Page |1

POLITICAL SCIENCE
INSTRUCTOR: PROF. AFROZ ALAM

CONCEPT OF STATE A TEXTBOOK

COMPILED BY: HARNEET KAUR (2011/B.A. LL.B./022) UPASANA CHAUHAN (2011/B.A. LL.B./058) KSHETRAGYA NATH SINGH (2011/B.A. LL.B./027) PRAKHAR RAJA BISHNOI (2011/B.A. LL.B./038)

Page |2

INDEX

CHAPTER NO

TOPIC WHAT IS STATE?AN INTRODUCTION

PAGE NO

II

THE ELEMENTS OF STATE

III

STATE AND OTHER ASSOCIATIONS

IV

RISE AND GROWTH OF NATION STATE

11

THEORIES OF ORIGIN OF STATE

17

VI

DIVERSE PERSPECTIVES ON STATE BIBLIOGRAPHY

33

52

Page |3

CHAPTER I
WHAT IS STATE?-AN INTRODUCTION
The concept of state is a very broad concept. It has figured the central theme of traditional political theory. There had been always been some sort of political organization existed since ancient times, such as Greek City States and the Roman Empire, yet the concept of the State is comparatively modern. State is used to express the collective action of the community, through the agency of the government, as distinguished from individual action. e.g.: State regulation, state aid here, the word state is used for government. The definition of the term state as has been accepted means assemblage of people occupying a definite territory under an organised government and subject to no outside control, i.e., has sovereign power. The states all over the world have these characteristics. In a state, there are certain rules of law that are established and in some measure maintained and exercised and the right to it is recognised both by the members of the group and by the outside world. There can be no community without the people to form one, and no common life without some definite piece of territory to live in. When people live a collective life, they fulfil the meaning of Aristotles famous phrase, Man is a social animal, and when they life a settled life on a definite territory to realize the purpose of collective living, they fulfil the meaning of Aristotles second famous phrase: Man is a political animal. Society meets mans companionship; the state solves the problem created by such companionship. The state is a natural, a necessary and a universal institution. It is natural because it is rooted in the reality of human nature. It is because Aristotle said, The state comes into existence originating in the bare needs of life and continuing in existence for the sake of good life. Like Aristotle, there have been many philosophers who gave their views about what a state is and there had been a debate about the clear understanding of state. To understand what led to form the clear definition of State, acknowledging the views of these philosophers is important. The views have been penned down in a concise form: Machiavelli said: All the powers which have had and have authority over man are state and are either monarchies or republic. Hall says: The marks of an independent state are that the community constituting it is permanently established for a political end, that it possesses a defined territory and that it is independent of external control.

Page |4

Mac Iver defines it as, an association which acting through law as promulgated by a government endowed to this end with coercive power, maintains within a community territorially demarcated the universal external condition of social order. Gabriel Almond says that the Political system, the word he uses for state is, that system of interactions to be found in all independent societies which perform the function of integration and adaption by means of employment or threat of employment or less legitimate physical compulsion.1 The Political System he defines is the legitimate, order-maintaining or transforming system in the society. Garner defined states as, a community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a definite portion of territory, independent or nearly so, of external control, and possessing an organized government which the great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience.2

1 2

Gabriel,A.Almond And James,S.Coleman, The Politics Of Developing Areas P.4 Garner J.W.,Political Science And Government,P.52

Page |5

CHAPTER II
THE ELEMENTS OF THE STATE
Political Science begins and ends with the state. J.W Garner The concept of the state holds great significance in the theory of political science; therefore it becomes important for us to understand the modern meaning of the state. The existence of the modern nation state first came in the early sixteenth century Europe.3The existence of the modern nation state was a departure from the feudal model of the middle ages.4 Several writers have attempted to explain the emergence of the modern nation state.5Five major steps in the emergence of the modern nation state are: 1. Unification and independence or autonomy 2. Development and differentiation of the political roles and institutions 3. Transfer of power from the traditional elites 4. Development of a number of social interests and growth in government functions 5. Use of the state or power in attempts to guide or control social, economic and political activity.6 Earlier nation states were largely monarchy, thereafter there was a transition from monarchy to constitutional monarchy to the present various forms of governance.7In some countries, such as England, this transition was peaceful while in some it was brought about a violent revolution.8 Since then, modern nation states have come a long way in terms of development (social, economic and political) and now, we have a recognized definition of a state in terms of International Law. A state as an international person should possess the following characteristics9:

a. Defined Territory
There is no minimum requirement as to the amount of territory that a state shall possess. It is not necessary for all the boundaries to be defined and settled, so long as there is a consistent, coherent area of territory over which the state exercises sovereignty.10 For example: Israel is accepted by a majority of the nations and by the United Nations as a state despite the fact that its frontiers are disputed. The territory of the state includes the land, water and air-space within its boundary.11
3 4

