By non cooperation Gandhiji meant the people should not co-operate with those who are
doing injustice or oppression. They should not be given any support from any corner and the oppressor should
feel himself alone. A non co-operator should have enough moral strength to face all odds and convince the
opponent.
(b) Civil Resistance: Another method of fighting against a powerful enemy is civil resistance. People should be
bold enough to declare their intention to disobey cruel and unjust laws. They should openly defy such orders
and should be ready to go behind the bars and suffer such cruelties as the oppressor might inflict upon them but
should carry on the struggle till the unjust law is replaced by a just law.
(c) Fasting: The sense of the persons in power can mist effectively be touching by fasting. Fasting can be
successful only when the person going on fast is spiritually disciplined and true to his cause. Fasting, if taken in
its real spirit, is bound to touch the better sense of the opponent.
(d) Strike: Strike is a strong weapon of workers. Workers should organize themselves in each industry to fight
against unjust acts imposed by the industrialists. Gandhiji however, made it clear that strikes should only aim at
getting their rights and equal status and should nit harbor hostility against the capitalist.
(e) Hijrat: If a person cannot tolerate injustice of the oppressor and also feels that he has not the required capacity
to become a good satyagrahi, for him, the best method is that of „Hijrat‟ or leaving one‟s ancestral place.

Gandhi’s idea of Trusteeship

Gandhiji wanted to transform the system of capitalism and put an end to its vicious effects on social
order. He, therefore, suggested the doctrine of trusteeship. He summed up his formula of trusteeship in the
following points.
a) Trusteeship provides a means of transforming the present capitalist order of society into an egalitarian one.
It gives no quarter to capitalism but gives the present owning class a chance of reforming themselves. It is
based on the faith that human nature is never beyond redemption.
b) It does not recognize any right of private ownership of property except in as much as if may be permitted by
society for one’s own welfare.
c) It does not exclude legislative regulation of property by the state.
SJ-CSICLS
 d) Thus, under state – regulated trusteeship an individual will not be free to hold or use his wealth for selfish
satisfaction or disregard the interests of society.
e) Just as it is proposed to fix up a living minimum wage, even so a limit should be fixed for the maximum
income that could be allowed to any person in society.
f) Under Gandhian economic order the character of production will be determined by social necessity and not
by personal whims or greed.

Gandhi’s concept of Ideal Society (Ramarajya)

The ideal society of Gandhiji is a democracy without the state. It is an enlightened anarchy in which
social life is based not on external but on internal, that is, moral restraint. In such a society there is no
relationship of command and obedience, superior or inferior. Everybody rules over himself and regulates his
own action in the interests of the society. Society based on non- violence consists of groups settled in village in
which voluntary cooperation is the condition of dignified and peaceful existence. Everything in such a society
will be based on the observance of the laws of varnashram. The ideal society will be based on the principle of
free labour and non-possession. This society will be agricultural with cottage industries. There will be no
capitalism and no exploitation of man by man. There will be no scope for institutions of the state, like jails,
police and courts. The ideal society will be like a family avoiding the extremes, of individualism and
collectivism. Failing such an ideal society, Gandhiji would prefer a non-violent state with limited functions and
with social and economic equality as far as possible.
Gandhism may be still worth recalling as a source of strength, a beacon of light for guidance and not the
least, as a warning.
3. FASCISM
Fascism was an extreme rightist political ideology of the twentieth century. It is highly authoritarian and
totalitarian. The term fascism is described from the Latin word „fasces‟ which means a bundle of rods and an
axe. It symbolizes authority, discipline, unity and strength, the very characteristics of Fascism. Fascism
originated and developed in Italy first as a political movement before the Second World War. Benito Mussolini
was its leader and high priest. In fact fascism had no well worked out theory. At the same time fascism was
deadly opposed to rationalism, parliamentarianism, liberalism, communism, pacifism, individualism and
internationalism. It repudicated ideals like liberty, equality and justice. They were replaced by fascist key
word.‟ National action‟ was its gospel. It glorified the nation and conceived the nation state as a spiritual entity.
It could exercise total control over the whole life of men.

Basic Principles of Fascism

Fascism was anti intellectual. It repudiated reason and distrusted reasoning. Perpetual peace is
neither possible nor desirable. War is to man what maternity is to women.
Fascism repudiated democracy and all democratic institutions. According to the fascists it is basically
wrong to believe that all men are equal. People are born unequal and they will remain so.
Fascism is opposed to forms of individualism. Individuals are completely subordinate of the state. It is
the duty of the individual to obey blindly the orders of the government. Liberty of the citizen consists in
totally and completely obeying the laws of the state. ‘Everything for the state; nothing against the state and
nothing outside the state’ [Gentile 1875-1944] was its guiding motto.

SJ-CSICLS
 Fascism is strongly imperialistic. The nation as it grows strong must have the means of expansion
and self expression. The fascists openly preached imperialist expansion and aggressive war. Imperialism is
the eternal and immutable law of life.
The German version of fascism named after as Nazism believes in racialism. In fact it was the most
reprehensible feature of Nazism. Hitler declared that Aryans were superior to every other race in the world
and hence most fit to rule the world.
Fascism conceived the nation state as a living or functioning corporate entity constituted by organic
units called corporations. The state does not consists of individuals but of groups or corporations which can
be considered a unit of social and political life. However, all of them should be under the state control and
they should function according to the will of the state.
The fascist view of political authority was undemocratic, oligarchic and dictatorial. It believed that
political authority was not derived from the community but was to be exercised for the community. Political
power must be vested in the chosen few who are best fitted and capable. Fascism had no faith in political
choice and wisdom of the common man. Liberal and democratic principles like adult franchise, free election,
discussion with opposition and majority rule were repudiated.

Italian Fascism was the typical example of totalitarianism. Its conception of the state was totalitarian.
It believed and claimed that the state has every right to control and regulate life totally. Freedom of expression,
association and faith depend on the discretion of the state. The Fascist policies followed by Mussolini and
Hitler‟s racialism ultimately resulted in the Second World War in which there was a colossal loss of men and
material.

4. LIBERALISM

Liberalism is a principle of political science which insists on Liberty of individual as the first and
foremost goal of the public policy. Liberty, in this sense implies liberation from restraints- particularly from the
restraints imposed by an authoritarian state. According to Britannica Encyclopedia, liberalism is a political and
economic doctrine that emphasizes on the rights and freedoms of the individual and on limited powers of the
state. In the economic realm, liberals in the nineteenth century urged the end of state interference in the
economic life of the society. Liberals in the late 19th and early 20th centauries advocated limited state
intervention in the market and the creation of state-founded social services, such as free public education and
health insurance. In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open, free and fair elections, where
all citizens have equal rights and equal opportunities.

Historical Development

Liberalism has been the result of numerous events which occurred in the West during the sixteenth,
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. These events included the Enlightenment, the Glorious Revolution and
the French Revolution. The Enlightenment refused to accept moral goals as absolute rights, Glorious
Revolution denounced the divine rights of the kings and the French Revolution gave the idea of individual
liberty and made it so sacred that no one could suppress it. Liberalism fought simultaneously on two fronts:
(1).against the unlimited and unrestricted powers of the monarchs, and (2).against the landed aristocracy.

It was, thus, a war against feudalism and absolute monarchy. As the war was launched by the
bourgeoisie, liberalism has been till date the political philosophy of the capitalists.
SJ-CSICLS
 Broadly speaking liberalism emphasizes on individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by,

 Freedom of thought for individuals

 Limitations on power (especially on power and religion)
 The rule of law
 Free exchange of ideas
 A marker economy that supports free private enterprises
 A transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.

Liberal political ideology mainly founded on the following things:

a) the natural goodness of man

b) the autonomy of the individuals
c) individual‟s civil and political liberties
d) limited nature of governmental intervention
e) the consent of the people
f) an economic theory- the maximum individual initiative and the minimum governmental interference in
economic affairs.

Essentials of Liberalism

 belief in the autonomy of the individual,

 a passion for the existence and protection of the rights,
 liberties of the people,
 rationalism with an eye on future progress,
 consent of the people in the formation and in the functioning of the state,
 free economy,
 constitutionalism and toleration, and
 limited government.

Forms of Liberalism.

Scholars have pointed out the following forms of liberalism;

Political liberalism

This is the belief that the individuals are the basis of law and society, and that society and its institutions
exists to further the ends of individuals. It enfranchises all adult citizens regardless of sex, race or economic
status. It emphasizes the rule of law and supports liberal democracy.

Cultural liberalism

This focuses on the rights of the individuals pertaining to conscience and life style, including such issues as
sexual freedom, religious freedom, cognitive freedom, protection from government and intrusion into private
life. Cultural liberalism generally opposes government regulation of literature, art, and academics.

SJ-CSICLS
Economic liberalism

Also called classical liberalism, this is an ideology which supports the individual rights of property and
freedom of contract, without which, it argues, the exercise of other liberties is impossible. It advocates Laissez-
faire capitalism, meaning the removal of legal barriers to trade and cessation of government-bestowed
privileges such as subsidy and monopoly. Economic liberals want little or no government regulation of the
market.

Social liberalism

Also known as new liberalism and reform liberalism, this form of liberalism arose in the late nineteenth
century in many developed countries, influenced by the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham and J.S Mill.

The Role of State in Liberalism

Liberalism treats market society as the model of social organization. Where role of the state should be
confined to the protection of individual‟s life and property, enforcement of contracts, and maintenance of
minimum common services which would not be undertaken by private entrepreneurs. In liberal view state is a
necessary evil. Liberalism treats the state as the means and individual as the end. It rules out absolute authority
of the state.

Broad Streams of Liberalism

We can identify the broad streams of liberalism with three stages. (i).classical liberalism/negative
liberalism, (ii). Positive liberalism and (iii) neo-liberalism

Classical Liberalism/Negative Liberalism.

Early exponents of liberalism include John Lock (1632-1704), Adam Smith (1723-90), and Jeremy
Bentham (1748-1832). All of them were English Philosophers. Lock is known as the father of liberalism. Smith
is known as the father of economics; and Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism. All of them defended the
principle of laissez-faire (a French term which means leave alone. It implied the policy of non intervention by
the state in the economic activities of the individuals) which implies least interference of the state in the
economic activities of the individuals. They are the founders of classical liberalism which is called negative
liberalism because it contemplates negative role of the state in the sphere of mutual interaction of individuals.

Early liberal theory developed in two main directions: (i) individualism, and (ii) utilitarianism.
Individualism conceded primacy of the individual as a rational being. It required that the individual‟s dignity,
independent existence and judgment should be given full recognition while making public policy and decisions.
It means, no individual shall be made to suffer in order to benefit any larger unit of society.

On the other hand, utilitarianism stands for “greatest happiness of the greatest number” where interest of
the few may be sacrificed in the interest of the collectivity. Happiness is defined as the balance of pleasure over
pain derived from various goods and services, acts and policies. Founder of this school of thought, Jeremy
Bentham, observed that nature has placed mankind under two sovereign masters-pleasure and pain. Human
behavior is guided by an urge to obtain pleasure and avoid pain. Moral principles and state policy should aim at
promoting greatest happiness of the greatest number.

SJ-CSICLS
Positive Liberalism

In the nineteenth century T H green (1836-82), another English philosopher, sought to add a moral
dimension liberalism and thereby advanced a fully fledged theory of the welfare state. this tradition further
developed by L.T Hobhouse (1864-1929), Harold J Laski (1893-1950), and R.H Tawny (1880-1962)- all of
them were English philosophers. Thus, the theory and the practice of welfare state flourished in the first half of
the 20th century in England. This theory contemplates positive role of the state in securing a dignified life to the
individuals. It is, therefore, called positive liberalism.

On the political side, liberalism promotes democracy, on the economic side, it promotes capitalism.
Democracy is concerned with fulfilling needs and aspirations of ordinary people, but capitalism results in the
concentration of economic power in the hands of the few who may use it against the interests of the ordinary
people. This situation is sought to be rectified by the mechanism of the welfare state.

Welfare state

A state that safeguards liberty of its citizens and provides for various types of social services
for their benefit, Eg: social security, free education, public health, poor relief, supply of essential
goods and services like food grains, milk, fuel and transport to the needy at subsidized rates. It
undertakes the protection of cultural heritage including monuments, museums, libraries, art
galleries, botanical gardens and zoological parks etc. it also promotes higher education and
scientific research etc. A welfare state largely resorts to taxation of the rich to provide for the
common services as well as for giving relief to the poor and distressed.

Neo-Liberalism

Neo-liberalism, neo-classical liberalism or libertarianism stands for contemporary version of classical

liberalism which seeks to restore laissez-faire individualism. It denounces the welfare state, opposes state
intervention and control of economic activities. The chief exponents of neo-liberalism include F.A Hayek
(1899-1992), an Australian thinker, Milton Friedman (1912-2006), an American economist, and Robert Nozick
(1938-2002), an American philosopher.

In the second half of the 20th century, these thinkers realized that the theory of the welfare state was inimical
to individual liberty, as it involved the forced transfer of resources from the more competent to the less
competent. In order to restore individual liberty, they sought to revive the principle of laissez-faire not only in
economic sphere, but also in social and political spheres. In a nutshell, neo-liberalism upholds full autonomy
and freedom of the individual. It seeks his liberation from all institutions which tend to restrict his vision of the
world, including the institutions of religion, family and customs of social conformity apart from political
institutions. In the political sphere, neo-liberalism particularly insists that man‟s economic activity must be
actively liberated from all restrictions to enable him to achieve true progress and prosperity. In the economic
sphere market exemplifies the arena of individual freedom. In the political sphere, market represents a model of
genuine democracy, where votes are traded against welfare benefits, and the cost is borne by the most
productive members of society.
SJ-CSICLS
 In the contemporary world, neo-liberalism found practical manifestation through three interrelated
principles: Liberalization, Privatization, and Globalization.

1. Liberalization

The policy of removal or relaxation of governmental control or restriction on economic activity with a view
to maximizing its efficiency. It seeks to reduce the state‟s liability toward welfare of the individuals and
promotes incentive-based rewards rather than dependence on various subsidies.

2. Privatization

The policy of transferring government ownership and control of any sector of economy to private ownership
and control in order to improve the standard of its management and to prevent loss to the public exchequer.

3. Globalization

Policy of globalization holds that economic efficiency can be increased to the maximum if economic
activity is allowed to benefit from the resources available at the global scale. It encourages the utilization of
capital and machinery available in one part of the world, raw materials in another part, labor in still another part
for the process of production and search of markets for the final product all over the world. Its objectives
include the minimization of coast of a product, enhancement of its quality and the maximization of profit from
its marketing.

SJ-CSICLS
 UNDERSTANDING POLITICAL THEORY
MODULE- 1-POLITICAL THEORY
(Meaning, Nature and Scope of Political Theory, Positivism, Empiricism, Political Modernization and
Development, Political Socialization, Political Culture)

As human beings we live in society. Society includes many institutions like family, school, religious
organization, polity, etc. Every institution serves some specific purpose. It involves some organization and use of
authority. Authority denotes a relationship of command and obedience where the command is generally regarded
to be reasonable. Mild protests, if any, would not upset the authority. When an organization is designed to
regulate the whole community, it takes the character of polity. Polity, therefore, denotes an organization where
rules are made and decisions are taken for the whole community, and authority is exercised over each member of
the community. The term 'political' refers to something that is 'public', as distinguished from private or
something applicable to a limited number of persons. Thus polity or the state enjoys a unique position among
social institutions. It is so important that Aristotle (an ancient Greek philosopher) described man by nature a
'political animal'. Living in a state was so natural for a person that he who lived outside the state or who did not
need a state was either a beast or an angel.
The terms 'polity', 'politics' and 'political' are derived from the Greek word 'polis' which denoted ancient
Greek city-state. The Greek city-states were relatively small communities which were separated from each other
by geographical barriers, like forests, mountains and seas. Each city-state had evolved a compact social life and
culture where all institutions and activities were knit together. These institutions and activities which were aimed
at securing 'good life' for the community were regarded to be the part of 'polities'. However, in the present day
society the scope of politics is not regarded to be so comprehensive.
Meaning
Political theory is not only a theory of/about politics; it is also the science of politics, the philosophy of
politics at that. As a theory, Bluhm explains, ―political theory stands for an abstract model of the political order a
guide to the systematic collection and analysis of political data‖ (theory of political system). Andrew Haker,
enlarging the point of view, says that political theory as a ―theory, in ideal terms, is dispassionate and
disinterested. As science, it will describe political reality without trying to pass judgment on what is being
depicted, either implicitly or explicitly. As philosophy, it will describe rules of conduct which will secure good
life for all in the society‖
Political theory is all about politics. It is an overview of what the political order is about. It is a symbolic
representation of what is ―political ―. In its nature, it is formal, logical, and systematic analysis of processes and
consequences of political activity. It is, in its objective, an attempt to give order, coherence, and meaning to what
may be referred to as ―political‖.
Theory implies both science as well as philosophy. It is, against this background, that one may say a
theorist is both a scientist and philosopher; a theorist is more than a scientist; he is more than a philosopher. To
understand theory when applied to politics would, thus, explain political theory as ―an explanation of what
politics is all about, a general understanding of the political world, a frame of reference. Without one we should
be unable to recognize an event as political, decide anything about why it happened, judge whether it was good
or bad, or decide what was likely to happen next. A theory help as identify what is happening a particular case of
politics…… It helps us to explain why an event occurred and to predict future events ….. Theory also is a tool
for evaluating what is happening and for guiding our political choices…‖
The job of the political theorist is really important. Brecht (political theory) makes a note of it saying ― it
is the function of the political theorist to see, sooner than others, and to analyse, more profoundly than others,
the immediate and the potential problems of the political life of society; to supply the practical politicians, well
in advance, with alternative courses of action, the foreseeable consequences which have been fully thought
through; and to supply him not only with brilliant ideas, but solid block knowledge on which to build.‖ When
political theory performs its function well, he continues, ―it is one of the most important in our struggle for the
advance of humanity‖.

SJ-CSICLS
Some of the definitions of Political Theory may be given as under:
 Broadly, it means ―as anything about politics or relevant to politics‖ and narrowly,‖ as the disciplined
investigation of political problems.‖ (Sabine)
 ―Political theory is an explanation of what politics is all about, a general understanding of the political
world, a frame of reference. It is one without which we should be able to recognize an event as political,
decided anything about why it happened, judge whether it was good or bad or decide what is likely to
happened next.‖ (Bluhm)
 Political theory is ―a combination of disinterested search for the principles good stat and good society on
the one hand, and disinterested search for knowledge of political or social reality on the other.‖ ( Andrew
Hacker)
 Political theory is ―a network of concept and generalization of political life involving ideas, assumptions
and statements about the nature, purpose and key features of government, state, and society and about the
political capabilities of human-beings.‖ (David Held).
 ―A body of thought that seeks to evaluate, explain, and predict political phenomena. As a sub-field of
political science, it is concerned with political ideas, values, and concepts, and the explanation of
prediction of political behavior. In this broad sense, it has two main branches: One is political philosophy
or normative theory, with it values, analytic, historical, and speculative concerns. The other is empirical
theory, with its effort to explain, predict, guide, research, and organize knowledge through the
formulation of abstract models and scientifically testable propositions.‖ (Political science dictionary).
Today we draw a distinction between public and private spheres of human life, and confine the usage of
the term 'politics' to the institutions and activities falling in the public sphere. Thus the decisions of cabinet and
parliament, election campaigns and other activities of political parties, people's movements seeking change in
law and public policy, etc. belong to politics but the object of our faith and worship, the content of our education,
art and culture, etc. do not properly belong to the sphere of politics until some regulation thereof is required to
maintain public order and safety!