An Introduction To Political Theory, O.P Gauba,5 th Edition, Pg 147 ,Macmillan Www.Slideshare.Net/Marshascott.Com 5 Www.Britannica.Com 6 Www.Stanford.Edu 7 An Introduction To Political Theory, O.P Gauba,5 th Edition, Pg 147, Macmillan 8 An Introduction To Political Theory, O.P Gauba,5 th Edition, Pg 147, Macmillan 9 Montevideo Convention On The Rights And Duties Of The State,1933 10 Legal Issues In Plain Language,69th Edition, Pg 9, Legal Information Center, State Library Of New South Wales, Australia 11 An Introduction To Political Theory, O.P Gauba,5 th Edition, Pg 135, Macmillan

Page |6

b. Permanent Population
Like territory there is no minimum requirement of population. Further, it does not necessarily have a population from a single race, religion, language, culture etc.12A population may be nomadic yet be regarded as sufficiently linked with its territory to be called as the population.13In the modern state, population is usually unified by a common history, interest and goal. Without a population, the state will cease to exist.

c. Government
Howsoever politics and state are defined, government remains central to it. The government as an institution is concerned with the making and implementation of the law.14A state must have an effective government or some coherent political structure to able to exercise control over the permanent population within the states territory. This requirement has not always been consistently applied and it sometimes depends on how other states respond to it.15For example: Bosnia Herzegovina were recognized as independent states by European community member states and admitted to the United Nations in 1992, at time when nongovernmental forces controlled substantial part of its territory.

d. Sovereignty
Sovereignty is also an important element of the modern nation state. Sovereignty denotes the ultimate or supreme power of the state to make laws or take political decisions establishing public goals, fixing priorities, resolving conflicts, enforcing laws and decisions by the legitimate use of force. 16State is entitled to exercise political control over the citizens of its territory. State has a corresponding duty of not muddling into political affairs of other states. Also sovereignty enables the state to have a complete control over economic policies and life, conducted within its borders, involving independent control of the fiscal and monetary policies.17 However, the concept of economic sovereignty has been taken to a form with the countries complaining about functioning and processes of international organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and International Monetary Fund (IMF).

In International Law, a state has three fundamental rights in form of sovereignty, equality, political independence and territorial integrity.18

12 13

An Introduction To Political Theory, O.P Gauba,5 th Edition, Pg 135, Palgrave Western Sahara Advisory Opinion 1975 ICJ Reports 12 14 Political Theory: An Introduction, Andrew Heywood,3 rd Edition, Pg 65,Palgrave 15 Www.Legalanswers.Dl.Nsw.Gov.Au 16 An Introduction To Political Theory, O.P Gauba,5 th Edition, Pg 137 ,Macmillan 17 Political Theory: An Introduction, Andrew Heywood,3 rd Edition, Pg 65,Palgrave 18 Www.Legalanswers.Dl.Nsw.Gov.Au

Page |7

CHAPTER III
STATE AND OTHER ASSOCIATIONS

WHAT IS AN ASSOCIATION? A human organisation formed for the fulfilment of certain common ojectives of its members which motivates them to work together.19

STATE AND SOCIETY

People often mistakenly use state as a synonym of society and vice versa. This often leads to confusion and calls for the need to create a demarcation between these two, not only for scientific precision but also to protect an individual from absolutist, authoritarian and totalitarian rule. State is basically a politically organized society. It is self-governing in nature.20Society is an association of human beings which fulfil all their needs of life-from cradle to grave. State subjects people to binding laws and decisions, so as to restrain their actions in order to maintain peace, order and security and also provides them with common services such as electricity, water etc. A society can become a state only when it has a common set of rules and regulations followed by all and has a supreme decision making body, i.e. has sovereign authority. Aristotle said, Man is a social animal. As a result of this social nature, man forms a number of relationships when he lives in a society. Although, not all of them are essentially similar in nature. Social relationships are formed out of custom, courtesy, morality, mutual understanding, agreement or even contract. Also, they satisfy a large number of human demands-physical, emotional, intellectual and mental. While, on the other hand, political relations are about command and obedience only. A society may coincide with the state, especially when state takes the form of a nation. Thus, Indian society and Indian state denote the association of the same set of person. There can also be a society within a state such as a village community. And since, human relations know no boundary, therefore, social relations may also exist across boundaries. A society may also exist without a
19 20

An Introduction To Political Theory, 5th Edition By O.P Gauba., P134 Available At: Http://Www.Geography.About.Com/Cs/Politicalgeog/A/Statenation.Htm

Page |8

society as people from different religion, caste, race, gender, to whom we are related may not necessarily live in the same state but they belong to our society. For eg: Group of hunters belong to the same society but not to the same state. Since, the times man is born on this earth, he lives in the society. Thus, society is the primary association out of which state has been carved out. Also, it is for the purposes of the members of the society only that this political organization exists. The state depends on society for its existence, not vice versa. Thus, R.M. MacIver observed: There are social forms like the family or the church or the club, which owe neither their origin not their inspiration to the state; and social forces like custom or competition, which the state may protect or modify, but certainly does not create, and social motives like friendship or jealousy, which establish relationship too intimate and personal to be controlled by the great engine of the stateThe state in a word regulates the outstanding external relationships of men in society.21 Thus, man owes much more to society rather than state. But when, mans obligations towards society are attributed to the state, it leads to disastrous consequences.22

STATE AND CIVIL SOCIETY

Civil society represents an organization in which individual dealt with all other individuals (apart from the member of his family) as means to serve his self-interest23.