Scope of Political Theory

After identifying the nature and scope of the 'political', we are now ready to understand the nature of
political theory. The term 'theory' stands for a systematic knowledge. Thus 'political theory' denotes a systematic
knowledge of political phenomena.
Broadly speaking, political theory is concerned with three types of statements:
(1) Empirical statement, which is based on observation, through sense-experience alone;
(2) Logical statement, which is based on reasoning (e.g. 'two plus two is four'); and
(3) Evaluative statement, which is based on value-judgment (e.g. ‗men are born free and equal').
Political science relies only on empirical and logical statements. It is argued that correct observation and
correct reasoning by different persons would lead to the similar conclusion; hence empirical and logical
statements are capable of verification. On the other hand, it is alleged that evaluative statements are based on
individual or group preferences which differ from individual to individual or group to group; there is no reliable
method of determining what is right or wrong, good or bad; one cannot scientifically discover the purpose of the
universe or human life. Exponents of 'Logical Positivism' argue that evaluative statements have no empirical
content or logical structure; they are expressions of subjective reflection or emotional preference. Likewise,
champions of scientific method for the study of politics insist on a 'value-free' or 'value-neutral' approach.
In any case, political theory cannot be confined to the so-called scientific knowledge. It is equally
concerned with determining values which come within the scope of philosophy. We cannot accept the view that
values are based on individual or group preferences. On the contrary, values do have a sound logical structure
unless we mistake them for biased statements. Upholders of different values can be invited to have a dialogue, to
have an opportunity to understand each other's point of view, to convince each other and probably to agree on
certain universal principles to judge the validity of values. Determination of values is the basis of a sound public
policy or decision. If we abdicate this responsibility, it may fall in irresponsible hands, with disastrous
consequences. Hence political theory must comprehend both political science and political philosophy.

SJ-CSICLS
Nature of Political Theory
To know clearly as to what political theory really is, is to known its nature. Political theory is said to be
political thought and that is why there are some who describe political theory as denoting the work of numerous
thinkers. But it is not what political thought is. There are others who equate political theory with political
philosophy. It is true that political theory constitutes a part of political philosophy, but it is only a part; a part can
never be a whole, and as a part, it remains only a part, a part of the whole. There are still others who are
incorporating science in politics and who prefer to call it political science. But those who insist science of
politics refuse to admit if there ever has been a history of politics or a culture of politics. Brecht, therefore, would
say: ―Political philosophy, political theory, and political science are no longer interchangeable terms…… With
the emphasizes placed on science and a distinction from political philosophy, political science now refers to
efforts limited by the use of scientific methods, in contrast to political philosophy, which is free to transcend
these limits. Likewise political ‗theory‘ when opposed to political ‗philosophy‘ now is usually meant to refer
scientific theory only in distinction from political human-beings. Any speculative thesis that is proposed by
political philosophy can be part of (scientific) political theory only as a ‗working hypothesis‘ an auxiliary in the
scientific kit, and no… or not yet ….. as a piece of scientific knowledge‖.
Political theory is not all history but it is history in the limited sense; it is not all philosophy
but it is philosophy in some degree; it is not all science but it is science in so far as it response to reason. A
political theorist has to be a part historian, a part philosopher, and a part scientist.
Political Theory as History- That political theory is history has been empathetically advocated by
scholars like George Sabine, but all history is not political theory just as all political theory is not history.
Political theory without history is a structure without a base. In studying and analyzing politics, what we learn to
understand is a political tradition, and a concrete way of behavior. It is, there for, proper that the study of politics
should essentially be a historical study. History, we should know, is more than the tail of the dead and the buried;
it is a storehouse of experience and wisdom; success and failures; of what has been achieved and what has been
lost. It is the sum-total and simultaneously the formation- head of a few development, something, as Professor
L.S. Rathore says, ―Eternally significant and instructive, inseparably liked with contemporaneity in the perpetual
progress of mankind‖. ―Ignore History‖ he warns, ―and the delight of political theory is never too retrieved‖.
Political theory as history defines what has lost its value. No one cries now that the state has been a
divine creation or the result of contract in the state of nature. As history, political theory conserves what has
significant and helps posterity to cherish it for a long time to come. Concepts such as justice, liberty, equality,
obligation, as evolved through the annals of time, are being held high by political theory today and shall continue
to be so in future. Indeed, history seldom repeats itself but it can hardly be ignored. In the attempt to divorce
itself from history, political theory loses its own significance for there can be no fruits without the roots as
Seeley had said long ago. It is thought history that political theory explains what is what. One can never
understand a text without a context.
Political theory is history in the sense that it seeks to understand the time, the place, and the
circumstances in which it evolves. If it ignores it historical context, it loses its strength, its focus, and its
message. Any political theory has to have facts as the basis, circumstances in which it develops, and the
message, i.e., political theory. Political theory is not merely or only history, it it is a science in so far as it is not
understood in isolation and also a philosophy in so far as it motivates.
Political Theory as Philosophy-That political theory is a philosophy has been very well enunciated by
scholar like Leo Strauss but all philosophy is not political theory as all political theory is not philosophy.
Philosophy as an abstract study encompassing the whole universe in general and moral, norms, and values in
particular, is the sum total of general laws governing the whole world. It has served political theory well through
the ages as its valuation factor as Sabine has said. Philosophy, as Kant says, has answered three questions:

 ―What can I know?‖

SJ-CSICLS
  ―What must I do?, and
 ―What can I hope for?‖
And this is what makes philosophy a lodestar of life. With philosophy ,no political theory can ever hope to
exist ; without an eye on further, no present can ever afford sty as no present stands without its past.
Political theory is a philosophy for it not only seeks to know the nature of thinks but also attempt to explain
as to why things really exist. One understanding an action or a thought only by evaluating it. Evaluation is a part
of understanding. Philosophy as distinct from theory is a ― quest for wisdom‖ or as Strauss hold the view, ― quest
for universal knowledge , for knowledge of the whole ― Political theory as philosophy is‖ attempt truly to know
both the nature of political things and the right, or the good , political theorist is expected to possess more than an
assumes or opines . In fact, a political theorist is expected to possess more than an assumption or an opinion; he
has to have knowledge, and that is what exactly the task of political theory is. Political theory as philosophy is an
―attempt to replace opinion about the nature of political things by knowledge of the nature of political things ―.
Values, Strauss believes, are an indispensable part of political theory as they are of philosophy. Every
political philosopher has to be a teacher in his own right: he must profess; he must teach; he must persuade.
Professor Varma , therefore , writes that the object of persuasion is always there before the political theorist.
―What some of the modern writers have described as ‗folk-lore of political philosophy‘, or more specifically
‗ideology ‗, is vital for the understanding of political theory.‖ political theory not only explains, but also
influences, favorable or adversely. Evaluation aspects of a political activity are as important as its factual aspects.
It is, in this sense, that values and facts an integral part of any political theory.
Political Theory as Science That political theory is a science has been forcefully emphasized by
scholars from Arthur Bentley to George Catlin David Easton to Robert Dahl; but all science is not political
theory just as all political theory is not science .Political theory is not science in the sense Chemistry or physics
or mathematics is a science .It is not as exact a science as these natural or physical science are not because there
are no universally recognized principals, no clear cause effect relationships, no laboratories and no prediction are
made in political theory the way these are found natural and exact sciences.
It is a science in so far as it admits concepts and norms which are both observable and testable, and in
so far as it responds to the requirements of reason and rationalism. The American social science researchers in
general and the behaviouralists in particular, sought to create a science of political and in the process, indulged in
what may be called reductionism. Political theory is a science in so far as it can, and in fact, is applied to a social
gathering and the definite rules of the exact science are applicable within the limitations as in any social science.
Political theory as a science is only a social science. It is a science ,a prime science as conclusion are drawn after
study, observation, experiments, features which go along with any normal definitions of science. There is no
need to go a long way to make a science of politics and to find techniques, and tools to make politics and exact
politics, no matter whether there remains, in the process, any political theory or not .The role of science in
political theory should be limited to the extent that it helps understand a political phenomenon, and to that
extend, science should have an entry in the realms of political theory. Political theory admits objectivity in
association with subjectivity, facts together with values, research with theory. Political theory as generates
neutral, dispassionate, and objective knowledge.
There are limits social science. In contrast, the rule of the game does not change with the
time. The laws of physics, for instance, can be assumed to pertain to all situations at all times-past, present, and
future. But this is not true of the social science. ―the nature of the ‗economy‘ and the ‗political‘ is,‖ Colin Hay
says, ―different after Keynes and Max in a way that the ‗physical‘ and the ‗natural‘ is not after Newton and
Einstein.‖ We must remember that

“Social structures, unlike natural structures, do not exist independently of the activities that govern”.
“Social structures, unlike natural structures, do not exist independently of the agents conventional of
what they are doing in their activity”.

SJ-CSICLS
 “Social structures, unlike natural structures, may be only relatively enduring.”
This is where the social science is different from the natural science .The limits of political theory are
worked out within the ethics of political analysis.

Significance of Political Theory

Political science and political philosophy play complementary roles in the realm of political theory.
Significance of political theory may, therefore, be sought in both of these areas.
 Control of social life
Scientific analysis of political life enables us to understand and solve the problems of our social life. Just
as the knowledge of geology helps us in understanding the causes of earthquake and gives us insights for
preventing the havoc caused by it, so political science enables us to understand the causes of conflict and
violence in society and gives us insights for preventing their outburst. Just as the knowledge of physics enables
us to generate electricity from our thermal and water resources, so the knowledge of political science enables us
to secure development of society from our human resources. Just as the knowledge of medical science enables us
to control and cure various diseases of human body, so political science guides us to find remedies of political
instability and various types of social crises.
 Social criticism and reconstruction
Political philosophy is primarily concerned with right and wrong, good and evil in social life. When we
find something wrong in our society and polity, we look for logical grounds for criticizing it and speculate about
the creation of a good society. A galaxy of political philosophers, like Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine,
Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, Mill and Macpherson have pointed to the prevailing ills in
society and they have given their own schemes of social reconstruction. We cannot accept any of these proposals
as the final truth. But they give us ample insights into the possible ills of social life and their remedies. We can
draw our own scheme of social reconstruction on the basis of these insights. For example, Plato brilliantly
exposed the modus operandi of selfish and cunning politicians in a democracy. Machiavelli vividly described the
character of selfish and greedy people. Marx analysed the sources of conflict between the owners and non-
owners of property, and Macpherson pointed to the intricacies of power structure in contemporary society which
obstructs the way to creative freedom of individual. We can draw valuable insights from their thought for finding
remedies to the existing ills in the present-day society.
 Clarification of concepts
Political philosophy helps us a lot in the clarification of concepts used in the analysis of social and
political life. In fact the clarification of concepts in each area of study—whether science or philosophy—is
essential for the development of knowledge. This task is particularly difficult in the field of political theory. As
Sheldon S. Wolin has pointed out: "there is the widespread tendency to utilize the same words and notions in
describing non-political phenomena that we do in talking about political matters. In contrast to the restricted
technical usages of mathematics and the natural sciences, phrases like 'the authority of the father',
'the authority of the church', or 'the authority of Parliament' are evidence of the parallel usages prevailing in
social and political discussions." (Politics and Vision; 1960)
So when we use the terms of common parlance in political discourse, it is very important to determine
their technical meaning. Moreover, the terms like authority, social class, liberty, equality, justice, democracy, etc.
may be applied by different schools of thought to indicate different ideas. Political philosophy tries to determine
their precise meaning which should be acceptable to the upholders of different ideologies. Agreement on the
meaning of the terms of political discourse does not necessarily mean that they come to accept each other's
viewpoint. But it certainly paves the way for their dialogue. For example, if a liberal and a socialist accept the
same meaning of 'freedom' or 'equality', they are likely to appreciate each other's viewpoint.
As long as precise meanings of the terms of political discourse are not determined, some people may
apply them so cleverly as to conceal a weak point of their argument. Some selfish leaders and demagogues may
use these terms to mislead people by creating an emotional appeal and evading reason, and autocrats may apply
them to legitimize their oppressive regimes, as Mussolini (1883-1945) did in Italy. Again, a precise and widely
accepted definition of a term enables each thinker to build his argument on sound footing. As every innovative

SJ-CSICLS
mechanic need not invent a wheel to assemble a new machine, so every new thinker need not devise new
terminology to present his point of view.
 Encouragement to mutual respect and toleration
The tradition of political theory encourages a dignified debate between upholders of different points of
view. Most political philosophers from ancient times till the present-day have been dwelling on some common
problems and giving us new insights. As Andrew Hacker has significantly observed: "Political theory is a never-
ending conversation among theorists. And while the greatest of the debates are never resolved, the criticisms
which the writers make of each other are always most vivid and illuminating.... Politics is, after all, the most
democratic of sciences. The final judgments concerning political reality and the good life are the responsibility of
all who undertake the study of theory." (Political Theory: Philosophy, Ideology, Science) When we follow the
tradition of political philosophers, it inspires us to understand each other's viewpoint. It gives us an opportunity
to identify the strengths and weaknesses of our thought, to convince others and be convinced by others when
truth is discovered. In short, political theory generates mutual respect and toleration among us and prompts us to
resolve our differences peacefully.

Scope of Political Theory

Political Theory

Focus on Study Method of Study

Political Concepts Political Institutions & Behavior

&
Ideas

Descriptive Scientific Method Normative Philosophical

Method

Positivism
The view that relies on scientific method as the only source of true knowledge. It rejects superstition,
religion and metaphysics as pre-scientific forms of thought. It holds that all knowledge is ultimately based on
sense-experience. Hence empirical method must be adopted for any genuine inquiry in the field of social
sciences as well as physical sciences.
Commenting on this debate Dante Germino in his Beyond Ideology: The Revival of Political Theory
(1967) argued that in most of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century there were two major causes of
the decline of political theory: (a) the rise of positivism which led to the craze for science; and (b) the prevalence
of political ideologies culminating in Marxism. But now it was again in ascendancy, particularly in the political
thought of Michael Oakeshott, Hannah Arendt, Bertrand de Jouvenal, Leo Strauss and Eric Voegelin. This list
was expanded by Germino in a subsequent paper (1975) so as to include John Rawls, C.B. Macpherson,
Christian Bay, Robert Nozick, Herbert Marcuse, Jurgen Habermas, Alasdaire Maclntyre and Michael Walzer.
The works of these writers had revived the grand tradition of political philosophy. Germino suggested that in
order to understand the new role of political theory it was imperative to identify it with political philosophy.
Political philosophy is a critical study of the principles of right order in human social existence, involving
inquiry into right and wrong. It is neither reductionist behavioural science where everything is reduced to sense-
experience, nor opinionated ideology which accepts some principles to be true without inquiring into their
SJ-CSICLS
validity. It comprehends both the knowledge of facts and the insight with which that knowledge is
comprehended.
According to Germino, political philosophy deals with perennial problems confronting man in his social
existence. Detachment is not ethical neutrality. A political philosopher cannot remain indifferent to the political
struggle of his times as a behaviouralist would claim. In short, behavioural political science concentrates on facts
and remains neutral to values. Political philosophy cannot grow along with positivism which abstains from a
critical examination of any social situation. The gulf between traditionalist and behaviouralist components of
political theory is so wide that they cannot be 'reunited'. Any theory separated from the perennial concerns of
political philosophy will prove to be irrelevant. Germino laments that the behavioural political theory has often
implicitly or uncritically endorsed the policies and practices of the established order instead of performing the
Socratic function of 'speaking truth to power.' He warns that full
recovery of critical political theory cannot be achieved within the positivist universe of discourse.
Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979) has significantly pointed to the risk involved in the demand for scientific
study of society and politics. He has argued that when the language of social science attempts to conform to the
language of natural science, it tends to lend support to the status quo. In this context scientific terminology is
sought to be defined in terms of such operations and behavior that are capable of observation and measurement.
This leaves no scope for a critical vision in the scientific language. For instance, when people's participation is
sought to be estimated on the basis of the numbers of voters who turn up at elections, we do not question whether
the prevailing electoral system conforms to the spirit of democracy! When we adopt this method of study, social
science no longer remains an instrument of social inquiry; it becomes an instrument of social control.
In any case, since 1970s the dispute between political science and political philosophy has largely
subsided. While David Easton had shown a renewed concern with values in his post-behavioural approach, the
exponents of political philosophy did not hesitate in testing their assumptions by empirical method. Karl Popper
(1902-94), an eminent exponent of scientific method, proceeded to draw conclusions regarding social values.
John Rawls (1921-2002) adopted empirical method for arriving at his principles of justice. Then C.B.
Macpherson (1911-87) attacked the empirical theory of democracy propounded by Joseph Schumpeter (1883-
1950) and Robert Dahl (1915- ), and advanced his own radical theory of democracy. Herbert Marcuse and Jurgen
Habermas (1929- ) have shown a strong. Empirical insight in their critical analysis of the contemporary
capitalism. It is now held that political science, like other social and natural sciences, enables us to strengthen our
means but we will have to resort to political philosophy to determine our ends. Means and ends are
interdependent; hence political science and political philosophy play complementary roles in our social life.

Empiricism
The term empiricism has a dual etymology. It comes from the Greek word, the Latin translation of which
is experiential, from which we derive the word experience. It also derive from a more specific classical usage of
empiric, referring to a physician whose skills derives from practical experience as opposed to institution in
theory.
In philosophy, empiricism is a theory of knowledge that is practical rather than abstract, and asserts that
knowledge arises from experience rather than revelation.
Empiricism is one view held about how we know things, and so is part of the branch of philosophy called
epistemology, which means theory of knowledge. Empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence,
especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas while discounting the notion of innate ideas.
In science, empiricism emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to
evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all
hypothesis and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a
priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.
The advocates of empiricism relate all knowledge to be derived from experience through the following
ways:

SJ-CSICLS
  Experience, the only basis of knowledge,
 All hypothesizes and theories to be tested by the process of observation,
 Facts to be examined objectively: collected, arranged, classified, categorized, and explained,
 Scientific and inductive method,
 Research to be related to theory, and theory, to the facts.
The empirical approach in its emphasis on experience becomes irrelevant in the face of varying
experiences where, therefore, objectivity is usually is not possible. It lays over emphasis on facts and scientific
methodology, it often boasts of: its rejection of values robs it of all basis of evaluation.

Political modernization

Modernization is an unavoidable process. Individuals may change from time to time and this change is
being influenced by the process of modernisation. There is craze for modern ways of life and the various
comforts and conveniences which go with the process of modernisation. Although there was modernisation in
every society at different stages of history, the process became highly accelerated after the industrial revolution
in Europe. Advancement of science and technology has been responsible to bring rapid modernization affecting
almost all walks of life in society.
The concept of ‗political modernisation‘ like political development is very vague. Different scholars have
defined it differently. Most of the western political scientists regarded modernisation as westernization. The term
‗Modernisation‘ is, however, said to be the current term for the old process, the process of social change,
whereby less developed societies acquire characteristics common to more developed society. It is a process
based upon the rational utilization of resources and aimed at the establishment of modern society. For some
persons, modernisation is a process of structural differentiation, functional specialization and adaptive upgrading.
Modernisation in the evolutionary perspective refers to transition from primitive to traditional, to industrialized
society; from religious to secular ideology, from particularism, ascription, diffuseness, self orientation to
universalism, achievement, specificity, and collective orientation from extended family to nuclear family and so
on.
A modern society has been identified as a society characterized by the application of technology and by
extensive social interdependence. Urbanization, literacy, social mobility and many other factors also go with the
concept of modern society. Modernisation implies the breakdown of traditional society. It refers to the
development of a new social order ―based on advanced technology and the spirit of science, a rational view of
life, a secular approach to social relations, a feeling for justice in public affairs and above all else on the
acceptance in the political realm of the belief that the prime unit of the polity should be the nation-state‖.
Modernisation is at present an irresistible force. It has spread to the different parts of the world. This
process has been described as ―a diffusion of world culture‖. Modernisation like the Industrial Revolution started
in Western Europe and has spread to other parts of the world. Thus, industrialization, urbanization, education and
media participation are the various aspects of modernisation. It refers to the change in political culture and
political institutions as a result of the process of modernisation- ―that is everything like economic growth,
increase of gross national product and per-capita income, economic planning, greater industrialization,
accumulation of capital, increasing urbanization and reduction of the proportion of those engaged in agriculture,
scientific advance, improved transport and a higher rate of literacy.
Definitions
Claud E.Welch, Jr. suggests, modernisation as ―the process based upon the rational utilization of
resources and aimed at the establishment of a modern society‖ Benjamin Schwartz describes modernisation as
―the systematic, sustained and powerful application of human energies to the rational control of man‘s physical
and social environment for various human purposes‖.
W.W.Rostow ―Modernisation implies an intellectual, technological and social revolution‖
A B. Smith points out ―modernisation is defined as man‘s increased knowledge and mastery of this
environment‖.
C E Black defines: The process by which historically evolved institutions are adapted to the rapidly
changing functions that represent the unprecedented increase in man‘s knowledge, pertaining to control is called
modernisation‖.

SJ-CSICLS
 Gabriel A Almond and G Bingham Powell jr. say ‗the political modernisation refers to those processes of
differentiation of political structures and secularization of political culture which enhance the capacity of
society‘s political system‖
Michael Curtis points out that ― modernisation implies economic growth , the increase of gross national
product and of per capita income, economic planning , greater industrialization, the accumulation of capital,
increasing urbanization and a reduction in the proportion of those engaged in agriculture scientific advance,
improved transport and a higher rate of literacy‖.
Karl Deutch ―modernisation is a process by which major cultures of old social, economic and
psychological commitments are eroaded or broken down the people become available for new pattern of
socialization and behavior.‖
Marxist scholars define modernisation in terms of consciousness as ideology or superstructure. They see
modernisation as the imposition of infrastructure of domination and exploitation and interpret elements of
consciousness as dependent variables i.e. an appendage of infrastructure.
According to Huntington ―Modernisation is multi-faceted process involving changes in all areas of human
thought and activity‖.
Modernisation is a multi-faceted process and, for this reason, political modernisation is a concept
having several dimensions as:
1. At the psychological level, modernisation involves a fundamental shift in the norms, values, attitudes and
orientations of the people.
2. At the intellectual level, it involves a tremendous expansion of man‘s knowledge about his environment and
the diffusion of this knowledge throughout the society through increased literacy, education and mass
communication.
3. At the demographical level, it implies improvements in the standards of living and progress towards the
mobility of people and urbanization.
4. At the social level, it has a tendency to replace the focus of an individual‘s loyalty to family and other primary
groups to voluntarily organised secondary associations.
5. At the economic level, it involves the growth of market agriculture, improvement in commerce at the expense
of agriculture, development of industrialization and widening of the economic activity.
Thus, modernisation ―is regarded as a comprehensive phenomenon which brings about radical changes in
the field of economic development, mainly in the direction of industrialization and material advancement,
political systems and also changes in the social and psychological spheres of life‖.
Basic characteristics of Modernisation
1. Application of technology and mechanization
2. Industrialization
3. Urbanization
4. Rise in national income and per-capita income
5. Increasing literacy
6. Political participation
7. Development of mass media techniques
8. Social mobility
9. Cultivation of national identity
Stages of political modernisation
The subject of political modernisation has its special relevance in the case of the developing countries of
the Third World which ―are damned if they do, and damned if they don‘t‖. Such is the dilemma before the Third
World countries. The reason for this may be traced in their perennial quest for the way they should adopt to
achieve the goal. The fact stands out that no country desires to relinquish the path of development or
modernisation and, at the same time, most of the Third World countries fail to choose the option between liberal
and socialist courses. Apter is of the view that while the liberal capitalist solution poses the problem of
inequality, the Marxian socialist requires coercion. And yet the struggle for political modernisation persists
because ‗development embodies hope‘.
Like political development, political modernisation also takes place where it is most easily accepted or
wanted. Thus, it signifies the ‗transfer of roles from metropolis to periphery‘. Moreover, it has its stages, each
having its own predicaments. According to Apter, four stages may be earmarked in this regard:
SJ-CSICLS
 1. Stage of contact and control: It began with a few hardy and enterprising individuals with a particular
strong sense of mission, or greed, or zeal, or desire for adventure. They paved the way for innovation. The first
stage of development represented a process by means of which the then new wealth of Europe and new
technologies, by creating opportunities for trade, effected not only the settlement of trade centers but the
acquisition of territory as well. It was accompanied by the belief condition of dependent peoples must be
changed. A poet like Kipling Shrewdly termed it ‗Whiteman‘s burden. It was marked by the consolidation of the
alien rule erection of a stable system of authority and the being of urbanization, health and schooling for and elite
occurring at the end of this stage.
2. Stage of reaction and counter-action: it showed the effects of Western colonialism. Innovative
foreign elites of the bureaucrats, missionaries, traders and the like created new urban centers or renovated the old
ones and the native persons drew closer to them. The notable feature of this stage was that local and foreign
elements interacted; new forms of association developed; and new interests arose. At the same time,
nationalization led by elite grew. The nationalist leaders demanded more and more participation in public affairs.
The colonial masters played the strategy of winning over the nationalist elites to their side and repressing those
who could not be tamed for their purpose.
3. Stage of contradiction and emancipation: With the growth of new elites, more complex associations
in politics arose. The base of the nationalist movement widened. Elites developed in the rural and semi-urban
areas and the nationalist leaders sharpened the pace of their struggle. To face the challenge of the growing
nationalism, the colonial powers devised the strategy of introducing their own democratic systems in degrees.
Such responses, in turn, stimulated political organizations, mass movements, demands for greater independence,
and other forerunners of the impending break with the colonizing power. Intellectuals fomented rebellion,
providing ideological arguments and alternatives. Charismatic or near-charismatic leaders promised a new unity
with independence.
4. Stage of search for a New Generative Solution: It occurred after the advent of independence and, as
such, it was marked by the inauguration of the second revolution in the social, economic and technological
spheres. Thus, the main problem before the developing countries is to use political independence to produce
more viable and effective communities without becoming ensnared in ‗neo-colonialism‘. This is partly a matter
of prompting economic growth, partly an awakening to the predicaments or uneven change. One striking point in
this stage is that the nationalist leadership of the well-known nationalist figures loses its charismatic hold and the
‗imported democratic system‘ is replaced by some authoritarian model provided by the only ruling party or
military junta.
Agents of modernisation
1. Colonialism
2. Elites
3. Revolutionary leaders
4. Political parties
5. Military
6. Bureaucracy
The political aspects of modernisation refer to the ensemble of structural and cultural changes in the
political systems of modernizing societies. Political modernisation, therefore, refers to those processes of
differentiation of political structure and secularization of political cultures which enhance the capability- the
effectiveness and efficiency of performance- of a society‘s political system.
Characteristics of modernisation:
S N Eisenstadt sums up the characteristics of modernisation as follows:
1. Social mobilization: The indices of social mobilization are exposure to aspects of modernisation life
such as machinery and mass media; change of residence i. e‘ urbanization; change from agriculture occupation
and literacy and the growth of per capital income.
2. Social differentiation: This implies the specialization of institutional structures and recruitment based
on universal achievement. Criteria and separatism between the different roles held by an individual and the
disposal of rules.
3. Economic change: Which means changes with reference to technology and development of secondary
and tertiary occupation and mass consumption

SJ-CSICLS
 4. Political change: which includes the extension of territorial scope and the intensification of the power
of the centre; the continued spreading political power to wider groups, populist and democratic politics and
participation; fluidity of political support; interest oriented politics, and political institutions like political parties
and pressure groups.
Factors influencing modernisation in developing states
Modernisation is creating a dilemma for developing states and they could not attain modernisation to a
maximum degree. So there are few factors which are responsible for influencing the process of modernisation in
developing states:
Love for tradition: The people love their own traditions, customs, usages and conventions in developing
countries which have acted as a stumbling block in the process of modernisation. Their acceptance for the new
social change is quite low because of their long-cherished traditions, but they wanted both modernisation and
tradition on their terms.
Conflict over method of modernisation: In developing states, there is always a conflict regarding the
methods of modernisation. There are two methods of modernisation-revolution method and evolution method.
The revolution method says that to achieve modernization well-established old institutions have to be challenged,
where changes are supposed to be drastic or revolutionary instead of being instrumental and gradual. On the
other hand, liberals think that change should always be gradual and slow instead of being drastic. This would
help the people to achieve the fruits (both modernisation and traditional norms and values through evolution
methods. Due to this conflict, developing countries stand at crossroad where they neither give up their old
traditional values nor fully adopt or accept sudden changes in societies; therefore, these developing countries
pose in standstill postures.
Social political equality: The modern concept of social political equality and justice is not acceptable to
the people because they believe in perpetual inequality. The discrimination of the elite over the masses and that
of higher caste or class over the lower class uproot the modernisation in these societies: So, the concept of high
and low persist strongly in developing countries which create a problem towards modernisation.
Ideology: In developing states, modernisation is very much influenced by ideology It is that ideology
which bonds and holds the people tightly within a political stratum on the basis of some commonly agreed
principles. An ideological conflict always exists in the modern political system and traditional political system
where modernisation stands for the progressive ideology but it is constantly opposed by the existing form of
ideology in developing countries.
Absence of strong political party: In the developing countries, modernisation is seriously affected by the
existence of a variety of political parties where there are no particular single political parties which have the
command over the people of a particular state. The traditional social systems are authoritarian systems (the
elites) in nature; they wish to continue in power in developing countries and they want to have control over the
masses and where the peoples are not allowed to participate in the process of decision-malting. Even though
some measures have been taken regarding people's participation in the administration in some countries, their
degree of involvement is not so high when compared to developed countries. It is necessary to have a strong
political party which helps in bringing people close to the political system,
Un-continuous development process: Modernisation is also affected severely by the uncontinious
development process which is a -regular feature of developing states. Political instability, illiteracy, ignorance of
the people, heterogeneous group character and continuous clash among people are the main causes which do not
yield for their developments in developing nations. As such, the national integration is affected and there occurs
a breakdown in political development.
Growing disparity over socio-economic values: There is a high growing disparity over the socio-
economic values which influence the process of political modernisation. There is always a wide gap between
gross national product (GNP) and the population growth. Thus, high-population nations suffer from poverty.
Illiteracy, alienation and economic disparities, so this has directly affected the developing countries for -their
political modernisation
Conclusion
The concept of political modernisation as a companion to the concept of political development has
provided better tools for the new generations of political scientists to make a taxonomic study of the modern
political systems. Once again, the link of political science with sociology comes into the picture as a study of
political modernisation is obviously a different form of a Lucian Pye presents the case of political development
SJ-CSICLS
elaborately his aspect of political development. Before trying to furnish his own interpretation of the term
‗political development‘, he discussed diverse stand point and goes ahead after accepting some and rejecting some
other parts of each definition in the following manner.

Political Development

The concept of political development that, in quite large measures, was spoken about first by the
statesmen and policy makers and then by the scholars of economics and sociology has a very important place in
the field of political sociology. What prompted the modern political scientists, particularly those belonging to
United States, is the emergence of a large number of independent nation states in the Afro- Asian and Latin
American regions which showed change from one position to another in a very rapid manner and thus
information them to refashion their tools of social investigation. The new generation of political scientist came to
realize that the non western political process, even though they were different from the western political process,
could be successfully studied by them against the socio – economic and cultural background they themselves had
inherited throughout the centuries in the west, and under the influence of which they had been operating now.
The fact that there were different from the western political process, being rooted in, and drawing their
sustenance from, different cultural backgrounds ―induced them to widen their studies to the total context of the
cultural and historical setting of the developing states‖. In modern times the concept of political development is
being used in the explanation of development in so many nations in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Lucian Pye should be regarded as the leading writer ―to analyse the concept of development in depth.
And has kept on evolving his ideas on the subject and has left an abiding impression on the entire literature of
political development‖. Lucian Pye called political development as the adjustment between old patterns of life
and the new demands. He emphasized that the first step towards the political development was the evolution of
the nation state system which he treated as a ―basic concept supporting the gradual diffusion throughout all
societies of what we might call a world culture‖.
At this stage, he told us that the signs of political development could be traced at three different levels –
with respect to the population as a whole, on the governmental levels and in the organization of political system.
Lucian Pye presents the case of political development elaborately his aspect of political development.
Before trying to furnish his own interpretation of the term ‗political development‘, he discussed diverse stand
point and goes ahead after accepting some and rejecting some other parts of each definition in the following
manner.
1. Political development as the political prerequisite of economic development: Political development
should be taken as a result of the economic development. Political and social conditions can play a quite decisive
role in impeding or facilitating the economic growth. According to this view political development is the
political perquisite of economic development. Pye found following weakness in this concept of political
development:
It has a negative character that is easier to know the ways in which performance of political system may
impend or prevent economic growth and development that about how it can facilitate economic growth and
development.
Such a concept of political development does not focus on a common set of theoretical considerations. In
some cases it means that the government is not following rational economic policies, while in other situations it
may be concerned about the political system and the social structure.
The prospects for rapid economic development do not depend so much on political development as on
economic factors.
Most of the under developed countries are concerned with political development rather than economic
growth. Therefore, political development cannot be linked to economic events.
2. Political development as the politics typical of industrial society: Some scholars like W W Rostow try
to identify the process of political development as the politics of typical industrial society. Industrial life
produces a common and generic type of political life. The industrial societies set certain standards of political
behavior and performance. These constitute the status and determine the goals of political development. This
view makes specific qualities of political development, the pattern of rational and responsible state behavior. Pye
rejects it also on the ground that it ignores that it ignores the role of several other factors like forces that threaten

SJ-CSICLS
the hold of the vested interests, an appreciation of the values of ordinary legal and administrative procedures, a
stress on welfare programmes and finally an acceptance of some form of mass participation.
3. Political development as political modernisation: The scholars like James S. Coleman, Karal Deutsch
and S M Lipset defined political development as the crucial character of political modernisation, characteristics
of modern societies. Political development includes various aspects of economic, social and political life of the
industrial nations. It means that a study of developed western and modern countries and of their ways that the
developing countries are trying to emulate. It means that the advanced western and modern countries are the pace
setters of political development. This view fails to distinguish between the ‗western‘ and the ‗modern‘ and that it
ignores the fact that the backward or developing countries may have their historical traditions that they may not
like to give up for the sake of merely emulating everything that is western or modern.
4. Political development as the operations of nation state: A good number of social theorists like K H
Silvert , Edward A Shils and Willam Mccord have pointed out that political development consists of the
organization of political life and the performance of political functions in accordance with the standards expected
of a modern nation state. Political development is thus identified with the politics of nationalism within the
context of social and political institutions that a modern nation state must possess. Rejecting this view, Pye says
that nationalism is only a necessary but far from being sufficient conditions to ensure political development.
Political development is identifiable with nation building and not with merely a nation state.
5. Political development as administrative and legal development: Scholars and thinkers like Max
Weber, Talcott Parsons and Joseph La Palombara have laid stress on the point that political development is
intricately linked to the legal and administrative order of a community. Thus the establishment of an effective
bureaucracy is essential for the process of development. Administrative development is associated with the
growth of nationality, the strengthening of secular legal concepts and the evaluation of technical and specialized
knowledge in the direction of human affairs. Thus political development improves the administrative and legal
development .Pye finds some weakness in this view point‘s also. It is quite possible that if administrative is over
stressed, it can create imbalances in the polity that may impede political
development.
6. Political development as mobilization and participation: Political development has been defined as
mass mobilization and participation. It involves new standards of loyalties and the involvement of the citizens.
This is found in the case of widening of suffrage in western democracies. It inducts new elements of population
into the political process. It diffuses decision making and participation. However, it has been pointed out that
mass participation in decision – making is never fully realized nor is desirable since it causes emotional
influence.
7. Political development as the building of democracy: The thinkers like Joseph la Palombara and J
Ronald Pennock are of the view that political development is the building of democracy and inculcating values
of democratic order in the minds of people. Pye criticizes of this view, on the other hand, pointed out that while
democracy is a value laden concept development is more value neutral. Therefore, taking the building of
democracy as the key to political development in fact means an effort to push western values upon others.
8. Political development as mobilization and power: James S Coleman, G A Almond and Talcott
Parsons have taken the view that the concept of political development can be evaluated in terms of the level or
degree of absolute power which the system is able to mobilize. Pye is critical of this view also on the plea that
such an explanation is applicable to the case of a democratic political system and thus it ignores the case of
development in others where the mobilization of power is deliberating kept limited.
9. Political development as stability or orderly change: Karal Deutish and F W Riggs have laid stress on
the point that political development is a process that ensures stability and orderly change. Political stability is
based on a capacity for purposeful and orderly change. Any form of economic and social advancement generally
depends upon reduced uncertainty and the possibility of planning. Pye differs from this approach and says that,
this view however, leaves the questions unanswered and for what purpose the change should be directed.
10. Political development as one aspect of a multi dimensional process of social change: Max F
Millikan, Donald L M Blackmer and Daniel Lerner argued that it is unnecessary and inappropriate to try to
isolate completely political development from other forms of development. They further add that for sustained
political development to take place it can only be within the context of multi dimensional process of social
change in which no segment or dimension of the society can long lag behind. Pye appreciates this view on the
plea that here all forms of development is much the same as modernisation and it takes place within a historical
SJ-CSICLS
context in which influences from outside the society impinge on the process of social change just as changes in
the different aspects of a society the economy, the polity and the social order all impinge on each other.
11. Political development as a sense of national respect in international affairs: Some writers point out
that development means a sense of national respect and dignity in international sphere or refers to post
nationalism era when nation state will no longer be regarded as the basic unit of political life. Pye says nothing
about this view. He neither accepts it nor rejects it.
Implications of political development
According to Nettle, the concept of political development involves the following implications.
Definitional priorities: These change according to the industrial diversities and culture constraints of
different societies. They may be revolutionary or democratic in character. They may be western or oriental.
Set of values: These include terms like traditionalist or modernity, free or closed societies, developed and
developing social systems, which are confused and perplexing as the models are not definite.
Connection between the developed and less developed world: According to Nettle, ―what this amount
to be a rewriting of European, American and even Asiatic history for developmental purposes. The modern
world is no longer so much a goal or a process model but a historical abstraction of functional, events which, one
way or another must happens and be coped with by all countries aspiring to modernity.
Rank order for development: this implies economic order. It does not throw light upon capabilities of
the political system. According to Nettle, ―if development is indeed, a highly differential process according to
particular societies and their goals, then rank ordering comparisons become meaningless‖.
Requirements of political development
After discussing the implication of political development, Nettle points out the following requirements.
Inter related world: in order to understand the meaning of political development one should remember
that the world as a whole is inter related. Thus development study is an interdisciplinary problem
Stability and instability: Political development involves both stability and instability. Therefore, in
defining it one should consider not only integrating factors such as nation building national integration etc., but
also disintegrating factors such as wars inflation etc.
Population: population has a direct influence upon the political system. Therefore, political development
cannot be explained without reference to population.
Race: political development must include the role of race in political system.
Characteristic change: The above discussion shows the complexity and range of the concept of political
development. David M Wood includes the following broad ganged changes as characteristics of political
development.
 Industrialization
 Urbanization
 Spread of education and literacy
 Increasing exposure of mass media
 Expansion of secular state
 Growth of modern bureaucracies
 Development of a sense of nationhood
 Advent of political parties
 Expansion of popular political participation
 Increased capacity of the political system to mobilize resources for the accomplishment of its ends
in the most of modern politics
 Decline in the missionary fervor of the political development

Critical Appraisal
The concept of political development, as discussed in the preceding sections , may be subjected to these
lines of criticism. 1. This concept lacks a precise definition. Even after studying the enormous literature on this
subject, one wonders as to what it really includes and what it really excludes it becomes, like the very subject of
comparative politics, either everything or nothing.
2. Studies of the subject of political development suffer from the absence of any coherent political model of the
development process and that the entire analysis is left at the point where extra political change.