State can be distinguished from the civil society as the state represent coercion and civil society on the other hand is based on voluntary participation. State vary in the amount of independence that they permit to other social institutions, this defines the nature of the state as totalitarian or liberal. A state which seeks to create a distinction between its sphere of activity and that of a society is called a totalitarian state, as it seeks to intervene in the totality of human life. A totalitarian state might supervise what books you read, what your political views are, and even what career you may opt and so on24 for example: North Korea can be called a totalitarian state. The main feature which makes a civil society distinct from a state is that it does not have a force-backed structure as of a state and believes in voluntary participation, which can never be found in a totalitarian state.
21

The Modern State, R.M. Maciver,1926, p35 An Introduction To Political Theory, 5th Edition By O.P Gauba ,Concept Of The State,Pg:138 23 An Introduction To Political Theory,5th Edition By O.P Gauba, Pg139 24 Political Theory: An Introduction By R. Bhargava And A. Acharya, Pg 176
22 22

Page |9

Difference between both is clear, civil society works on the concept of welfare state rather than the concept of state, which have a more coercive connotation attached to it.

STATE AND GOVERNMENT

State and government as terms have a lot of confusion revolving around them in relation to conception and actual meaning. The term state can be used to refer to a bewildering range of things: a collection of institutions, a territorial unit, a historical entity, a philosophical idea and so on. In our day to day life we often get confused because of this wide interpretation of state. State can be understood as a big structure with different sub-sets such as government, police, military, courts, social security system, bureaucracy etc present in it. Amongst all these sub-sets the government is the most powerful one, so powerful and extensive that it has become the centerpiece of the whole structure and has given rise to the ideological debate and due to which both these terms are being used interchangeably. Giving a clear difference between state and government is very difficult as the relationship between both is very complex but the only thing which should be kept in mind, is that state is the absolute power. Thomas Hobbes conveyed this image of the state as the supreme power by portraying it as a Leviathan, a gigantic monster, usually represented as a sea creature; the only feature which separates state from other political associations is its sovereignty25.

The state is an inclusive association, which in a sense embraces the entire community and encompasses those institutions that constitute the public sphere. Government can thus be seen as merely part of the state. Moreover, the state is a continuing, even permanent, entity. By contrast, government is temporary: governments come and go and systems of government are remodelled.

As a mechanism through which collective decisions are enacted, government is responsible for making and implementing state policy. Government is, in effect, the brains of the state: it gives authoritative expression to the state. In this way, government is usually thought to dictate to and control other state bodies, the police and military, educational and welfare systems and the like. By implementing the various state functions, government serves to maintain the state itself in existence26.

25 26

An Introduction To Political Theory, 5th Edition By O.P Gauba.p 310 Political Theory: An Introduction By Andrew Heywood,p 46

P a g e | 10

The state supposedly reflects the permanent interests of society the maintenance of public order, social stability, long-term prosperity and national security while government is inevitably influenced by ideological preferences of the politicians who happen to be in power. If government succeeds in harnessing the sovereign power of the state to its own goals, dictatorship is the likely result27. It is necessary to create a clear divide between the ideology which true concept of state follows and the one followed by government.

STATE AND NATION

Nation refers to people living in defined territory, inspired by sense of unity, common political aspiration, common interests and common history28. A nation can also be defined as community feeling among people who recognize that they are distinct from other community and wish to control their own affairs29; this felling of collectiveness is shared by entire population in a same state giving rise to the term nation-state This collectiveness also gives them a feeling of distinction from other community. The concept of nation-state does not hold true everywhere for example Kurdish people are spread across Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey and consider they to be a nation.

27 28

Political Theory By Mp Jain.p67 An Introduction To Political Theory,5th Edition By O.P Gauba, Pg142 29 Political Theory: An Introduction By R. Bhargava And A. Acharya, Pg 179

P a g e | 11

CHAPTER IV
RISE AND GROWTH OF MODERN NATION STATE
The modern state is largely identified as nation-states. The state has acquired its present form through a long historical process extending over thousands of years. The state was itself the product of the interplay of several factors, including kinship, religion, family, property, war, technical development, and political consciousness.30 The following forms of state in the course of its historical evolution have been identified: Tribal State, Oriental Empire, Greek City State, Roman World Empire, the Feudal State and finally the Modern-Nation State.