SJ-CSICLS
3. Likewise, the Marxian approach to political development may criticize for offering a deterministic course of
social evolution. The Marxists look like faced with a traditional ity that confuses them and they find it very
difficult to fit traditional societies into the rather rigid Marxian framework.
Although most of political scientists have studies and written about political development, yet there is no
universally accepted theory of political development or any pre- determined law of development. No society in
the world can claim to be its model to which others may move. The theorists, however, helped in join attention of
the world to the problem of political development of Third world nations. Moreover, the scope of empirical
political investigations has also widened and made broader based. Thus, the study of political development has
helped considerably in orientation of several new theories in the field of investigations.

Political Culture

The concept of ‗Political Culture‘ is somewhat new in the discipline of Political Science. One version is
that it was in 1960‘s that this concept became a part of modern political analysis. Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney
Verba have pointed out that the concept of Political Culture, like other concepts in the field of Political Science,
was originated between two world wars. It was first introduced by Gabriel A. Almond in one of his paper titled
―Comparative Political System,‖ published in 1956. In his early attempts to offer a classification for comparing
Political Systems.
Political Culture, however, has been popularized by some of the leading American writers like
Samuel Beer, Admulams and Gabriel A. Almond. Political culture is, however, closely linked with ‗Political
System‘ and in fact the formal regulates the latter. Moreover, political culture is not static but changes with
changing times. This concept has therefore, offered a new method of having knowledge of Political Sociology.
One political system may be different from other in respect of Political culture. It is political culture which
explains why in some political systems democratic or parliamentary democracy failed and replaced by military
dictatorship and in others it was replaced by civilian totalitarianism. It is not only the legal framework that
matters but there are something more which affects this development.
Each society, however, imparts its own characteristic set of norms and values to its people, and the
people in turn have distinct sets of idea about how the Political System to work, about what the Government may
do them, and about their own claims on the system and their obligation to it. This set of beliefs, symbols, and
values about the Political System forms the Political culture of a nation. In the simplest words, Political culture is
the Psychology of the nation in regard to Politics.
According to Sidney Verba, Political culture is the empirical beliefs, expressive symbols and values
which defined the situation in which political action takes place. By empirical beliefs he means the ways people
perceive and interpret the nature of political relationship. By expressive symbols, he means the ways of people
feel towards political institutions and leaders; patterns of by values he means the standards used to set the general
goals of the political system; standards used to evaluate political demands, processes and products. A political
culture can, thus, be characterized by relative, empirically determinable levels of consensus in the sharing among
people of these beliefs, symbols and values. In other words, political culture is defined in terms of political
orientations and attitudes held by individual, in relation to their political system.
Meaning and interpretations of political culture
There has been a substantial effort to view culture in a political context in Political Science in general and
in Political Sociology in particular. For a political scientist ―the shared values of a communities or group are
embodied in its political culture, which in the reflection of its attitudes towards politics and which conditions the
manner in which functions are exercised and the nature of the persons which perform those functions‖.
According to Dogan and Rose, the concept of ―political culture is a conventional shorthand way of referring to
the values, beliefs, emotions, that give meaning to political life. Rose points out that the political culture of a
nation consists of the characteristic attitudes of its population towards basic features of the political system‖.
Waler A. Rosenbaum defines it as ―The collective orientation of people towards the basic elements in the
political system‖. S.P. Verma points out that ―Political culture includes not only the attitudes to politics, political
values, ideologies, nation‘s character and culture ethos but also the style, manner and substantive form of
politics‖.
The concept of political cultural owes its genesis to the post second world war phase where political
scientists attempted to develop a number of new approaches to detach political science from tentacles of
SJ-CSICLS
traditional approaches. It seeks to study politics by integragating outputs from psychology and sociology political
culture refers to beliefs attitudes and orientation that people have towards political objects.
Definitions
Almond and Powell define, political culture as the ―sum total of individual‘s attitudes, orientations,
beliefs towards politics among the members of a political system‖.
According to Dennis Kavanagh, ―A political culture composed of the attitudes beliefs, emotions and
values of society‖.
Lucian W.Pye viewed ‗Political Culture‘ as providing ―an ordered subjective relam of Politics, which is
found on two levels. For the individual the political culture produces controlling guidelines for effective political
behavior, and for the collectivity it gives a systematic structure of values and rational considerations which
insures coherence in the performance of institutions and origanisations.‖
In the opinion of Roy Macridis, ―Political Culture means commonly shared goals and commonly shared
accepted rules‖.
Smauel Beer defines political culture as the ―Values, beliefs and emotional attitudes about new
government ought to be conducted and what it should do‖.
Components of Political Culture
As political culture is the pattern of individual attitudes orientations towards politics among the members
of a political system, it is the subjective realm which underlines and gives meaning to political actions. Political
culture is composed of attitudes and orientations which people in a given society develop towards objects within
their political system. These orientations may have three distinct dimensions which are cognitive, affective and
evaluative.
Cognitive Orientation-Cognitive orientation refers to people‘s knowledge, accurate or otherwise, of
political objects and beliefs. In other words cognitive orientation involves knowledge about political objects and
familiarity with the way the political system actually works. Thus, an individual may have relatively high degree
of accurate knowledge about how his political system works, who are leading figures and what are the current
problems faced by the country. In developing countries majority of people are more or less ignorant as to how
political system is run and about the role of the Prime Minister, President and the Courts. Majority of them have
limited contact with the political system also.
Affective Orientation-Affective orientation refers to emotional feelings of the people towards their
political system. In other words it stands for subjective feelings of attachment to alienation from the political
system. It also refers to the standard of criteria with the help of which the people judge their political system.
Affective orientation, therefore, includes the feelings of attachment, involvement, rejection and the like, about
political objects. These emotional feelings are very important because they affect the activities of the people as
well as of the government.
Evaluative Orientation-Evaluative orientation refers to judgments and opinions about political objects,
which usually involve applying value standards to political objects and events. These three orientations are
closely interrelated and would be found in the psyche of a single individual in different combinations. Almond
and Powell have rightly observed that the orientation patterns ‗constitute the latent political tendencies, the
propensities for political behavior, which are of crucial importance in explaining and predicting action in a
political system.
Political Objects
Orientations of the people are directed towards ‗Political Objects‘. According to Almond and Powell,
political objects include the political system as a whole; Particular Political structures- Parties, interest groups,
legislature, executive, Judiciary – Individual or group roles President, Prime Minister, Cabinet, Ministry and
specific Public Politics and issues. They also include the self as a political actor. Since the number of Political
objects is very large, they can be classified under four categories.
1. System as a whole: It includes the Political System, its history, it size, location of power, constitution
etc. People have knowledge of, feelings about and judgments on the political system and it is these orientations
that condition the development of national identity. To develop these orientations people must not only be
physically and legally members of a political system but as well are physiologically members of that system.
2. Input Processes: It includes those organizations and institutions which channel the flow of demands
and supports into the political system. They affect the decision making process like Political parties, Pressure
groups, Media etc.
SJ-CSICLS
 3. Output Process: It includes the work of the bureaucracy, the courts and other institutions concerned
with applying and enforcing authoritative decisions.
4. The Self: It includes the individual‘s role in the Political System as perceived by individual himself. As
he plays a role in the political system he certainly has knowledge of, attachment to, and also his own evaluation
of their role.
Types of Political Culture
Almond and Powell, in order to characterize political culture in terms of distribution of general attitudes
toward the political system and toward the input and the output processes; have classified political culture into
the following three ideal or pure types, namely
i. Parochial political culture,
ii. Subject political culture, and
iii. Participant political culture.

Parochial political culture

People who exhibit little or no awareness of the political system fall in this category. In other words it
includes people who have no inclination to participate in input process and not aware of the output process. They
are, thus, not interested to play any role. According to Michael Curtis, ―a parochial orientation is that when the
individual is not aware of nor has opinions about the system as a whole but only of the local community‖.
Such type of people is found in every society. Their number is, however more in traditional societies and
rare in western developed societies. There is, therefore, no specialization and no special political roles in the
society which ahs parochial political culture. In such a society the headman or chieftain alone assesses political,
economic and religious role as in African chiefdoms.
Thus, from parochial culture we mean a system in which there is low cognition of political objects. The
people by and large have no awareness of national political system. The society is, therefore, by and large
traditional and backward.
Subject political culture
People, who have high frequency of orientation towards a differentiated political system and toward the
out-put aspects of the system but their orientation towards input objects and toward self as an active participant is
zero, are included in this category. In other words, this category includes all those individuals who are oriented to
the political system or aware of various governmental roles such as collection of taxes, law making etc., and of
the government good or bad, legitimate or illegitimate.
But they were not oriented to take part in output structure as they do not have any clear knowledge of the
way in which they can influence the political system. They have, therefore, no inclination to play any role.
According to Michael Curtis a subject orientation is that when the individual is aware of the system but is
essentially passive and accepts decisions. Such type of culture is generally found in monarchical system of
government. Subject political culture most prominent in the East European states and also in many of the newly
independent states of Asia and Africa.
Participant political culture
Participant political culture is one in which the members of the society tend to be explicitly oriented to
the system as a whole i.e. to both the political and administrative structures and processes. In other words
members of the society of this category are oriented to both the input and output aspects of the political system.
It may further said that individuals of this category may be favorable or unfavorable oriented to the various
classes of political objects. They also tend to be oriented towards an ‗activist‘ role of the self in the polity.
However, their feelings and evaluations of such a role may vary from acceptance to rejection, people of this
category are always engaged in the articulation demands on the political system and are also participating or
involved in the making of public decisions. According to Michael Curtis, participant orientation is that when the
individual is an active member of the polity.
This type of culture exists in highly developed societies where people take active part in the political
activities by considering themselves as the active members of the polity and are well conscious of their rights
and duties. Participant political culture is clearly noticeable in the British, American and Scandinavian political
system.
But all the above mentioned three types of political culture are inter-dependent and one cannot replace
the other. Usually all the three get mixed and combined with each other. It has also pointed out that the political
SJ-CSICLS
cultures in different communities can be classified according to the combination of these three types of political
cultures.
These three types of political culture are, however, only the ideal type; no one of them can be found in its
pure form in any society since all the individuals expected to be oriented is the same way and to some extent.
Accordingly Almond and Verba list out of the following unmixed type of Political Culture: (1) The parochial –
Subject Political Culture (2) the subject participant Political Culture, (3) The Parochial participant political
culture, lastly. (4) The civil Culture.
Parochial – Subject Political Culture
In Parochial – Subject Culture an individual has knowledge about a variety of governmental roles
although he is mostly aware of the ways in which they can influence the political system. Further, in this cultural
system the sense of self as a political force is very much vague and undeveloped and the input structure of the
society relatively poorly defined.
Subject – Participant Political Culture
The subject participant type is represented by a society where some of the citizens are very much
politically aware and also active and the rest are relatively passive. The former are naturally found to develop
positive orientations to all types of Political objects. Here average citizen knows that he must be active and be a
participant, but is given, in fact, little opportunity for sharing in decisions.
Parochial – Participant Political Culture
In the Parochial – Participant type the input institutions are relatively local like tribal or caste associations
although the national out-put institutions are quite well developed. But, in any case, both the input and the output
institutions are so much under the pressure of parochial interests that their performance as national participatory
organs is greatly affected.
Civic Culture
Almond and Verba deal with political culture as it is found in five different nations- the USA, Britain,
West Germany, Italy and Mexico. They identify the peoples orientations towards the political life as basically
falling into three categories-allegiance, apathy, and alienation. On the basis of these ideas, Almond and Verba
put forward their concept of the ‗civic culture‘. According to them, the civic culture is an allegiant participant
political culture. The civic culture is a participant political culture in which the political culture and political
structure are congruent. In the civic culture participant political orientations combine with and do not replace
subject and parochial political orientations. Individuals become participants in the political process but they do
not give up their orientations as subjects nor as parochial. Furthermore, not only are these earlier orientations
maintained, alongside the participant political orientations, but the subject and parochial orientations are
congruent with participant political orientations. The concept of civic culture as comprising citizen participation,
subject beneficiary and parochial roots, is a wholesome one that does away with dichotomous thinking in terms
of traditional-modern or any other pure type of political culture.
The Civil Culture combines all the characteristics of the three ideal types of political culture. It represents
a synthesis of directive and acquiescent, participant and passive attitudes. Here the subject orientations and the
participant orientations are equally strong. The former allow the elites to function with sufficient initiative and
freedom while the latter force those elites to remain subject to popular preferences. According to Almond and
Verba, Great Britain and the United States reveal the closest approximation to this civic culture. Civic Culture
guarantees stable democracy. People feel involved in the affairs of governance but not too involved in the issues.
The decision making powers are vested in particular elite and the people do not participate directly. They express
their sentiments only through their representatives who are responsible to them.
Political Sub-Culture
In addition to the above mentioned types of political culture, some of the writers talk of a few other types
of political culture. One of them is political-sub-culture. They are of the view that entire population of a political
system may not have the same culture. Some sections of the society may have developed participant Political
culture while others may not. Political sub cultures may grow on the basis of region, religion, social class, caste,
language, ethnic membership, occupation and like. When a particular set of political orientation is distinguished
from the other in the same Political System, we speak of Political ‗Sub-Culture‘. In developing nations, for
example, Political Sub-Culture due to differences of language, religion,
class, caste etc. There sub cultures sometimes play a very significant role and in case of some nations it is
impossible to understand the character of political system without a thorough knowledge of these sub cultures.
SJ-CSICLS
Role Culture
Again, within a Political Culture one often notices a particular kind of sub culture which is styled by
Almond and Verba as the ‗role culture‘. In the more complex Political System there are various specialized
structures of roles like bureaucracy, military, Political executive, Party, interest group, media of communication
etc. These different specialized roles may represent political club cultures, giving a heterogeneous character to
the political culture of the system.
Mass Culture
In every society a distinction may be drawn between the culture of rulers or power holders and the
masses. In other words those who deal with power and have responsibilities for taking decision of the
government, develop outlook on politics different from those of people who simply remain observer or perform
marginal activities. The formal group of people exhibit elite Political-culture whereas latter group of people
reflects Mass political Culture.
Elite Culture
As already pointed out that the political culture reflected in the ruler or power holder or decision maker is
Elite culture. So far as Indian is concerned, it is reflected in national planners, leaders and senior beau crates it is
widespread in the army also and among the English speaking intelligentsia.
Factors Responsible for the Development of Political Culture
The Political Culture of people of political system is determined by various factors. They are:
History or Historical factors Historical facts and truths do have their impacts on the general attitude,
beliefs, values and behaviours of the people of a Country. For example political continuity of Great Britain is due
to the fact that the old values of its people have been allowed to emerge with modern attitudes without any
disturbance. Unlike France, there has been no revolution in Britain. That is why the English people are more
conservative and the French more radicals. The historical fact that the English people continued their association
with India has made India to learn the values of Parliamentary democracy. Whereas people of Algeria and
Vietnam have learnt from their French masters the lesson of revolutionary struggle.
Geography or Geographical factors Geographical factors also help to fashion political culture of the
people of a nation. For example Britain being an island, has been since time past from foreign invasion. In other
words it political Culture has not been disturbed by the foreigners. That is why British people have as well as
harmonious political culture. Whereas Indian geographical situation is such that foreign invasions and
annexations were followed one after the others. As a result there was massive influx of foreign races that stayed
and settled here permanently. That was why there developed the values of secularism or secular political culture.
Socio-Economic Factors The socio-economic structure of a society is another determinant of its Political
Culture. For example a predominantly urban industrialized society is a complex society. With emergence of a
rapid communication, higher educational standard, group consciousness and participating in decision making
process. All these may provoke a change in political values and believes with subsequent strains on political
system. In this way there may be continuous development in Political Culture. But the rural society with
predominantly peasant population tends to be more conservative in attitudes, beliefs and values it may not geared
to the changes.
Political Continuity It is an important determinant of political culture. In British the political culture we
see today would not have been there, there been no political continuity for many countries. It has been possible
for Britain to evolve in the course of several countries an unbroken set of attitudes and beliefs. Now Britain
could easily adopt themselves with the changing conditions. Therefore, political continuity is necessary for
merging the older values with new attitudes.
Colonial domination and imperialistic control Colonial domination gave a particular shape to the
political cultures in Africa, India, Sri Lanka, Japan, China and other countries. The political culture of India
today is the result of British imperialist domination and the introduction of parliamentary institutions of the west
minister variety. The political culture that emerged among the people of Congo under the short sighted Belgian
imperialists was quite different from the political culture that arose in India under the comparatively broad
minded and enlightened British imperialists.
Symbols In the development of political culture symbols often play an important role. National flag and
national anthem, old institutions like monarchy in Britain, political rituals like ceremonial opening of parliament
, religious rituals like coronation ceremonies as in Britain, social rituals like observance of different martyrs‘

SJ-CSICLS
days as in India-these and many other symbols are constantly made use of to evoke people‘s emotional
attachment to and reverence for the political system.
Critical Appraisal
Being the derivative of the political development approach, it suffers from stigma of conservation and
reaction; it is not progressive but reactionary in character. The political culture approach can‘t be described as
very precise variable for presenting a morphological study of political system. If the political culture is nothing
else than a set of beliefs and sentiments about politics as embodies in the verbal and non-verbal behaviours of the
people and depending upon the specific content of the notion of political development it is bound to be
conductive or antagonistic to it.
The idea of political culture, since it is a follow-up discovery of the system analysis, remaining only in
theory with regard to the political concept of the Afro-Asian nations. This inherent flow is inevitable because
most of the modern approaches are studied to only western democracies.
The concept of political culture possesses comprehensiveness which other concepts lack.
A political culture is not static; it changes as a result of its responses to new ideas industralisation, the
impact of new leaders, population changes and many other factors. Incorporating these changes continuous from
generation to generation is made possible is known as political socialization. Hence a study of political culture is
incomplete without a proper understanding of the process of political socialization.

Political Socialisation
‗Political Socialisation‘ is one of the key concepts in contemporary political analysis. It is primarily a
psychological concept which deals with orientation of individuals towards political objects. As it is a process by
which political cultures are maintained and changed, it plays a vital role in the study of political sociology. It is
an important means of inter-generational and intercontinental transmission of culture. It is the way a society
transmits its political culture from generation to generation and from one continent to another. This process helps
societies to achieve cohesion through a shared understanding of values, norms and symbols. It also helps in the
process of establishment and development of attitudes and beliefs about political system. It may encourage
loyalty to the nation, the fostering of particular values, and may increase either support for or alienation from the
system. It is also particularly important in the degree of participation in political life that is expected of groups
and individuals. Almond and Powell point out that the study of Political socialisation seems to be one of the most
promising approaches to the patterns of political stability and development. Moreover, changes in the patterns of
political culture also come about through political socialisation. Thus, process by which individuals in political
system learn their political orientations and dispositions is called political socialisation. It is process, however,
not confined to the impressionable years of childhood but one that continues throughout life. The need for the
study of the subject political socialisation specially felt by the newly emerging countries to instill among their
citizens the support for the political community, the regime and the occupants of political roles.
While studying a political culture one would naturally like to enquire as to how this political culture
comes to be what it is, that is, how do a people develop their political beliefs and attitudes and how, further, this
set of beliefs and orientations is continued from one generation to another. The process by which political culture
is shaped at the individual level and, at the community level is passed on from one generation to generation is
called political socialisation. Indeed, one of the salient features culture is it's inter-generational continuity. The
culture of a social group does not die with the extinction of existing member of the group. It continues on the
strength of a willingness on the part of the new members of the group to embrace the ideas and beliefs of which
such culture made. This willingness, however, is not a matter of rational choice on the part of the individuals, but
is rather a matter of learnt behaviour. This learning process involving an internalisation of the existing cultural
pattern is called socialization and whenever this process has clearly a political context it is known as political
socialisation. The concept of socialization related to learning, at the same time it also distinguished from mere
learning. Learning as much not always has a social relevance. For example, we all learn that the earth moves and
the sun does not, but this learning is no part of the process of socialization. A person understand his various
obligations and roles not through any conscious effort by the ordinary course of interaction with his family and
secondary groups. Learning is the result of short term actions and experience by the people. On the other hand
socialization is life long process. It begins from the cradle and continues till his death. Political socialisation is,
of course, a matter of learnt behaviour, but not necessarily a conscious process.
Meaning of Political socialization
SJ-CSICLS
 Political socialisation is a lifelong process by which individuals learns political attitudes and beahaviours.
It is part of broader socialization process whereby an individual become a member of a particular society and
takes on its values and behaviours. Social and cultural conditions mediate political socialisation. Political
socialisation is defined as the process by which individuals acquire beliefs, values and habits of thought and
action related to government, politics, and society. It goes beyond the learning ''facts'' about how the world
operates in practice, instead involving the development of a ''worldwide'' of how people and institutions ideally
should operate.
According to Gabriel A. Almond and G.B. Powell political socialisation ―is the process by which
political cultures are maintained and changed. Through the performance of this function individual are inducted
into the political culture, their orientations towards political objects are formed.‖ Thus, Political socialisation is
the process by which the ethos and behaviour of a political system is communicated from one generation to
another generation. Therefore, political socialisation is a continuous unconscious process.
According to Robert Sigel ―It is the gradual learning of the norms, attitudes and behaviorur acceptable to
an on-going political system.‖
Michale Curtis defines ―Political socialisation as the transmitting of political values and norms of the
society‖. Allan R. Ball regards ―political socialisation as the establishment and development of attitudes to and
beliefs about the political system and development of attitudes to and beliefs about the political system‖. ―It
seeks to inculcate values, norms and orientations in the mind of individuals so that they trust in their political
system and thereby keep themselves like well functioning citizens and also leave their indelible imprints on the
mind of their successors‖.
Easton and Dennis define ―political socialisation as those developing processes through which
persons acquire political orientation and pattern of behavior‖.
According to Robert Lewin, ―Political socialisation is the means by which individuals acquire motives,
habits and values, relevant to participation in a political system‖.
In the opinion of Peter H. Merkl, ―Political socialisation refers to acquisition of political attitudes and
behavior patterns by members of a political system of sub-system‖.
Political socialisation, therefore, includes all formal, informal, deliberate, unplanned learning at every
stage of life. Political socialisation which means learning of political attitudes and social preferences is crucial to
stable government.
Types of Political socialization
Almond and Powell has classified Political socialisation into two types, namely Direct or Manifest
socialization and Indirect or Latent socialization.
1. Direct or Manifest Socialization
Direct or manifest socialization refers to the process in which the content of the transmitted information,
values or feelings in clearly political. Thus an individual, under the influence of his family, teachers or other
some agencies learn explicitly about the pattern and functions of the the views of political party or gets
convinced of the superiority of particular ideology. The objects of his orientations being specifically political,
these are instances of direct or manifest political socialisation. It is manifest when it involves the explicit
communication of information, values or feelings toward political objects. In other words Political socialisation
is manifest when certain values or feelings or feelings towards political system are put into the minds of others
directly, clearly and manifestly. It includes the process of formal instruction given in schools or colleges about
the political objects.
Manifest socialization operates through imitation, anticipatory behavior, political education or political
experiences. Imitation being important way of learning, naturally, is a vital component of political socialisation.
Thus a rural migrant to an urban area may deliberately imitate political orientations of the urbanites just because
by means of this imitation he may wish to make himself acceptable to his new associations. Or, a child may
unconsciously imitate the party preferences of his parents. Again political socialisation may start through the
anticipatory behviour. Thus a student with a political ambition already begin to prepare himself for political
offices even before he reaches the level of legal competence for these offices; in anticipation of holding an office
he may develop mannerisms and styles associated with this office. Political socialisation comes through direct
political education. Instructions in politics are given by the family; the school, the government and other political
agencies and also by various groups and organizations. Manifest socialization may also result from political
experiences. An individual‘s political ideas and beliefs are, no doubt, substantially shaped by his observations of
SJ-CSICLS
and experiences in political process. His ideas mature through his continue interactions with political
personalities, structures and events.
Indirect or Latent Socialization
Political socialisation is latent when attitude to non-political things becomes as attitude towards political
things. In other words latent political socialisation is the transmission of nonpolitical attitudes which affect
attitudes toward analogous roles and objects in political system. For example the attitude of submission to the
authority of the father in a family makes us to submit to the authority in one political system. It is deep rooted
and usually it works unnoticed and more or less automatically. Latent political socialisation, therefore, involves
many of the most fundamental characteristics of the general culture, which may, in turn, have great effect on the
political sphere.
Functions of Political socialisation
(1) Maintaining Political Culture: This function is performed by communicating political culture from
one generation to another generation. Under stable conditions this is an important function. But since the
political field, is generally disturbed, the political socialisation does not act for maintaining political culture.
(2) Modification of Political Culture: Therefore, an important function of political socialisation is the
modification of political culture. This aspect is clear from its relationships to change.
(3) Creating Political Culture: With the establishment of new political system every society needs the
creation of political culture. This function is performed by the process of political socialisation.
(4) Continuity and Change: The above discussion shows that the political socialisation works in the
directions of both continuity and change. In it change and modification is a permanent feature. In it change and
modification is a permanent feature. However this change too has stability. Sometimes this process is fast and
sometimes slow. Clear result in the political field may be seen by too fast or too slow political socialisation. This
is also influence the policy of the state. In some states the government clearly makes efforts in this direction
while in other states it is not so.
(5) Foundation of present pattern of political system: In open societies there are sufficient
opportunities for difference of opinion and opposition. On the other hand, the totalitarian states do not accept
difference of opinion and opposition. They are continually propagating in their favour. On the other hand, in
democratic societies it is not so difficult to maintain traditions. Therefore, political socialisation can be imposed
strictly according to the rigidity of the social systems.
Agents of Political Socialisation
Political socialisation is the process by which political culture is transmitted in a given society. It occurs
at both the individual and community level, and it extends beyond the acquisition of political culture to
encompass the learning of more sophisticated political ideas and orientations. Political socialisation is a lifelong
process and variety of individuals and institutions contribute to its shaping effect. For example, individuals are
politically socialized by such groups as their family, peers, and social class. Furthermore, they are socialized by
existing laws, media, religion, education, their own gender, and more. Basically, the process is never ending and
the factors which shape it are all encompassing. Those groups and institutions which contribute to the process of
political socialization are known as the agents of socialization. On the basis of the operational period of these
agents on individual life, they divided into primary agents and secondary agents of political socialisation. The
primary agents of socialization are those that directly develop specific political orientations. Family, peer groups,
educational institutions etc. come under the category of primary socializing agents. Whereas the secondary
agents of socialization tend to be less personal and involved in the process of socialization in more indirect
manner. Mass media, political parties, voluntary organizations, government etc. comes under the category of
secondary socializing agents.
On the basis of nature of their operation and impact they are again been classified into formal and
informal one. The formal agents are functioning with clear intentions such as schools, governments etc. The
political socialisation takes places through the informal agencies are more or less indirect generally these agents
do not the political ideas of views directly to the members of the society. They learn it indirectly through their
personal observation and experience such as family, peer groups etc. Some of the important agents of political
socialisation are:
(1) Family
(2) Peer groups
(3) Educational Institutions
SJ-CSICLS
(4) Secondary groups
(5) Mass Media
(6) Government
(7) Political Party

Family According to Allan R. Ball, the family should be described as the first window to the outer world
for the child, it is his first contact with the authority. Family plays a key role in transmitting political culture from
one generation to the next. Much of an individual‘s political personality is shaped at home in the first ten or
fifteen years of his life. The most of political personality of a person is determined in the family, years before his
actual participation in politics. The father symbolizes authority in the family and the child‘s attitude towards
authority in adult life. Large scale researchers in U.S.A have confirmed that more than three-forth children of a
generation follow political values of the parents through the social and economic environments of the two
generations may be widely different.
The importance of the family in political socialisation may be due to several reasons. In the first place,
family holds a crucial position in the life of the child. The child need‘s family love and approval, he draws from
it his material requirements and is also given a status by the family.
As a result, he follow the familiel political beliefs and attitudes just as readily accepts the parental version
of what is right and wrong, what is good and bad, what is proper and improper. Secondly children have a natural
tendency of imitating their parents. The mother and father present ideal patterns of behaviour for the daughter
and son respectively. With the increase of the age the importance of the parents diminishes and the child learns a
lot from outside the family. But the influence of the parents is never completely wiped off from the mind, this is
at least true about the less educated and less intelligent persons. Thirdly, members of a family usually live in the
same environment. All the family is influenced by the same neighbours and neighbour hood, by the same friends,
and the same economic forces of area and father‘s occupation. The family members read the same news papers,
attend to the same radio and TV programmes, listen to the same
preacher and other local opinion leaders, gather the same gossip and hear the same stories. So all the members of
the family should naturally carry similar political ideas, values and behavior due to residing in the same
environment.
Peer groups Besides family, there may be other groups in a society which like family, are based on
primary relationships and yet differ from family in their structure and in the character of their intrarelationships.
Childhood play groups, friend ship cliques, small work groups, brothers and sisters, married couples are some of
the examples of these groups which are known as peer groups. Inter course among the members of a family, of
course, is based on highly intimate and personal relationship ; yet the members of a family do not all enjoy an
equal status. The parent-child relationships are always hierarchic and each family contains at least two separate
generations. In such conditions members of a family- the child and the parent-naturally claim to enjoy the same
status. Peer groups on the other hand, comprise members about the same age. Hence peer groups can afford to be
non-hierarchic and their members can manage to enjoy an equal status in their relation with each other. This
equality is characteristic of equal age, equal functions and equal economic status. This does not mean that peer
groups have no leaders, but these leaders do not enjoy authority, characteristic of the parents in the family.
Just as in the socialization of the child influence of the family is maximum, similarly the adolescent is
influenced by the peer group and friend circle. In this age he needs explanation of political changes and
participates in them. He attains political experience due to socialization in the upper group. This requires
complex and impersonal relationships not found in the family. The family and the peer groups however, do not
conflict but cooperate. As has been pointed out by Robert S. Sigel, ―The more stratified or the more static the
society, the less the peer group will probably conflict politically with the family.‖ The main reason of the
importance of peer groups in political socialisation is the fact that interactions of members of upper group are
spontaneous and not formal. The members naturally influence each other. They have most intimate and
emotional relationships leading to socialization as it is in the case of family. However, the societies in which the
control of the family upon the individual is comprehensive and durable exhibit little and less durable contribution
of the peer group. According to Martin Levy, there is a tendency of accepting the majority of opinion among the
members of peer groups.
Educational Institutions As a person grows older and begins undertaking his formal education, the
educational institutions- schools, colleges and universities- start working as another important agent of
SJ-CSICLS
socialization. Schools, in fact, are close rivals to the family as the major agent of the political socialisation.
Indeed, one of the main reasons why modern governments set up schools or help in founding them is that
governments find in it an excellent medium through which they can hope to grow values highly congenial for
their operation.
The schools socialize both directly and indirectly. Direct socialization takes place when the school
curriculum, much as it is invariably imbued with nationalistic values, teachers about a country‘s past, its heros
and traditions and glorifies the achievements of the state, thereby helping the students develop a sense of pride
about and a feeling of loyalty to their country and their governmental system.
The teachers also help in this process. The students are taught to surrender before the authority in the
name of discipline in the school, a phenomenon helpful in later civic life. It goes without saying that repression
in the political field will be possible only as much as will be the strictness of discipline in educational
institutions. On the other hand, if the students are allowed to oppose the orders of the authorities, they do not
shirk from the criticism of government in due course.
College and university education, for some students, may bring in new values and the formation of more
radical political attitudes. In recent times in some western countries and, of course, in India, colleges and
universities have been found to have fostered among certain students a militant political attitude and a love for
confrontation with authorities.
Secondary groups Secondary groups also work as an agent of political socialisation, however varies
with the nature of societies. The more highly developed and complex society is, the greater will be the number of
secondary groups and more important role they will play in the process of socialization. As the complexity and
development increases in society so does increase the value of secondary groups. It is possible to identify three
types of secondary groups which socialize politically in different ways. Firstly, there may be secondary groups
with a distinctly political character. Political parties and political youth groups fall in this category.
They are established clearly for the purpose of disseminating political values, mobilising political action
and recruiting the political leaders. A second type represents those groups which are instituted for non-political
purposes, but which are found to carry on political education and mobilisation along with their other activities. A
labour union, students union illustrates these types. These groups aim at collective bargain in their particular
field. But even these groups are led by the leaders following particular political ideologies. Some of them even
active members of particular political party. They impart political education their followers and take part in
active politics from time to time. The third type of secondary groups does not have any political character, nor do
they ever try to impart political education to their members. But mere participation in their routine affairs gives
their members opportunities to develop orientations that have political relevance. Thus a cricket club is not
directly an agent of political socialisation, but a process of unintentional latent political socialisation is evident in
its activities in as far as its members, while participating in its matters, very much undergo an apprenticeship for
participation in the political sphere.
Mass Media Radio, television, newspaper, and other forms of mass media also provide information
about political happenings. That is why manipulation of media is often resorted to in different countries to
influence, and change the political orientation of citizens. A controlled system of mass media, can, therefore, be
a powerful force, in shaping political beliefs, and also can provide bases of support as important to a totalitarian
status its police forces. It is necessary to remember that mass media in most cases are not the actual originator of
the messages they transmit. These messages, in fact, originate at the level of governmental officials and political
leaders, secondary groups, etc. and the mass media just channelize these messages to the people. Viewed from
this angle, mass media, strictly speaking, are not themselves an agent of political socialisation. Further, the mass
media messages go through go through what Klapper calls a ―two-step flow‖. That is, mass media do not
generally influence the people directly. The messages they transmit, at the first instance, reach a smaller number
of ―opinion leaders‖ like parents, teachers, community activities, etc., who then retransmit these messages to
those over whom they have influence. Mass media reinforce the already established orientations.
Government An individual‘s continuous experiences of government through his direct contact with
governmental functions and governmental personnel and his direct knowledge of what the government stands
and works for is likely either to reinforce his ideas and attitudes acquired through the early political socialisation
process or to alter them quite substantially. In some cases government directly intervenes to carry on a process of
political indoctrination.

SJ-CSICLS
 Political Parties The political party is an important instrument through which people get a regular
opportunity to be involved in political actions of the society. It is by way of this involvement that people are
politically socialized by the political party. The political party may either reinforce the established political
culture or may bring in significant changes in the pattern of existing political culture. Indeed, when a nation is
aiming at radical social and political changes the political party may serve as a very useful agency for effectively
disseminating ideas congruent with this change and thus may play a very great role in the process of political
socialisation.
Conclusion
Political socialisation is, thus, a relatively new area of study, but they performs functions which are vital
to the political system no less than to the individuals. This is when even a totalitarian regime is keen to
monopolize the socialization process so that people develop positive attitudes towards it however, deplorable it
may be from the larger humanistic stand point. But the study of political socialisation, like political culture, has
special and vital significance for the third world countries where the political culture is in flux and change and is
yet to take a definite shape. The great issues of politics in the emerging nations such as political stability,
political development and change can be much more meaningfully studied and discussed with the help of the
concepts like political culture and political socialisation.

SJ-CSICLS
 Module II
(State & Sovereignty-Theories of origin of State: Evolutionary Theory, Sovereignty-Attributes and Types
Monism and Pluralism)
Various attempts have been made to explain in a speculative manner the method by which the state
came into existence. These theories were concerned, not primarily with the actual historical process of state
origin, but rather with a rational explanation of the way in which the state may have been supposed to originate.
These theories were put forward for the purpose of explaining and justifying the existence and the authority of
the state. They were attempts to give rational answers to the questions of why men lived in political
organisation, or why they should submit to political authority, and of what limits should be placed to such
authority.

EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
Obviously no definite period in the history of civilization can be pointed out as the origin of the state.
The state was neither the gift of divine power not the deliberate work of man. Its beginnings are lost in the
shadowy past in which social institutions were unconsciously arising, and its development has followed the
general laws of evolutionary growth.

Forces in State-building
The exact origin of political life cannot be historically determined, since the first subjection of man to
some sort of authority must have existed in the earliest beginnings of social life. The human race is highly
gregarious, and its evolution was made possible by the formation of social units of various types. Like other
social institutions, the state arose from many sources and under various conditions, and it emerged almost
imperceptibly. No clear-cut division can be made between earlier forms of social organizations that were not
states and later forms that were states, the one shading off gradually into the other. However, in the light of
facts presented by the earliest archeological and literary records some conclusions concerning the origin of the
state may be reached.
The most important forces that have contributed to the origin of the state are (1) kinship, (2) religion,
(3) industry, (4) war. These factors are all fundamental and permanent in human life. They arose from the
nature of man and his needs. The existence of all those forces in early social groups explains, in part, both the
reasons for state origin and the form in which it first emerged.

Kinship
The early history of mankind indicates that social organization was closely connected with kinship. Not
individuals, but groups of individuals who considered themselves of the same blood, formed the units. The
primitive family took various forms in the beginning. Descent was traced through the mothers only. At later
stages of development, usually associated with the domestication of animals and the adoption of pastoral life,
the patriarchal family appears. In this form descent is traced through males, and authority is vested in the oldest
living male ancestor of the group. Many matters now regulated by law were in the hands of the head of the
family. Combined families, tracing their descent to a common ancestor, formed a clan, over which a chief
kinsman exercised authority. The main function of the group was to perpetuate the worship of deceased
ancestors.
The state developed more directly from the tribe, a large unit composed of many families, and governed
by a chief, whose right to command was based largely on personal prowess. Moreover, the tribe was based, not
on kinship, but on the need for the protection of common interests and the settlement of disputes that arose
concerning them, and especially on the need for concerted action for offense and defense in case of war.
Nevertheless, the earliest states retained many traces of the patriarchal family and incorporated some of its
principles and forms of organization into their political life. The tie of kinship strengthened the feeling of unity
and solidarity which is essential to political life. The principle of heredity, by which authority passed from
father to son, has played an important part in political life. Likewise, the principle that age, which gives
experience and wisdom, gives also the right to rule, is based on the patriarchal principle, and has frequently
SJ-CSICLS
appeared in political organization. Kinship, therefore, both strengthened the bond of unity and contributed to
the form of political organization early states.