THE TRIBAL STATE

Tribal State was the earliest form of authority in the tribal organization. It brought about the concept of command and obedience. These states were usually small in size and were governed by the chiefs, often assisted by advisory council. Some of them were nomadic and therefore, could not be qualified as states as the factor of territory was missing in them.

While, the main purpose for the existence of these states was to protect the internal order and wage aggressive war against other tribal states, but still, they retained strong traces of common birth, common religion and common economic interest. The term-Tribal State- is however controversial. Authors like Engels believe that some of these tribal states had institution of authority but did not possess characteristics of state in the proper sense. Such societies are

30

An Introduction To Political Theory, Op Gauba, p143

P a g e | 12

referred to as pre-state societies and were the primitive form of social organization which was the basis of state.31

THE ORIENTAL EMPIRE

As, the population increases, new techniques to increase the production were discovered to keep up with the growing demands. The earlier states known to history first developed in the fertile valleys of the Ganges, the Nile, the Euphrates and the Tigris where Nature was bountiful and primitive people could get food for themselves and fodder for their animals.A warm climate, fertile soil, abundance of water and sunlight and vast areas free from geographical barriers, helped men to accumulate wealth and to evolve new forms of social organization. Production in these regions was plentiful and required very little exertion. All these regions had despotic monarchies. The people enjoyed no rights or liberty.

They had two main duties: submission to the authority of the king and; the payment of taxes.

In the words of Gettle, such "state represented to their peoples only as slave driver and the tax collector". The increased prosperity led to the development of art and war and conquest of territories. As, the stronger groups won over the weaker groups, the inhabitants of these valleys bound together into the empires of Egypt, Babylon, India and China. These early empires were loosely organized and their authority was mainly based on awe and despotism. These were merely tax-collecting and recruiting agencies.

31 31

An Introduction To Political Theory, 5th Edition By O.P Gauba Concept Of The State,Pg:144

P a g e | 13

The early civilization was, therefore, marked by oppression and exploitation.

THE GREEK CITY STATE

Although civilization in Greece emerged much later than the orient yet it developed a high stage of excellence. In fact, Greece was especially fitted for political growth because of its geographical position and physical features. The mountains and the sea divided this area into numerous valleys and islands.These could be easily defended,yet, because of the sea they were not isolated. In contrast to the uniformity of Asia,the variety and moderation of nature in Greece developed a different mental attitude and genius.Here,small communities were settled in secluded valleys,guarded by mountains and sea,yet in constant contact with the outside world through their harbours.Quite naturally they evolved their political organization into city states. The small size of the state provided for closer relations between government and the citizen.Earlier,forms of democracy,therefore,evolved in these city states.However the population was divided into freemen and slaves. The Greek city states disintegrated due to mutual rivalry,frequent war\rs between themselves and external invasion.32

THE ROMAN WORLD EMPIRE

After, the downfall of the Greek city-states, the main line of political development passes westward to Rome. It was founded in 753 B.C. by a union of several living tribes on the fertile plains of Tiber. In the early days, her government was monarchic. The nobility known as the Patricians had some share in political authority. And in due course, it became the centre of civilization.

32

Concept Of The State,Pg:145

P a g e | 14

The rigid fetters of custom broke earlier than usual in Rome. Relations of various tribes were governed by compromise or treaty. Rome evolved a well knit political organization. Monarchy was replaced by

aristocracy of birth and wealth. Religious sanction was added to the authority of the emperor which lead to the concentration and centralization of authority. The Greek ideals of liberty, democracy and local independence were substituted by the Roman ideals of unity, order, universal law and cosmopolitanism. This led to growth of Romes wonderful system of law. The Roman law and the Roman methods of colonial and municipal administration are used even in modern times. Her methods of welding people having diversity of race and language into a sort of political unity are her great achievements. But, subsequently, the institutions of democracy and local self-government disappeared and the empire denigrated under its own weight. 33

THE FEUDAL STATE

After the decline and fall of the Roman empire, central authority was eroded. In the 1th century of the Christian Era, the feudal system was founded on hierarchy based on the ownership of land. According to this system, the kings were the vassals of the emperor who in turn was the vassal of God.. Every king granted land to the tenants-in-chief who owed allegiance to him and powers began to be exercised by feudal chiefs,i.e.,landlords holding big estates. This led to a hierarchical organization with the king as the supreme lord at the top and serfs at the bottom. The centralized state authority was replaced by a weak central king; real power being exercised by the feudal chiefs. The society remained divided between the exploiter and the exploited class,the lords and the serfs respectively. With the downfall of authority of kings,the Church emerged as another symbol of authority.Pope emerged as the head of the holy roman empire.By the beginning of the fourteenth century,when Popes were using their authorities arbitrarily,the authority of the church was challenged and power of monarchy restored. 34 Consequently, there was dissolution of the feudal system.