Religion
Closely connected with kinship as a force in state-building stood religion. Early man, surrounded by
phenomena which his limited intelligence could not understand, interpreted them as manifestations of
supernatural beings, whose wrath must be averted by gifts or sacrifices and by acts of ceremony and worship.
The chief mysteries were the phenomena of nature and of man himself. The former led to the worship of
inanimate objects or of the unseen spirits that were supposed to manifest themselves in objects or natural
phenomena. This primitive form of religion, called animism, was accompanied by fetishism, a superstitious
belief in the effectiveness of material objects, and later took the form of nature worship, often developing into a
beautiful mythology.
Tribal solidarity and the inviolability of custom and discipline were enforced by a religion common to
all members of the group and by the authority of long line of divine ancestors. The authority of the patriarchal
over the property, conduct, and lives of his people was strengthened by his position as high priest of a family
religion in which outsiders were allowed no share. In course of time a class of medicine men or priests grew up,
charged with the special care of the sacred rites, and their authority was placed behind the observance of
customary rules of law.
Kinship and religion were therefore two aspects of the same thing, and the unity and obligations of the
group were given religious sanction. Early religion, however, was narrow and local. As tribes expanded by
incorporation or conquest, the bonds of kinship and of ancestor worship necessarily weakened.
The value of religion in the evolution of the state can scarcely be overestimated. In the earliest and most
difficult periods of political development, religion could subordinate barbaric anarchy and teach reverence and
obedience. Thousands of years were needed to create that discipline and submission to authority on which all
successful government must rest, and the chief means in the early part of the process were theocracies and
despotisms, based mainly on the supernatural sanctions of religion. The importance of religion as a force in
state evolution was not limited to the earliest state alone. The priestly class has been powerful in government
and politics throughout all history.

Industry
In addition to the bonds kinship and religion, the economic activities by which men secured food and
shelter, and later accumulated property and wealth, were important factors in state-building. Even the crudest
forms of economic life demanded a certain amount of co-operation under recognized rules. Organized hunts
were undertaken by hunting groups, with the proceeds shared according to generally understood arrangements.
Pastoral life made possible an increased accumulation of property, a greater division of labor, and a greater
differentiation of social classes based on wealth. Laws concerning theft and inheritance appeared, and the
predominance of males over females was given a marked impetus. Agriculture made possible an increased
population in a given area, bound men to soil in a fixed place of abode, made land the chief form of wealth, and
increased the economic value of a slave class. It increased social distinctions based on wealth, and necessitated
a growing body of law to settle disputes over property. The exchange of goods gave a stimulus to craftsmanship
and developed commerce. It further differentiated occupations and classes, necessitated standards of value,
created new forms of wealth, broke down the isolation of early groups, and substituted peaceful for warlike
intercourse. New forms of organization and an increasing body of regulation resulted from this process and
from the concentration of population in villages and cities.
The economic activities of early peoples, therefore, contributed to the origin of the state in several ways.
Differences in occupation and in wealth created social classes or castes, and the dominance of one class by
another for purposes of economic exploitation was an important factor in the rise of government. As wealth
increased and the idea of private property developed, laws were needed for the protection and regulation of
property rights and the settlement of property disputes.

SJ-CSICLS
 War
The development of political institutions, as distinguished from earlier family, religious, and economic
groups, was largely the result of migration and conquest; and the new form of organization was essentially
military in character. An association was created which united the population within a given area into an
aggregate which functioned as a unit, regardless of other social affiliations or subordinate types of social
groups. The tie of kinship was thereby weakened and the territorial bond of union was strengthened. Earlier
local and family relations were replaced by more general forms of worship in which larger and more diverse
groups could be united. A coercive force, exercised by a person or a group of persons, sometimes temporarily
in case of necessity, but gradually growing stronger and more permanent, developed into political sovereignty;
and the sentiment of loyalty to the rulers and to the group was established and sanctified.
The form or organization that resulted from this process was the tribe. The tribe existed for the purpose
of offense and defense against other tribes. Community of religion in the tribe was rather an outward symbol of
its unity than the basis upon which it was founded. The chief of the tribe was selected voluntarily by its
members, or at least derived his right to rule from the agreement and acquiescence of his subjects. His ruler
ship was based on personal qualifications, especially ability as a leader in war; and his duties were mainly
direction in time of war and judgment of disputes in time of peace.
In its beginnings political organizations was simple, and the extent to which it controlled the acts of
individual members was comparatively slight. But once established, by elaborating its governmental
organization and extending its control over a wider field of human interests and activities; its executive and
judicial functions were expanded; finally the exercise of direct legislative authority enabled it to develop into
the sovereign political unit which practically monopolizes the legal right to employ physical coercion.
Concerted action for defense or aggression strengthened the solidarity of the group and increased the
authority of its organization. The result of conflict demanded regulation concerning the relation of conqueror to
conquer and the division of spoils. Successful leadership in war created a ruling military class, and elevated the
military head to position of political supremacy.

Conclusion
The transition from ethnic to political organization did not take place uniformly or reach everywhere identical
results. The time required for the process varied in different times and places.

SOVEREIGNTY
Sovereignty is regarded as an essential element of the state. The term 'sovereignty' is derived from the
Latin word superanus meaning supreme. Thus sovereignty denotes supremacy or supreme power of the state.
In fact, sovereignty arms the state with supreme legal authority in both internal and external spheres. Internally,
it establishes supremacy of the state over all individuals and associations; externally it upholds independence of
the state from the control or interference of any other state in the conduct of its international relations.
Theoretically, each sovereign state is equal to every other in international law, regardless of its population, area
or economic wealth. The United Nations Charter states that the United Nations 'is based on the principle of the
sovereign equality of all its Members' and recognizes a sphere of 'domestic jurisdiction' which is to be reserved
to each member state.
Nature of Sovereignty
The concept of sovereignty is associated with the state system. It may be briefly outlined as follows.
The state comes into being when an independent group of people are organized by means of a government
which creates and enforces laws. Within this group there must be supremacy of will and power. It must contain
some person or body of persons whose commands receive obedience and who can, if necessary, execute those
commands by means of force. Such person or body of persons exercises sovereignty, and such commands are
called laws. Evidently there can be no legal limit to sovereignty. The state is legally sovereign. There can be no
legal limit to the lawmaking power of the supreme lawmaking association.

SJ-CSICLS
 Since sovereignty is a legal concept, the facts set forth above result inevitably from the definition of the
state. Other associations may formulate opinions and lay down rules, but it is the peculiar characteristic of the
state that it will overrides, in case of conflict, all other wills, either of persons or of associations within it. Its
law is the final word on such matters as it chooses to bring under its control. While possessing unlimited legal
power, the state usually exercises but a small part of its authority. Its grants certain rights and privileges to
individuals, and it voluntarily set bound to its own activities. All these have, however, no legal force against the
state, since it may change or destroy them at its will. There have always been certain activities which the state
has permitted freely to individuals, not because the state could not interfere, but because it did not deem it
expedient to.
Sovereignty rests upon either force or consent, or a combination of force and consent. Men obey
because they must or because they agree that it is desirable to do so. In despotic states authority rests upon
force or the threat of force. Men obey through fear, either of bodily punishment or of divine wrath of the gods,
whose authority is believed to support the power of the rulers. In democratic states the majority of men obey
through consent, since they believe that the government is created by themselves and that the laws represent the
general will of the people. Force is necessary only for the few who refuse to obey. For this purpose the state
maintains a police force to coerce the criminal, and a military force to put down riots or rebellions if a
considerable number refuses to give voluntary obedience.

Characteristics of sovereignty
The characteristics of sovereignty may be summarized as follows:
1. Absoluteness - There can be no legal power within the state superior to it, and there can be no legal
limit to the supreme law-making power to the state.
2. Universality-The sovereignty of the state extends over every person and every association of persons in
the state. The apparent exception in the case of diplomatic representatives is an international courtesy
which the state may at any time remove.
3. Permanence- The sovereignty of the state continues as long as the state itself exists. Those who
exercise it may change, and the whole state may be reorganized; but sovereignty, wherever located,
persists. Only by the destruction of the state itself can sovereignty be destroyed.
4. Indivisibility- There can be but one sovereignty in a state. To divide sovereignty is to destroy it. The
exercise of its powers may be distributed among various governmental organs, but sovereignty is a unit,
just as the state is unit. A divided sovereignty is a contradiction in terms.
Development of the idea of Sovereignty
While the term “sovereignty” was not used until the fifteenth century, the idea can be traced back to
Aristotle, who wrote as the “supreme power” of the state. Ancient and medieval writers, however, had a
somewhat vague and confused idea of the nature of sovereignty. In the middle Ages the state in the modern
sense did not exist.
It was the struggle between the rising national state and its various internal and external rivals- the
feudal lords, the Pepacy, and the Holy Roman Empire- that gave rise to the modern doctrine of sovereignty.
This struggle assumed fiercest proportions in France, and the French jurists came to the aid of their king with a
legal theory to justify the unity of the state and the royal claim to supremacy. Jean Bodin, in the sixteenth
century, was the first writer to discuss at length the nature and characteristics of sovereignty. The state was
recognized as supreme over all it citizens and free from external compulsion. Sovereignty was defined as the
absolute and perpetual power of the state. Its chief function was the making of law, but the sovereign was not
bound by the laws thus made. The idea of sovereignty was further developed by Hobbes, who justified its
absolute power on the basis of an original and irrevocable agreement of the people to surrender their natural
rights to its authority. Rousseau agreed that sovereignty was absolute and unlimited, although he located it in
the general will of all the people, rather than in the ruler. Finally, in the writings of John Austin, the legal
theory of sovereign power, that its authority is indivisible and legally unlimited, and that its commands alone

SJ-CSICLS
create law. The fundamental principles of the theory, though attacked by many writers, still serve as the basis
for modern jurisprudence.
5 Different Kinds of Sovereignty-The five different kinds of sovereignty are as follows: (1) Nominal arid Real
Sovereignty (2) Legal Sovereignty (3) Political Sovereignty (4) Popular Sovereignty (5) Deo Facto and De Jure
Sovereignty (6) Titular Sovereignty.

(1) Nominal arid Real Sovereignty:

In ancient times many states had monarchies and their rulers were monarchs. They wielded absolute
power and their senates and parliaments were quite powerless. At that time they exercised real sovereignty.
Therefore, they are regarded as real sovereigns. For example, Kings were sovereigns and hence they were all
powerful in England before fifteenth century, in U.S.S.R. before eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and in
France before 1789. The state of affairs changed in England after the Glorious Revolution in 1688. Now the
King is like a rubber- stamp. The British king has a right to encourage, warn and advise his Ministers or seek
any information about the administration. Except these ordinary powers, all other powers of the British king are
wielded by his Ministers.

Lowell has summed up the position of the British Sovereign in these words: “According to the early
history of the constitution, the ministers were the counselors of the king. It was for them to advice and for him
to decide. Now the parts are almost reversed. The king is consulted but the ministers decide”.

(2) Legal Sovereignty:

Legal sovereignty is that authority of the state which has the legal power to issue final commands. It is
the authority of the state to whose directions the law of the State attributes final legal force. In every
independent and ordered state there are some laws which must be obeyed by the people and there must be a
power to issue and enforce these laws. The power which has the legal authority to issue and enforce these laws‟
is legal sovereignty. In England, the King-in-Parliament is sovereign. According to Dicey, “The British
Parliament is so omnipotent legally speaking…. that it can adjudge an infant of full age, it may attain a man of
treason after death; it may legitimize an illegitimate child or if it sees fit, make a man a judge in his own case”.

The authority of the legal sovereign is absolute and law is simply the will of the sovereign. Since the
authority of the sovereign is unrestrained, reserves the legal right to do whatever he desires. It is the legal
sovereign who grants and enforces all the rights enjoyed by the citizens and, therefore, there cannot be any
right against him. The legal sovereign is, thus, always definite and determinate. Only the legal sovereign has
the power to declare in legal terms the will of the stale. The authority of the sovereign is absolute and supreme.
This authority may reside either in the monarch or in an absolute monarchy or it may reside in the body of
persons.

(3) Political Sovereignty:

Dicey believes that “behind the sovereign whom the lawyer recognises, there is another sovereign to
whom the legal sovereign must bow. Such sovereign to whom the legal sovereign must bow is called political
sovereign. In every Ordered state the legal sovereign has to pay due attention to the political sovereign.
According to Professor Gilchrist, “The political sovereign means the sum-total of influences in a State which
lie behind the law. In modern representative government we might define it roughly as the power of the
people”. In other words by political sovereign in the representative democracies, we mean the whole mass of
the people or the electorate or the public opinion. But at the same time, it cannot be emphatically asserted that
political sovereignty can definitely be identified with the whole mass of the people, the electorate or the public
opinion. Political sovereignty is a vague and indeterminate term.

Political sovereignty rests in that class of people under whose influence the mass of the people is or the
people are. Political sovereignty rests in the electorate, in the public opinion and in all other influences in the
state which mould and shape the public opinion. In the words of Professor R.N. Gilchrist, “Political sovereign
manifests itself by voting, by the press, by speeches, and in many other ways not easy to describe or define. It
SJ-CSICLS
is, however, not organised and it can becom6 effective only when organised. But the organisations of political
sovereignty lead to legal sovereignty. The two are aspects of the one sovereignty of the state”. As a matter of
fact, legal and political sovereignty are the two aspects of the one sovereignty of the state. But at the same time
both the aspects stands poles apart.

Legal sovereign is a law-making authority in legal terms, whereas political sovereignty is behind the
legal sovereign. The legal sovereign can express his will in legal terms. But the political sovereign cannot do
so. Legal sovereign is determinate, definite and visible whereas political sovereign is not determinate and clear.
It is recognised. Legal sovereignty is vested in the electorate, public opinion and other influences of the state
which mould or shape the public opinion. Legal sovereign is recognised by lawyers while political sovereign is
not. Legal sovereign cannot go against the will of the political sovereign whereas political sovereign, though
not legally powerful, controls over the legal sovereign. The concept of legal sovereign is clear whereas the
concept of political sovereign is vague. Legal sovereign is elected by the political sovereign whereas political
sovereign is the electorate or the people. These are the points of difference between the legal sovereign and the
political sovereign.

(4) Popular Sovereignty:

Popular sovereignty roughly means the power of the masses as contrasted with the Power of the
individual ruler of the class. It implies manhood, suffrage, with each individual having only one vote and the
control of the legislature by the representatives of the people. In popular sovereignty public is regarded as
supreme. In the ancient times many writers on Political Science used popular sovereignty as a weapon to refute
absolutism of the monarchs.

According to Dr. Garner, “Sovereignty of the people, therefore, can mean nothing more than the power
of the majority of the electorate, in a country where a system of approximate universal suffrage prevails, acting
through legally established channels to express their will and make it prevail”.

(5) Deo Facto and De Jure Sovereignty:

Sometimes a distinction is made between the De Facto (actual) sovereignty and De Jure (legal)
sovereignty. A de jure sovereign is the legal sovereign whereas a de factor sovereign is a sovereign which is
actually obeyed. In the words of Lord Bryce, de facto sovereign “is the person or a body of persons who can
make his or their will prevail whether with the law or against the law; he or they, is the de facto ruler, the
person to whom obedience is actually paid”. Thus, it is quite clear, that de jure is the legal sovereignty founded
on law whereas dc facto is the actual sovereignty.

The person or the body of persons who actually exercise power is called the de facto sovereign. The de
facto sovereign may not be a legal sovereign or he may be a usurping king, a dictator, a priest or a prophet, in
either case sovereignty rests upon physical power or spiritual influence rather than legal right. History abounds
in examples of de facto sovereignties. For example, Oliver Cromwell became de facto sovereign after he had
dismissed the Long Parliament. Napoleon became the de facto sovereign after he had overthrown the Directory.
Likewise, Franco became the de facto sovereign after he had dislodged the legal sovereign in Spain. On
October 28, 1922 Mussolini‟s Black Shirts marched on Rome. At that time, Parliament was the legal sovereign.
Mussolini became the Prime Minister in the legal manner. He ruled parliament and ruled the country through
parliament.

Parliament remained the legal sovereign but he was the actual or de facto sovereign. Hitler also did the
same in Germany. He too became the de factor sovereign. He controlled the legal sovereign and became the de
facto sovereign. Similarly, Stalin remained the actual sovereign in U.S.S.R. for about three decades. After the
Second World War and before the Egyptian Revolution King Farouk was the legal sovereign. General Naguib‟s
„coup de‟etat‟ in Egypt and the abdication of King Farouk is another example of de facto sovereignty. Nazib
was expelled and Nasser succeeded him in de facto sovereign.

SJ-CSICLS
 After the death of Nasser, Mr. Sadat succeeded him. After the assassination, Hosni Mubarak became the
President of Egypt. Similarly, Ayub became the de facto sovereign after he had staged the military coup in
Pakistan. When Ayub was overthrown Yahya Khan Rose to power with the help of the army and became the fe
facto sovereign.

After his defeat in 1971 at the hands of Indian army he handed power to Bhutto, who was thrown in
July, 1977 by Zia-ul-Haq, who first of all became de facto and later on de jure sovereign. Thus, it is quite clear
that the actual or de facto sovereign is the strongest active force in the State and it is capable of making his will
prevail. But sometimes, it happens that de facto and de jure sovereignty ultimately coincides.

China and Pakistan are the glaring examples. In Soviet Union, the Communist Government became the
de facto government of the successful Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. But in course of time, it became the de
jure government also.

Titular Sovereignty:
When sovereign powers are vested theoretically, apparently, or in black and white in an individual or
state institution, it is titular or nominal sovereignty. In such conditions, real state powers belong to some one
other person or institution. This type of sovereignty appeared because of the parliamentary form of government.
The best example of this is England where the king or Queen is the Titular sovereign and parliament is the
actual sovereign.

Austin’s Monistic Theory of Sovereignty

The monistic or legal theory of sovereignty found its finest exposition in John Austin, the renowned
English jurist of the 19th century. His theory is well explained in his famous book Lectures on Jurisprudence.
His views are influenced by Hobbes and Bentham. Yet, his theory is distinct. Austin‟s theory of sovereignty is
conditioned by his notion of law. He drew a clear distinction between law and morality. He defined law as a
“command given by a superior to an inferior.” Austin defined sovereignty thus: “If a determinate human
superior, not in the habit of obedience to a like superior, receives habitual obedience from the bulk of a given
society, and that society (including the superior) is a society political and independent.”
In every state there is certain person or persons who can compel obedience. The test of sovereignty is
habitual obedience to a superior who obeys not a like superior. The human superior is determinate. The subjects
obey the sovereign not because he is just but because he possesses power. The following propositions can be
picked up from his theory. (1) Sovereignty is the essential attribute of every state. (2) Sovereignty is
determinate; it cannot be an indefinite body or vague concept. (3) Sovereignty is legally unlimited. (4)
Obedience to the sovereign is habitual, viz, continuous, regular and usual. Obedience from the bulk of society
is enough. (5) Sovereignty is indivisible. (6) Command alone is law.

Pluralist Theory of Sovereignty

The pluralist theory of sovereignty was a reaction against the absolute theory of state sovereignty. The
theory of pluralism in its present form was originated in the writings of Qtto Von Gierke in Germany and Prof.
FW Maitland in England in the last quarters of the 19th century. The theory of pluralism was strengthened by
writers like J.N. Figgis, Leon Duguit, G.D.H. Cole, Mac Iver, Ernst Barker, M Paul Boneour, Durkheim, Miss
Follett, Prof. H.J. Laski and Robert Dahl.

Basic principles of Pluralism

The state is but one the numerous, social, economic political and other groupings through which men
and society must seek to satisfy their interests and promote their welfare.
These different groupings are not mere creatures of the state but arise independently and acquire power
and authority independent of the state.