3333 34

An Introduction To Political Theory, 5th Edition By O.P Gauba Concept Of The State,Pg:146 Available at: Http://Www.Preservearticles.Com/201106238474/Process-Of-Evolution-Of-The-State-From-The-PrimitiveTimes-To-The-Modern-Nation-State.Html

P a g e | 15

THE MODERN NATION STATE

With the dissolution of the feudal system and erosion of the authority of the church, new individualism appeared which demanded greater freedom for man. A new political system was needed in accordance with the new ideas and conditions. This took the form of nation-state. As population, became stationery and common interests developed,it became increasingly evident that new states, would, in general follow geographic and ethnic lines.Bonds of nationality and language strengthened by natural boundaries grouped the feudal fragments into more and more permanent combination. The nation-state first of all began as an absolute monarchy with a centralized authority. The authority of the Pope was set aside.In some countries,the transition into nation state was relatively smooth where as in France it was brought about by a violent revolution. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 established constitutional monarchy in England. The French Revolution of 1789 transformed the autocratic government of France into a popular democracy. Side by side, with the development of democratic institutions, the growth of new nation states began to take place. People professing separate identities clamoured for separate states for them. Thus the idea 'one state, one nation' came.to the forefront. European states which combined in them various nations and nationalities started breaking up. Assumption of dictatorial powers by Napoleon and arbitrary changes made by him in the boundaries of the states was strongly resented by the oppressed countries. The newly arising commercial and industrial classes played a vital role in the destruction of feudalism and the establishment of the nationstate. France, Spain, Italy, England and later Germany emerged as nation states. The industrial revolution and the emergence of a new industrial merchant class in European countries opened up new avenues for prosperity of these people. But, at the same time, they required new sources of raw material, cheap labour for the consumption of their industrial products. This led them to exploration and colonisation of Africa, Asia and Latin America. Thus, in the 19th century, Europe was a nation-state with liberty, equality of law at home and imperialistic exploitation abroad. However, after the First World War, political consciousness and national movements started emerging. The political aspirations of the oppresses people of different countries brought about two important changes in the 20th century: a)socialist revolutions inspired by Marxist ideology, first in Russia (1917) and later in China (1949) and other countries; and

P a g e | 16

b) Attainment of independence by the people of Asia and Africa from their colonial rulers, especially after the second world war such as India, Burma, Pakistan. These countries along with Latin American countries were known as Third World country and had faced colonisation in their past. Marxian socialism, initially did not subscribe to the idea of confining worker movement to the boundaries but later on, harsh realities of human nature and practical necessity forced the people of the socialist state to accept and perpetuate their position as nation-state. And finally, the aftermath the big empires of England, France and Holland etc. fell and the entire Asia and Africa was liberated.35 The stability of the nation state has led to the vast development of international law and international organizations to regulate behaviour of nation-states, international transactions, to ensure collaboration in the development of science and technology, art, literature and culture and also to tackle global problems like prevention of atmospheric pollution, saving humanity from injustice.. Exploitation in the international sphere continues in the form of neo-colonialism. Even foreign aid to the developing nations has become a source for their exploitation. There are certain highly complex problem that need to be sorted and tackled to protect humanity form exploitation and mankind.36

35

Http://Www.Preservearticles.Com/201106238474/Process-Of-Evolution-Of-The-State-From-The-Primitive-Times-To-TheModern-Nation-State.Html 36 An Introduction To Political Theory,5th Ed.,O.P.Gauba,Pg:149

P a g e | 17

CHAPTER V

THEORIES OF ORIGIN OF STATE

There have been many proposed theories explaining the origin of state. It is a common human tendency to question the basis of the existence and origin of everything they perceive through their senses. The most important proposed theories of origin proposed are:

I.

THE THEORY OF DIVINE ORIGIN

The divine theory or the theocratic conception is almost as old as the state itself, and was universally popular in primitive society. It is a well authenticated fact that the early forms of political authority were often

P a g e | 18

connected with unseen powers. According to MacIver, the earliest rulers were a combination of Priest, Magic man, and King.37 This theory considers king as the representative of God. The state has been gifted by almighty God and it is a blessing to humanity; the king is a representative of God and should be hereditary. It was his will that men should live in a world of political society and he sent his deputy to rule over them. State was regarded as a march of god on the face of earth. The ruler was a divinely appointed agent and he was responsible for his actions to God alone. Obedience to him was the religious duty of every man. And disobedience was considered as a sin because it was found to be a deviance from the path created by the God. In Mahabharata, it is recounted that the people approached God and requested him to grant them a ruler who should protect them from anarchy and chaos prevailing in the state of nature. This theory implied that God deliberately created the state and this specific act of His grace was to save Mankind from destruction. This theory is extremely reactionary, undemocratic, anti-people and is based on blind faith on divine authority, i.e. God established by kings with the help of their co-partners, namely the Popes. The sole purpose of this theory was to exploit the ignorance and blind faith of the ignorant and unenlightened masses and to safeguard the thrones of the kings of all varieties.

II.