SJ-CSICLS
 The functions of such voluntary associations – churches, labour unions, trade organizations,
professional societies etc. are as necessary and important as those of the state.
The monistic state is not only incapable of wielding absolute authority over such bodies but is incapable
of regulating their affairs intelligently or administering them efficiently.
The monistic concept of sovereignty is a mere legal fiction which not only misses the truth but does
incalculable harm in obstructing the evolution of society along more beneficial lines.
The pluralists condemn and criticize the sovereignty of the state on three grounds. (1) in relation to the
groups, (2) in relation to law, and (3) in relation to other states.
State versus groups: Gierke and Maitland approached pluralism from the
point of view of groups. These thinkers consider the groups as very important instrument of social life. They
are, perhaps,as important as the state its self. These groups and associations, according to them, have a will and
a personality of their own apart from the will and personality of their members. They should have their own
rights and powers and the state has no business to ride roughshod over these groups. The groups should have
power in the making of laws. Sovereignty of the state should be shared amongst them. Their importance and
independent existence should be recognized by the state. Sovereignty, thus according to these thinkers, is
limited internally by the rights of these groups and associations.
State versus Law: According to Duguit, a leading writer of pluralism, attacked the old and obsolete view of
law. According to Duguit, law is neither a command of a sovereign nor will of the state. It is in fact, an
outcome of social solidarity. Infact people realise the utility and necessity of laws, while they live in society.
Laws are created by the people themselves and they are expressions of that sort of life which people wish to
live a life of universal substance in which everyone realise their individual aspirations
State versus other states: The pluralists attacked the absolute sovereignty of the state in the external sphere
also. Prof. H.J.Laski was a great critic of the absolute sovereignty of the state in the external sphere. According
him, the doctrine of absolute, unlimited and irresponsible sovereign state is incompatible with the interests of
humanity. It is a barren and futile doctrine which is bound to disappear from the field of communication caused
by the inventions of science, has brought the political theory like the divine right of kings. A revolution in the
different countries of the world closer to each other. The world has shirked to a single family. The international
public opinion itself is a great check to prevent a reckless state from doing whatever it likes. Hence, the state
cannot claim absolute and unlimited power in the external sphere. Its power shall always be limited by the
rights of other state. Laski held the view that it is impossible to make the legal theory of sovereignty valid for
Political Science if the whole concept of sovereignty where surrendered.

SJ-CSICLS
 UNDERSTANDING POLITICAL THEORY- MODULE-III
{Concepts and Theories of Democracy, Meaning and Definition of democracy, Forms of Democracy,
Contemporary and Recent theories of Democracy- Elitist Theory: Mosca, Pareto, Civil Society}

DEMOCRACY: Meaning and Definitions

The political aspect of democracy emphasises everyone's share in the government; its economic
aspect demands abolition of exploitation; and its social aspect seeks elimination of all distinctions. A rather
conservative definition of democracy is good given by Professor Dicey: "Democracy is a form of
government in which the governing body is comparatively a large fraction of the entire nation." Profferser
Bryce hints at a more liberalised definition of democracy: ―Democracy is that form of government in which
the ruling power of the State is vested not in a particular class or classes but in the members of the
community as a whole." Maclver`s definition of democracy; highlighting the representative system; says
that it is not as much the way of governing as is" a way of determining who shall rule and how."

Summaries the following major characteristics in a democratic polity:

1. That all should govern in the sense that all should be involved in legislating; in deciding on general
policy; in applying laws; and in governmental administration.

2. That there is a need for people's participation in crucial decision-making; that is to say; in deciding
general laws and matter of general laws and matters of general policy.

3. That the rulers should be accountable to the ruled; they should; in other words; be obligated to justify their
actions to the ruled and be removed by the ruled.

4. That the rulers should be accountable to the representative of the ruled.

5. That the rulers should be chosen by the ruled.

6. That the rulers should be chosen by the representative of the ruled.

7. That the rulers should act in the interests of the ruled.

It is possible to give a few general indicators which sum up the totality of the meaning of
democracy:

(a) Democracy is community; it is more than "one person; one vote‖; it is the sense of awareness which
allows a consensus to be maintained. Democracy is not majority; and if it is so; it become the tyranny of
majority. Consensus makes the out-voted feel that they are part of the whole; the community.

(b) Democracy is empowering; for it enabled the individual to exercise control over his. Individual life; and
acting together with others; it enables the community to exercise control over the decision of its collective
life.

(c) Democracy is accountability. Where accountability lacks; the elected system becomes Nothing short of
an elected dictatorship. Those elected; as rulers; must be accountable to their electorable.

(d) Democracy is the effective representative of the electorate. It is not only the people's will; it is also their
concerns in the corridors of power. It is not simply to delegate for the political party; slavishly following its
policy; it is the expression of the policy of the people.[

The features that distinguish democracy from other forms of government ( monarchy; oligarchy;
military regime ; dictatorship; etc.) are the consent of the people; control over the rulers; and the
accountability of the rulers towards the ruled; only democracy had these characteristics which are missing in
the other forms of government. Neither monarchy nor oligarchy and nor any form of dictatorship admit the
democratic values of equality; Liberty and fraternity. The attitudes of flexibility and openness; of tolerance
and of accommodation are the virtue of democratic polity and no other forms of government has even a
shade of these virtues. Democracy is no dogma like dictatorship; it is no hereditary rule like monarchy; it is
no hierarchical system like any oligarchy. Democracy is a belief that the Human Nature is essentially good;
that a human being is a master of his/her destiny; and that human power is capable of attaining all possible
heights. Democracy is (while other forms of governments are not) self-corrective; self-educative; and-
always- evolving.

Characteristics

Democracy is more than just a set of specific government institutions; it rests upon a well -
understood group of values, attitudes, and practices - all of which may take different forms and expressions
among cultures and societies around the world. Democracies rest upon fundamental principles, not uniform
practices.
Core Democratic Characteristics
Democracy is government in which power and civic responsibility are exercised by all adult citizens,
directly, or through their freely elected representatives.
Democracy rests upon the principles of majority rule and individual rights.
Democracies guard against all-powerful central governments and decentralize government to
regional and local levels, understanding that all levels of government must be as accessible and responsive
to the people as possible.
Democracies understand that one of their prime functions is to protect such basic human rights as
freedom of speech and religion; the right to equal protection under law; and the opportunity to organize and
participate fully in the political, economic, and cultural life of society.
Democracies conduct regular free and fair elections open to citizens of voting age. Citizens in a
democracy have not only rights, but also the responsibility to participate in the political system that, in turn,
protects their rights and freedoms.
Democratic societies are committed to the values of tolerance, cooperation, and compromise. In the
words of Mahatma Gandhi, Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true
democratic spirit.
Democracy – {Models/Forms}

In order to have a clearer idea of the growth of democracy, it would be instructive, if not informative, to
give a summary of different models of democracy as stated by David Held (Models of Democracy).

1. Classical Democracy; In a small city- state and in slave economy, citizen, though limited, enjoy
equality among themselves and participate directly in legislative and judicial functions. There is a
provision for open assemblies with executives directly elected, by lot or by rotation -assembly’s
powers include all common affairs.
2. Protective Democracy; Politically better organized and existing in a society of patriarchal chiefs, in
this model of democracy, citizens need protection from the rulers and from one another. It is a
system where the rulers rule in the interests of the citizens only in name; in actuality they interfere in
total governance. The model is protective because it protects
 The ruled from the arbitrariness of the rulers,
 The rulers from the infringement in one-another’s sphere,
 The whole legal system from those who violate the rules.
3. Radical Model of Developmental Democracy
 (i) Radical Model of Developmental Democracy; The system visualizes small, non-industrial
communities with a society of independent producers where men are made free from work
and politics. The citizens in this model enjoy political and economic equality; no one masters
the other; all enjoy equal freedoms, legislative powers with directly elected legislative bodies,
and executive with ―magistrates‖, either appointed or elected directly or chosen by lot.
(ii) Developmental Democracy; The system visualizes an independent civil society with a laissez
faire state supported by competitive market economy; private ownership of means of
production existing alongside the community or cooperative forms of ownership. In this
model, participation in political life is regarded necessary for protection of individual
interests, and development of informed, committed, and developing citizenry. There is
popular sovereignty with universal franchise along with proportional system of
representation; the government is representative; the system of checks and balances exist in
order to avoid absolutism.
4. Direct Democracy and the End of Politics; This system visualizes classless society with the working
class coming victorious against the bourgeoisie and where private property is abolished and market
economy is destroyed. It aims at achieving freedom and free development for all, ensuring complete
political and economic equality and providing equal opportunities for all according to their abilities.
Public affairs are regulated by communes; all officials are elected and, therefore, can be recalled;
economy is planned; and public affairs are collectively governed.
5. Competitive Elitist Democracy; The system visualizes industrial society with competitive groups
competing with one another for power and benefit. The electorate is poorly informed and therefore,
is politically almost apathetic. In this model, the elite is reelected because it is skilled and is,
therefore, capable of making decisions: political and non- political. The essential features of such
model of democracy are:
(a) Parliamentary government with a strong executive or presidential government with an alert
legislature:
(b) Competition between groups and political parties
(c) Dominance of party politics; and
(d) Well- trained bureaucracy.
6. Pluralist Democracy; It visualises the existence of numerous communities in the society with their
own culture, basis, strength, and objectives and each attempting to achieve something for its own
group. There exist active citizenry along with numerous passive bodies of citizens with full political
participation. This model encourages government by minorities generally, prevents the development
of powerful factions and hence, has almost unresponsive state. The essential features of such a
model are:
(a) freedoms and liberties are available;
(b) The device of checks and balances is put in place in order to keep legislature, executive, and
judiciary in their respective domains;
(c) The presence of competitive electoral system is ensured
(d) The coexistence of diverse range and sometimes overlapping interest groups seeking political
influence is ensured
(e) The law and the Constitution are respected
(f) The state, instead of being impartial, seeks to attain its own sectional interests.
7. Legal Democracy; The system visualises effective political leadership, guided by liberal principles:
role of bureaucracy and interest groups is minimised. The essential features of such a model are:
(a) A state that works on the basis of Constitution;
(b) Rule of law prevails over those of men;
(c) Free-market society is ensured;
 (d) A state with minimal functions and maximal individual autonomy is created.
8. Participatory Democracy; The system visualises a perfect and just society with material resources
available to everyone and also an open order where informed decisions are ensured to each. This
model ensures:
(i) An equal right to self-development;
(ii) Developing a sense of political efficacy;
(iii) Concern for collective problems; and
(iv) Contribution to the formation of a knowledgeable citizenry.

The essential features of such a model are:

(a) Direct people’s participation in each institution of society;

(b) Party leadership is made accountable to party membership;
(c) An open institutional system is maintained to ensure the possibility of experimenting with all
political forms.
9. Democratic Autonomy; The system visualises the availability of an open information, ensuring
informed decisions in all public affairs, setting of the government’s priorities with extensive market
regulation of goods and labour, and minimizing of unaccountable power centres in public and private
life. This model expects individuals to be free and equal in the determination of the conditions of
their own life; guarantees equal rights and demands equal obligations. The essential features of this
model in respect of the institution of state are:
(a) Autonomy enshrined in the Constitution;
(b) Competitive party system;
(c) Central and local administrative services internally organized according to the principle of direct
participation.

In respect of society, the key features of such a model are:

(a) Existence of diverse institutions and groups;

(b) Self-managing enterprise;
(c) Community services( education, health, etc.) internally organized on the principle of direct
participation;
(d) Private and voluntary enterprises to help promote diversity and innovation.

The Elitist Theory of Democracy

The background of the theory

The elitist theory of democracy is an amalgamation of two opposing, rather conflicting strands:
elitism and democracy. Elitism implies the rule of the few, whereas democracy, in its direct form, means the
rule of all. The elitist theory of democracy is not elitist in so far as it claims to be democratic; it is not
democratic in so far as it traces its roots in elitism. The elitists, notably Vilfredo Pareto (1848- 1927) and
Gaetano Mosca (1858- 1941), both Italians, and Robert Michels (1876-1936), a German, never found
democracy as a viable proposition. Their arguments are democracy in the sense of popular exercise of power
and peoples’ participation in society’s public affairs cannot in practice, be realized; power is, and has always
remained the privilege of the dominating few; democratic system is impossible and impracticable. The
elitist, therefore, accept the view that democracy is a device that marks the harsh reality of elite rule and that
history is nothing but the graveyard of oligarchies – or what Michels declared as ―the iron law of oligarchy‖.
The classical elite theorists such as Pareto, Mosca, Michels together with the present-day elitists such
as C. Wright Mills(1916-62), Schumpeter, Mannheim, Sartori oppose the classical form of democracy as the
direct rule of the people themselves. Mosca’s words still serve an authoritative statement of the elite theory.
―In all societies- two classes of people appear: a class that rules and a class that is ruled. The first class,
always the less numerous, performs all political functions, monopolises power, and enjoys the advantages
that power brings, whereas the second, the numerous class, is directed and controlled by the first…‖ In other
words, the elitists hold the view that it is always the few who have ruled the many; the elite that rules the
masses. Michels puts forth the elite argument by talking about ―the political immaturity of the mass‖, ―the
organic weakness of the mass‖, ―the need which the mass feels the guidance‖, ―the apathy of the masses and
their need for guidance‖. The elitist conclusion is : as the masses are incompetent, so there arises the need of
the leaders; as the masses are politically immature, so the idea of mass sovereignty is always a myth; as the
masses are apathetic, so they are not political; as the masses are disorganized, so they are irrational; and as
the masses are irrational and manipulable, so there are possibilities of demagogic leaders destroying
democracy and then turning it to fascism.
The ―democracy‖ theorists have been skeptical about elitism as have been the elitists about classical
democracy. Each knows its merits as also its weaknesses. The elitists know how practical they are, and how
undemocratic they are at the same time. Similarly, the ―democracy‖ theorists know how great servants of the
people they are, and how impracticable they are at the same time. The fusion of one into the other produces
a form of government which is called ―elitist theory of democracy‖, ―democratic elitism‖, ―competitive
theory of democracy‖, ―plebiscitary elitism‖ as Max Weber would have called it. The necessity of the
growing industrial society during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries necessitated the need of one by the
other. Summing up the idea of democratic elitism, Schwarzmantel (Structure of Power,1987) says: ― The
fact that masses have a choice between different elites, satisfies all the requirements of a democratic system.
Organization implies oligarchy, as Michels asserted; democracy needs leadership. In this sense, the elite-
mass distinction is preserved and the analysis remains in the elitist tradition. On the other hand, it is a
necessary and sufficient condition for a democratic system that, at stated intervals, the masses decide which
elite is to rule‖.

The Theory Explained-

Joseph schumpeter( capitalism; socialisam and Democracy; 1943) may rightly be called the most
influential proponent of the elistist theory of democracy. He attacks democracy by saying that there is no
Such thing as "the will of the people"; that the masses being ill-informed do not formulated the agneda of
politics; that the masses being ill-informed do not formulate the agenda of politics; that the political issues
are always raised; articulated; and debated by the leaders; and that initiative in politics issues are always
raised; articulated; and bottom to top. When the masses elect the leaders or a particular Elite; the
government is formed. In Such a situation; schumpeter says; the leaders should be free and autonomous to
formulate and Carry out policies of the government as composed by the people. The democratic elements;
in a situation like this; is preserved in

(a) periodic elections of the leaders by the masses and

(b) in the accountability of the leaders towards the electorate.
The elistist element is preserved in
(a) enough autonomy of the leaders to formulate the policies and
(b) enough freedom to execute them.
The elistist View of democracy may be summed up as Weber once described in a situation like this: "
In a democracy; people choose a leader in whom they trust. Then the chosen leaders says; ' now shut up
and obey me.' people and party are then no longer free to interfere with his business... Later the people can
sit in judgement. If thr leaders has made mistakes- to the gallows with him".For an order of democratic
elitism; schumpeter insists on the following conditions:

(i) The caliber of politicians must be high.

(ii) competition between rival leaders ( and parties) must take place but within the prescribed
norms.
(iii) There has to be a well- trained independent bureaucracy to aid and advise politicians.
(iv) Excessive criticism of government on all issues be permitted.
(V) A political culture capable of tolerating differences of opinion is guaranteed.

In a democratic elitism; the following features should constitute a border framework of the elistist
theory of democracy:

(i) The elite's unflinching faith in democratic Norms. It needs to realise that it possesses power as long
as the electorate wants it.
(ii) The establishment of the Elite-masses contact is the only basis of the elistist democracy.
(iii) Non-interference of the masses ij elite's business: in the formulation of policies and in the conduct of
administration.
(iv) The elite's capabilities and experience in political and public issues are a matter beyond any doubt.
(v) Effective and active competition among the groups- constant and always continuing.
(vi) circulation of elite from among the masses
(iii) The Theory’s Evaluation

The elite theory of democracy has the following inherent limitations:

1. The theory is no longer democratic if by democracy we mean a system where there is a substantial
amount of popular power and involvement of the citizens. In this sort of democracy the masses only
produce a government, they do not sustain it.
2. The elite theory of democracy does ensure a measure of responsiveness by the leaders to the led, but
democracy, in its essence, is not just confined to responsiveness, nor is it limited to checking and
controlling the executive. Democracy implies people’s participation at each level of governance,
from initiating a legislative proposal to vetoing the other.
3. The elitist thesis that masses, in general, need not interfere in elite’s public affairs and insistence that
the politicians may keep ―get on with the job‖ attitude are not compatible with classical judgment on
their rulers. Real democracy is not only descriptive in the sense of being a way of electing the
governors, but is normative in the sense of being a way of judging the ruler and the existing power
system.
4. Democratic elitism cuts out from democratic theory its very heart-the idea of participation.
Schwarzmental writers: ―it (democratic elitism) take a purely static view accepting the features of
present day mass society fixed for ever instead of envisaging a process that would transcend the
elite-mass dichotomy. The stability of the existing order is , thus, made the chief value and
democratic involvement then appears to threaten that value‖
5. The democratic elitism alienates the ruled from the rulers. Despite the fact that the ruled can exercise
control over the rules, it does not imply that the ruled control the rulers. All the agencies and devices,
through which the masses can possibly control the rulers, remain under the control of the rule. The
distance between the ruled and the rulers keep widening.
6. Democratic elitism is more elastic than democratic. The fact remains that the rulers-the elite-remain
a class in themselves .As such, the theory is more elite-oriented and its democratic convictions are
both formal and imaginary.
7. The elitist theory of democracy is anti- liberal for it does not recognize the individual as a rational
being. It is anti-socialist for it has a theory of political democracy and his has, in fact, no theory of
socioeconomic democracy.
8. The elastic theory limits democracy only to ―governance‖ level.
 9. In terms of progress, the elite theory of democracy is a step backward. It has removed from its
essence, the moral content of democracy, a feature the classical theory of democracy—democratic
humanism—was replaced by the elitist with what they made-democratic mechanism. The elitist
theory of democracy is retrievessive. Macpherson writes: ―democracy is reduced from a humanistic
aspiration to a market equilibrium society‖

The strength of the elitist theory of democracy lies in fact that effective political power has always,
in all societies and in all ages, remained in the hands of the few – a select minority. It also lies in the fact
that much a system of democracy has, in reality, worked effectively well in western political system, that
any alternative of democracy could not and has, in fact, not worked, and that the socialist model as
against the elitist one, has proved infeasible.