FORCE THEORY OF STATE:

According to this theory, a close examination of history indicates that only coercion can be the basis of the formation of state. Force and not enlightened self-interest. is the mechanism by which political evolution has led step by step, from autonomous organizations to the state. This is the basis of all dictatorship.

37

Misra, K.K - Political Theory, Page 71

P a g e | 19

State has originated because the powerful men established their authority over the weaker masses. Power is the basis of the state and power alone is just; the state is an organ of power, domination of some by others. The view that, war lies at the root of the state is by no means new. Twenty-five hundred years ago Heraclitus wrote that war is the father of all things. Although the first careful study for the role of warfare in the rise of the state, however was made less than a hundred years ago by, Herbert Spencer in his book, Principle of Sociology . Perhaps better known than Spencers writings on war and the state are the conquest theories of continental writers such as Ludwig Gumplowicz, Gustav Ratzenhofer and Franz Oppenheimer. Edward Jenks stated that, there is not the slightest difficulty in proving that all political communities of the modern type [that is, states] owe their existence to successful warfare.38

Until a few years ago anthropologists generally believed that the Classic Maya was an example of the formation of the state without any warfare. The reason being that the archaeological evidence did not give any hint of warfare and led scholars to regard them as a peace-loving theocratic state which had arisen entirely, without war. However, this view is no longer tenable. Recent archaeological discoveries shook up the entire belief that about Maya. First came the discovery of the Bonampak murals, showing the early Maya at war and revealing in the torture of war captives. Then, excavations around Tikal revealed large earthworks partly surrounding that Classic Maya , city, pointing clearly to a military rivalry with the neighbouring city of Uasacttin . Thus, signifying domination of individuals by others. Michael D. Coe observed that the ancient Maya were just as warlike as the bloodthirsty states of the PostClassic, though warfare is surely a prime motive in the origin of the state, it cannot be the only factor. After all, wars have been fought in many parts of the world where the state never emerged. 39 Rousseau, Green and Mac Iver have severely criticised this theory.

38 39

E.Jenks ,A History Of Politics,P.73 Robert L.Carlneiro,A Theory Of The Origin Of The State

P a g e | 20

III.

THE SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY:

In Indian philosophy Kautilyas arthashastra also mentioned the idea of social contract. During the 16th and 17th century-the period of Renaissance and Reformation, the development of Science and new secular Knowledge-rational basis for every social and economic institution was sought. And when the feudal economic order broke down and the superstructure-religious, political, cultural and moral based on this sub structure also came under strain.The rise of a new class-the bourgeois class-and new material condition called for a ne state with a new theory of the origin, basis and nature of the state and sovereignity.The social contract theory emerged as a new theory to satisfy the needs of the emerging new class and to suit the new material conditions State is a man made institution created by the consent of all individuals. Consent of the people is central to the origin, nature and functions of the state. The philosophers of this theory are:-Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. There are six main points of their analysis. Human Nature: What is there in the human nature that lead to consent among a diverse population to formulate a contract and because of which they cannot live without a state. State of Nature: Stateless society less anarchical system, which is called the state of nature. By analysing the state of nature in different ways, these philosophers came up with the inherent difficulties of living in state of nature. Social Contract: To enter into a social contract, individuals surrender their natural rights or freedom to a sovereign authority. Thus, sovereignty is the product of this authority. State and Sovereignty: They came into existence as a result of the social contract before them. Scope, nature and basis of the sovereignty. Relations of Individuals and State: What laws will be followed by individuals? Why shall everybody obey to them? What shall be the consequences of not obeying them? What shall be the mutual relation between the individual and state?

P a g e | 21

HOBBESS VIEWS ON STATE OF NATURE THOMAS HOBBES Was born in England and according to him, he was a twin of fear. His life and the situations he went through to a great extent reflect in his theory of social contract. He wrote a book title LEVIATHAN in which he elucidated upon his social contract theory.

The basic features of his thoughts are:-absolutism with a tinge of individualism, materialistic rationalism, hedonistic utilitarianism, Erastianism.40 Analysis of his views is: Human Nature: Man is a self centred, egoistic and alienated individual. His views are inspired from the philosophy of hedonism, according to which each individual wants pleasure and avoids pain. Because of this, individual becomes a selfish, egoistic, quarrelsome and alienated individual. All men

40

Liberal Theory Of The Origin And Nature Of The State,Political theory, M.P.Jain. p55

P a g e | 22

are equal, according to him, as nature has made men so equal in the faculties of body and mind that no one can claim for himself any benefit to which another may not pretend.41

State of Nature: After analysing Human nature, Hobbes assumes a hypothetical state of Nature. Macpherson says, the state of nature depicts the way in which men, being what they are, would necessarily behave if there were no authority to enforce law or contract.42