Civil Society

In contemporary discourse, the term 'civil society' is used in two senses. In one sense, civil society
comprises the social institutions like school, church and peer groups of citizens which serve as structures of
legitimation of the state. These instituions largely lend support to the state. This meaning of civil society
corresponds to Gramsci's view of its role in sustaining the capitalist system. In the second sense, civil
society stands for a set of public interest organizations set up by some conscious citizens which make
various demands on the state or launch social movements to mobilize ordinary citizens on the way to social
reform. The state must respond promptly to their demands in order to ensure smooth functioning of society.
The role of civil society in this sense has assumed special significance in recent years.
Present-day concept of civil society closely corresponds to Tocqueville's view on the role of
'intermediate voluntary associations'. Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-59), a French philosopher, in his
celebrated work Democracy in America (1835- 40), argued that with the dissolution of aristocracy in Europe
an alternative for the pluralist dispersion of power was urgently needed. In the medieval Europe, there were
three centres of power : Clergy, Nobility and Commoners. Of these, Clergy and Nobility enjoyed substantial
powers in their respective fields.
Commoners could also make their voice heard at the decision-making level because of their large
numbers. But with the coming of democracy, old centres of power had been destroyed. Power was now
concentrating in the hands of majority. This led to the danger of tyranny of majority.
In order to protect the freedom of citizens, Tocqueville suggested that a vigorous system of voluntary
associations could act as counterweights to the state power. They could crystallize and publicize opinions
and interests which would otherwise go unheard. Moreover, these associations could stimulate collective
self-help rather than reliance on state initiative. They could draw people into cooperative ventures, breaking
down their social isolation and making them aware of their wider social responsibilities. They could function
as 'schools of democracy', instilling habits of civic virtue and public spirit into their members. In short, these
associations would serve as an effective instrument of defence of individual liberty and encourage close
cooperation between the citizens to solve their common problems. Tocqueville was an ardent champion of
freedom of association. He earnestly hoped that free political parties and a free press would prove to be most
effective among these voluntary associations. In the contemporary context, various interest groups and non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) could be added to this list.
Civil society is now regarded as an important organ of democratic society. It includes a wide range
of associations and social movements which provide ample opportunities to the citizens to develop their
capacities and express their varying interests and diverse identities. It creates an atmosphere where the
citizens are able to enjoy some level of autonomy or independence from government control or influence. It
promotes a moral sense of obligation among the citizens and motivates them to participate in civic causes. It
discourages their dependence on the government for the solution of their common problems. Thus it serves
as the true source of democratization.
In recent political discourse, the concept of civil society has been further refined. Jean L. Cohen and
Andrew Arato, in their essay Civil Society and Political Theory (1992), have defined civil society as an area
of public activity distinct from both the state and the market. This area involves a range of groups and
associations, including families. In this sense, civil society is regarded to be essential for a healthy
democratic society. It permits participation and communicative interaction of individuals. Cohen and Arato
have argued that this field of social life is designed to supplement the political institutions of representative
democracy rather than serve as a replacement thereof.
Paul Hirst, a British academic, in Associative Democracy: New Forms of Economic and Social
Governance (1994), has visualized civil society as a set of voluntary associations which would be the
primary bases of democracy. He has evolved a model of democracy in which self-governing associations
would perform public functions. This arrangement would not only reduce the burden on the central state, but
also curtail its power. According to this scheme, the associations of civil society would only supplement the
representative democracy rather than replace it. However, the goals of democracy would be achieved
primarily through these associations rather than through a centralized state. The role of the state would be
reduced to supervising and regulating the voluntary associations of civil society.
Robert Putnam, an American social scientist, in his article 'Bowling Alone: America's Declining
Social Capital' in The Global Resurgence of Democracy, edited by Larry Diamond and Marc F. Plattner
(1998), has suggested that the associations of civil society can create 'social capital', i.e. a set of social
practices which involve civic engagement and ideas of reciprocity. Putnam firmly believes that such a
network of civic involvement is necessary for an effective democracy. However, he laments that in the past
two or three decades the Americans have forgotten 'the art of pursuing in common the objects of common
desires', which was recognized and admired by Alexis de Tocqueville. Putnam has pointed out that the
present-day American society is characterized by a reduction in citizens' activity in the associations of civil
society, with a consequent decline in the quality of American democracy.
In short, civil society is now regarded the central theme of democratic debate. It is also viewed as a
device of democratic action against the old-style communist systems that sought to monopolize all political
power in the hands of one-party state. Indeed the communist governments in Eastern Europe had
demobilized civil society so that rulers could directly control the individual. In 1960s and 1970s it was
realized that the institutions of civil society could not only be used to strengthen the authority of the ruling
class, but the opposition could also use this device to promote its own viewpoint. Where the authority of the
ruling class could not be challenged at the political level, there the hegemony of the rulers could be
undermined through manipulation of education and culture.
In late 1970s and 1980s the device of civil society was widely used in East European socialist
countries as a weapon against the all-encompassing claims of the totalitarian state. The Solidarity movement
in Poland sought to build up the institutions of civil society as a 'parallel society' with a view to safeguarding
the interests of workers. In Bulgaria, an environmental group called 'Ecoglasnost' raised the issue of the
wanton destruction of natural resources and the appalling pollution in industrial centres. Since these centres
were functioning under government control, Ecoglasnost proved to be an effective organ of civil society as
the anti-government movement in Bulgaria. After the successful revolutions of 1989 throughout the Eastern
Europe, the concept of civil society gained immense popularity. Western intellectuals also found the concept
of civil society as instrumental to the revival of citizen participation in public affairs in democratic societies
where it had recently declined. In fact, 'civil society movement' in the recent decades has emerged as an ally
of 'new social movements'.
 Feminism
Feminism stands for the concern with the status and role of women in society in relation to men. It
holds that women have suffered and are still suffering injustice because of their sex; hence it seeks effective
measures for the redressal of that injustice. In short, it implies a voice of protest against the inferior status
accorded to women in society, which is the product of the institution of 'patriarchy, and not based on reason.
Early feminism emerged in the wake of Enlightenment, which sought to enlarge the scope of 'rights
of man' so as to include equal rights to women therein. In Britain, free-thinking women like Mary
Wollstonecraft (1759-97) and Harriet Taylor (1807- 59) made a fervent appeal for equal rights of women.
Later, John Stuart Mill (1806- 73), in his essay on The Subjection of Women (1869) argued that women were
by no means less talented than men and hence deserved equal rights with men. In the contemporary world,
the issue concerning the status of women may be understood by drawing a distinction between sex and
gender.
In any case, relative dominance of man and relative submissiveness of woman represent almost
universal cultural traits, which are not directly based on biological differences. Broadly speaking, these are
the products of the social organization based on patriarchy and its institutions, the division of labour in the
family and the competitive and exploitative character of capitalism. From this perspective, the concepts of
masculinity and femininity serve as instruments of social control that reinforce male dominance. So if a
woman tends to behave in an authoritarian manner, particularly towards men, her behaviour is termed to be
indecent. In short, the expectations attached to differential roles of men and women serve as the foundation
of gender inequality in society. J.J. Rousseau (1712-78) in his essay A Discourse on the Origin of Inequality
(1755) had distinguished between natural inequality and conventional inequality.
Natural inequality describes the inequality of age, health, beauty, physical and intellectual capacities
of different people, which were created by nature. These inequalities are largely unalterable. On the other
hand, conventional inequalities represent disparities of wealth, prestige and power among different
individuals. These inequalities are the product of our social arrangements. We can undertake a critical
examination of these inequalities from the point of view of justice, and can reduce them by altering our
social arrangements. In other words, conventional inequalities are alterable. While the division of society
into two sexes—male and female—represents natural inequality, gender inequalities are the product of
convention and culture. These inequalities can be questioned and removed wherever they are found
objectionable.
In the contemporary world, further advancement in technology, diversification of business, industry,
administration, arts and professions, etc. and the increasing demand of new skills, talents, and professional
competence, have given women the opportunity of proving their abilities. They have also been encouraged
to acquire higher qualifications and training and to seek respectable careers. It is now realized that women
are fit to perform most of the jobs that men do, and for which they were not considered fit earlier. Equal
rights for women are no longer questioned in enlightened circles.
BROAD STREAMS OF FEMINISM
Feminist theory has evolved into various schools of thought. Of these three are particularly
important: (a) Liberal feminism, (b) Radical feminism, and (c) Socialist feminism.
LIBERAL FEMINISM
This aims at the revival of the conventional feminist movement. It insists on absolute equality of
opportunity for men and women in all walks of life and complete removal of gender-based discrimination in
society. Its programme includes equal pay for equal work, abortion laws reform, increasing representation of
women in parliaments, bureaucracy and dignified professions, etc. This is the most popular stream of
feminist movement, but it is not considered to be very influential.
RADICAL FEMINISM
Its chief spokesperson Shulamith Firestone (1945- ) in her celebrated work The Dialectic of Sex
(1970) argued that women's subordination could not be understood as a symptom or aspect of some deeper
or more comprehensive system of domination, such as racism or class-based division of society. Historically
women constituted the first oppressed group; their subordination could not be eliminated by the changes
such as the elimination of prejudice or even the abolition of class s>oc\ety.
Firestone claimed that the basis of women's subordination was ultimately biological. In other words,
human reproductive biology was responsible for considering women the weaker sex. Moreover, the survival
of women and children required that infants should depend on lactating women and women in turn, should
depend on men. Happily the material conditions for ending this hitherto inevitable dependence had finally
been achieved in the twentieth century with the advent of reliable contraceptives, baby foods and 'test-tube
babies'. These technological developments provided women the means of freeing themselves from the
tyranny of their reproductive biology and diffusing the child-bearing and child-rearing role to society as a
whole, men as well as women.
Kate Millett (1934- ) in Sexual Politics (1971) argued that the relationship between the sexes was
based on power and further sustained by an ideology. It was similar to the relationship between classes and
races. Hence it should be treated as political relationship. Basing her analysis of women's subordination on
Max Weber's theory of domination, Millet argued that men have exercised domination over women in two
forms: through social authority and economic force. Time had now come to smash these implements of
man's domination. Shulamith Firestone and Kate Millett are regarded to be the two pillars of radical
feminism, who exercised enormous influence on developing the Women's Liberation Movement in 1970s.
SOCIALIST FEMINISM
Socialist stream of feminism represents a combination of patriarchal analysis of radical feminim and
class analysis of Marxism. It implies that capitalists as well as men are the beneficiary of women's
subordination. Socialist feminists have particularly developed analysis of labour, both wage-labour and
domestic labour. They have also considered the role of culture and psycho-analytical aspects of sexuality.
Sheila Rowbatham the chief representative of this school advocated a participatory, decentralized
approach to social change that contemplates linking of the struggles of all oppressed groups. In her best-
known historical writings— Women, Resistance and Revolution (1972) and Hidden from History (1973)—
Rowbatham tried to reclaim the past for women as a source of knowledge and strength that could contribute
to their present struggle. She continued this approach in The Past is before Us (1989). As a Marxist, she
maintained that the struggle for women's liberation is essentially bound with the struggle against capitalism.
She has shown from historical evidence that class exploitation and women's oppression are closely linked
phenomena. She argued that the success in these spheres can be achieved only through combining these
struggles.
EMPOWERMENT OF WOMEN
A general awareness of the exploitation of women on various fronts like social, cultural, political and
economic fronts has led to strong protests manifested in Women's Liberation Movement, which emerged in
the United States since the early 1970s. Soon this movement also spread to Europe and other parts of the
world. The movement focused on equal rights and status for women in a maledominated society. Some
prominent organizations associated with this movement were : National Organization for Women (NOW),
Boston's Bread and Roses,
Berkley Women's Liberation Group, Women's Radical Action Project, Women's Equity Action
League (WEAL), National Women's Political Caucus (NWPC), etc. Broadly speaking, Women's Liberation
Movement demanded a truly equal treatment of men and women. It required that many of society's myths,
values and beliefs concerning status and role of women in society should be fundamentally reassessed and
changed. These changes must embrace the patterns of work and family life, social behaviour, decision-
making, politics, religion and education. Even the more personal and private domain of sexuality needed to
be redefined. These demands led to a widespread debate on diverse issues concerning women. These include
day-care facilities for children, the development of a non-sexist vocabulary (e.g. the term 'chairman' should
be replaced by 'chairperson'), and the representation of women and their roles in the mass media, including
advertising. These debates have not only led to the enactment of new laws in some countries, but also to the
worldwide acceptance of new norms protecting the dignity of women.
In India some important legislation concerning the protection of women includes: the Immoral
Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; Indecent Representation of Women
(Prohibition) Act, 1986; and the Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987. Female foeticide was sought to
be prevented by the enactment of the Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse)
Act, 1994. The recent legislation concerning empowerment of women includes Hindu Succession
(Amendment) Act, 2005 (which gives equal right to daughters in joint family property) and Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Feminists also assert that until the condition of equal participation of women in public life is
fulfilled, the concept of citizenship cannot be brought to its logical conclusion. In India a beginning in this
direction has been made by making reservation of one-third of the seats in panchayats for women. This will
encourage women to join politics at grass-root level. By and by their representation at this level can be
increased to one-half, and provision can also be made for their adequate representation in legislative
assemblies and parliament. The opening up of vast opportunities of higher education would also prove to be
instrumental to their larger representation in administration and high-profile professions. In this way the idea
of equal citizenship can be fully realized from the feminist point of view.
Feminists argue that even after getting full citizenship in law, women continue to suffer from
subjection in their social life. From 1960s and 1970s the status of women in society and politics has become
the centre of attention. Earlier it was usually thought that after establishing legal equality of men and
women, women were not left with any issue of complaint. After the extension of right-to-vote to women,
there were some studies on voting behaviour. It was found that women's participation in voting was lower in
comparison to men. To explain this situation it was argued that women were largely interested in private and
domestic affairs; they were less interested in politics and public affairs and probably they had no time to
attend to these matters.
However, when the size of the family began to shrink and more and more women took up jobs, the
above explanation regarding women's sphere of interest was no longer held to be valid. Again, it was noticed
that more and more women were taking part in voting, but their share at various levels of political authority
had remained insignificant. While the electorates of various countries of the world had nearly fifty per cent
women, their share at the level of political representation was far below that of men. Membership of women
in the legislatures of Western Europe was less than ten per cent. Women's share in British House of
Commons was less than five per cent. The situation in the United States House of Representatives was not
very different. But the situation in the Scandinavian countries was not that bad. In Sweden and Denmark
women's membership of legislatures amounted to twenty-six per cent; in Norway this figure was thirtyfour
per cent.
In the sphere of international politics the representation of women is still meagre. In November 1990
thirty-four Heads of Government of European countries gathered to sign the historic Charter of Paris for the
New Europe. The gathering marked the end of the Cold War. In newspaper headlines it was described as the
'end of an era'. But feminists ask: "Which era had come to an end?" In any case, it was not an end of the
patriarchal era. In the group-photo of these thirty-four heads of government, only two women could be
spotted after a thorough search. These were: Gro Brundtland, Prime Minister of Norway, and Margaret
Thatcher, Prime Minister of Britain. Two days after this Conference, Mrs Thatcher also resigned, and a man
replaced her as Prime Minister. In this situation, what is the consequence of granting full political rights to
women if their representation in public life remains so negligible? Happily, however, by the end of 2005,
Germany had elected its first woman Chancellor. By the beginning of 2006, Chile and Liberia had elected
their women Presidents. Then in 2007 India and Argentina had the distinction of having women Presidents.
In the countries outside Europe and America, women's representation is very insignificant at the
level of political authority although some women have been successful in attaining top positions. Sri Lanka,
Israel, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh have the record of having women Prime Ministers or Heads of
Government. But on the whole, the number of women holding high offices is very small. Some women have
excellent record of performance in various important positions, like those in legislatures, cabinets,
bureaucracy, diplomacy, journalism, legal profession, fine arts, academics and scientific research, etc. This
record is enough proof of the potential of women's power. But it is no proof of the opportunities open to
women as their share in these positions continues to be very meagre.
Currently there are two broad views concerning equal rights for women: (a) one view is that there is
no difference between men and women as regards their capabilities; hence they should be governed by the
same laws; and (b) another view is that women are essentially different from men—biologically, culturally
and socially; they should be given equal opportunities to develop and apply their distinctive capabilities
along with equal rights. Thus, women could be exempted from hazardous tasks, like underground mining
and working in night shifts.
Similarly, women should be entitled to maternity leave and related benefits, arrangements for
maintenance and custody of children after divorce, etc. Besides, in order to compensate women for their
under-representation in important positions, reservations for women should be made in the seats for higher
learning, appointments, seats in legislatures, etc. They should also be given tax concessions in order to
encourage them to work for additional income. This view seems to be more reasonable and is widely
endorsed.
 POST-MODERNISM
Post modernism stands for a late 20th century movement in philosophy. Art, and literary criticism. It extends to various
forms of social theory including political theory. The german philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) as
considered to be the intellectual god father of post modernism. According to Nietz there is no truth in this world, only
a plethora (many) of interpretations so there is no objective reality only a plurality of perspectives. Similarly there is
no genuine distinction below right and wrong only expressions of power relations. In other words, those who are in
power, determine what is right, good or beautiful. Anything not conforming to this standard is considered to be wrong
or sub standard.
Influential works on post modernism include Gean Francois Lyotar’s post modern
condition and Richard Rorty’s lontigeniu,Fronty and solidarity.
Broadly speaking, post modernism implies that the structure of privilege and power pervades
the entire social system. It operates in the field of language also. Its implications in a language have been brought out
by Jaques Derrida (1930-2004) in his celebrated ‘Work of Grammatology’ were he was outlined his ‘Concept of
Deconstruction’. It as a function in our social life has been amply almost ruled by Michael Foucault. Another French
philosopher , in his notable work, power and knowledge.

Michael Focault
Focault has made an important contribution to political theory by challenging many traditional assumptions. He has
argued that political theory continued to assume a paradigm (focus) of power. The old paradigm of power dating from
18th century conceived power as the repressive force. It is contained in the rules which prescribe as to what is allowed
and what is not allowed. However, the modern concept of power operates through the disciplinary norms established
by the various social institutions. These institutions set up disciplinary norms and make people behave according to
these norm. This is the modern way through which power operates.
The post-modernist perspective on power regards the prevalent norms of truth, and morality as unacceptable.
Because they simply reflect the mode of thinking of the power holders in society. No particular description of the real
can be treated as finally true.
However, Post-modernism tries to establish sociological linkages between higher and lower values with the
distribution of power in society. Accordingly, the power holders in society are held in high esteem and their culture is
regarded morally superior to that of the power less.
FEMINISM
Michael Focault starts from the point of social power structure. He believes in the natural equality of success. But
there is male domination, in other words, this is a patriarchal society. This again as rooted in capitation. The power
holders are men and women are subservient to men.
The male members of society dominate in all fields- cultural, financial and political fields.
Post-modernism rejects liberal feminism. If men and women are to be equals. There must be self moderation. It is ugly
for men to behave rudely towards women. Men must exercise self-control and they must act in self discipline , says
focault.
Even though women are subservient in society, it is useless to protest against this in this state of affairs. This
is because, we find the male members dominating in all walks of life.
DECONSTRUCTION
According to post modernist, the structures of privilege and power pervades all dept.s of human life. Even the
language of the society is determined by the power holders.
Deconstruction is an approach to understand the meaning of words. A word does not represent some concrete
realities or truth. We can understand the meaning of a word only, when we compare it or contrast it, with their
opposite context which it seeks to supress.
Jacques derrida, a French philosopher as regarded as the chief exponent of this approach. Accordingly the
word masculine does not does not denote some concrete reality. Its meaning can be understood only through an
intellectual process called deconstruction. That is by contrasting it with the word feminine, with refers to the
subordinate position. Similarly, the word transcendental would be meaningful only in relation to empirical; in each
case one category as regarded as culturally superior in relation to another.