Life of individuals in state of nature would have been at constant warfare. In a diverse society, even the interests of individuals are different and every individual wants to possess whatever he wants and do anything according to his wishes which often leads to clashes between them. In the absence of an authority, there is a war of all against all. In such a state of affairs, every man is an enemy to every man43Hobbes says, in such a condition, there is no place for industry ,because the fruit thereof is uncertain and consequently no culture of earth; no navigationno commodious building, no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time, no arts, no letters; no society and which is worst of all. Continual fear and danger of violent death; and life of man, solitary,poor,nasty,brutish and short44

There shall be no common standard of conduct and nobody shall judge what is wrong or what is right, only what is powerful shall prevail. Even the concept of private property shall come to an end because that shall depend on who is powerful enough to have a hold on it and individuals having
41 42

Leviathan Edited By Macpherson (Politician,1968)Chap XII. C.B. Macpherson,Op.Cit.,P.19 43 Hobbes,Op. Cit.,Chap XIII 44 Ibid

P a g e | 23

enough power will change from time to time. Thus, Hobbes says that this kind of state is unworthy of peace loving Human beings.

Social Contract: The basic premise for an individual to live in a sane manner is to have mental peace. And this peace is achieved only when he has a sense of security. Fear of individuals illuminates their reason and instructed by reason, they are keen to get out of the state of nature and leave a worthy life. Thus, the individuals form a social contract and establish a sovereign authority. This social contract was of every man with every other man, in such a manner as if every man should say to every man, I authorise and give up my right of governing myself to his man, or to this assembly of man, on this condition that you give up your right to him, and authorise all his actions in like manner.45

Individuals surrender all their rights to the supreme authority in lieu of defence, peace and security. Hobbes seems to be an absolutist according to his theory because according to him, all the powers will vest in the sovereign authority and no individual shall be able to defy the orders of this authority. He does not distinguish between state and government and state and society and according to him, the basic purpose of creation of state for individuals is to lead a happy life. Also, this contract is ever binding and irrevocable, no individual can deny it. As soon as an individual is born, he enters into this contract. And he has to accept all the rules of this contract out of compulsion.

State and Soereignity: The product of the social contract theory is the state, which enjoys ultimate power over the citizens. No individual can deny it because that would mean ,going back to the state of nature. To avoid chaos in state due to the selfish reasons of individuals, it is necessary for the state to exercise supreme control and not get influenced by anybody.

45

Ibid.,Chap.XVII

P a g e | 24

Law is the ultimate command of the sovereign. The interpretor of these laws will be the sovereign power only. No ideological, moral, political, economical, social or constitutional law shall interfere with the working of sovereignity. The granting of rights and liberties to the individual shall depend upon the discretion of the state. It cannot be forced to grant any freedom to the individuals, the defence being that the restraint of individuals power is necessary for the peace in society. Hobbes preferred absolute sovereignity to anarchy because according to him in anarchy, everybody acts as an ultimate power,i.e.sovereignity with the authority to do anything he wants. But in absolute sovereignity,there shall be only one such individual. Thus, one absolutism is better than many absolutism. Relations if the state or Sovereignty and Individuals: When the social contract is entered into,all the individuals surrender their rights to state. and they cannot resist this authority even if it is unjust because it was basically created by them for peace and security and going against it will mean, entering into the state of nature. Human beings will have to guide their behaviour according to the rules of state, the state will not make rules keeping the human behaviour in mind but the rules will be based on how to maintain law and order in society. Criticism of Hobbes theory: Hobbes Theory Can Be Cririsized On The Following Grounds Men cannot be tagged as being merely selfish. However, if he is talking about bourgeois men, then they can be called so because even generosity is a higher form of selfishness. Hobbes theory is unhistorical. For a sound contract, there should be two parties, but here there is only one party, so this contract defies the basic logic of formation of a contract. He regarded law as merely the command of sovereign, however it is not so. Individuals do not have any relief even against the unjust rules. Sovereign is absolute and the ultimate power.

P a g e | 25

JOHN LOCKE VIEWS ON STATE OF NATURE JOHN LOCKE is regarded as the father of liberal democratic ideas and ideals .His views are found in his book Two Treaties Of Civil Government. His views suited the requirements and interests of the bourgeois class, therefore his theories were given immediate recognition. His views can be categorised as follows under the following sub-heads for better analysis:

Human Nature: Lockes times were peaceful as compared to the times of turmoil that Hobbes had faced,and this reflected in his concept of human nature.He did not explored the dark side of humans by calling them selfish,egoist or self alienated.Instead he called individuals as rational and social being.He called them rational because they can guide their behaviour to be in synchronisation with the laws of nature in such a way that they can live peacefully.And humans were called social because they could live with the diverse society without any authority to control their actions or set rules for them.The individuals were rational enough to give due respect to the life,liberty and property of others and thus,they never tried to exercise control over something that was not their own.

State of nature: Since,men were rational and social,they lived in an orderly and peaceful way in the state of nature.In Lockes view,men living together according to reason without a common superior on earth with authority to judge between them,is properly the state of nature46 Human beings are guided by the laws of nature.Locke says,the state of nature has a law to govern it, which obliges everyone, and reason,which is that law,teaches al mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent ,no one ought to harm another in his life, health liberty and possessions47 Further, he adds, But thought this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of license48 State if nature has inalienable rights like, right to liberty, property, health and these cannot be denied to anybody on any ground because they are a part of the human personality. Law of nature was thus a law of freedom and equality. But equality was moral rather than mutual.

Social Contract :John lockes idea about the social contract that individuals were not entirely clear as it did not suggest whether he talked about two contracts beign formulated-one for state and one for society or only about a single one. And according to him,this contract was needed for the individuals to protect themselves from inconveniences and shortcomings of the state of nature . A political society is formed thus, Each individual contracts with each to unite and constitute into a

46 47

John Locke, Two Treatises Of Civil Government, Sect 19 Locke,Op.Cit.,P.118 48 Locke,Op.Cit.P.218

P a g e | 26

community. The end for which this agreement is made is the protection and preservation of property in the broad sense of the word-that is, of life, liberty and estate-against the dangers both from within and without the community. Thus, the object of social contract is to form a limited authority with an obligation to preserve the rights.49 Men being by nature, all free equal and independent, no one can be put out of his estate and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent, which is done by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe and peaceful living.50

The State and Sovereignty: Locke is known as the father of modern liberal bourgeois democratic states because of his ideas. He is in favour of creation of a state with limited power because he feels that the basic purpose of creation of state is to protect the interests of people not to rule over them. Authority is merely a trustee of society or of individual rights. Human beings have certain inalienable rights and the state cannot take away these.

Relation between state and individuals: State is merely a convenience not a necessity. It was basically formed for the protection of individuals and preservation of their rights and if the state does not perform these functions well, then it can be overthrown. Human beings are moral, social and rational even in the state of nature so they do not owe the developme in thses spheres to the state formed by the contract. This state has limited power and is not the creator of right but a guardian to safeguard them.To him, individual comes prior to the state. Also, human beings are rational enough and do not need somebody to restrict them so a state should not have unlimited power over them.

Criticism and evaluation of Lockes theories and concept: Lockes theory can be criticized on the following grounds-

His views on human nature are unclear. His theory is ambiguous. His state of nature is unclear. It is not clear whether it is a state of peace or war and pre-social or prepolitical. It is not clear-how many contracts there are-two or one.

49 49 50

An Introduction To Political Theory, 5th Edition By O.P Gauba ,Liberal Theory Of The Origin Of The State;Pg:210 Locke,Op.Cit.,Ch.VIII

P a g e | 27

His theory of sovereignity is confused.He is not able to clearly maintain the difference between legal and political sovereignity.Locke over emphasised political sovereignity. His theory of natural rights is virtually a theory for the defence of peoperty. His political theory is less of the state and more of revolution as he gives to individuals the right to revolt in case of breach of trust but the sovereign power.51

5151

An Introduction To Political Theory, 5th Edition By O.P Gauba, Liberal Theory Of The Origin Of State Pg:213

P a g e | 28

P a g e | 29

ROUSSEAUS VIEWS ON STATE OF NATURE:

ROUSSEAU was an ill trained man and was a spoilt genius who was very emotiomnal and sensitive. He was born and brought up in a poor family and was deserted by his father when he was very young. He was a leader of the powerless, liberties, downtrodden-wretched man on earth. The opening words of the American constitution, we the people reflect Rousseaus spirit. He was against absolutism and his greatest problem was how to reconcile liberty with authority :how to maintain liberty and discipling at the one and the same time,how to have liberty under authority.52 The opening words of his book, The Social Contract (1762) are: Man is born free but everywhere he is in chains. For better comparison with Hobbess and Lockes views and better analysis of his views, categorisation has been done as follows: Human Nature :He agrees with Plato that human nature is essentially good .Man is a noble savage, a mixture of two primal instincts-self love and sympathy .He has a conscience which is guided by reason in determining what is right and what is wrong and this also avoids any possibility of conflict between self love and sympathy. A human being though essentially good in nature may deviate from his nature because of bad social environment which is there because of degenerate art and culture and artificial society. In short, Rousseau does not blame human nature for the ills in the society rather he blames the bad society and social environment for bad human nature. Therefore, the society must be changed in its structure so that individuals can overcome any short coming in their nature. State of Nature: According to Rousseau, the state of nature is better than civil society. Rousseaus natural man, his noble savage lived a happy and carefree life. He was neither social nor antisocial ,merely asocial. He did not even have any property or family. The concept of rights was also not there. But as ,the population grew, it led to scarcity. The feeling of jealousy, egoism, selfishness, power came into being. Because of scarcity, due to the growth of population, the concept of private property emerged.

Man was no longer carefree or asocial; instead he was very careful about what was happening around him. He wanted to know about the situation around him so that he can make his plans accordingly as to how he should be happier by possession of more. Every individual wanted to get more and more for himself. The powerful people started dominating over the others. Enslavement of many by few started.
52

Ibid 51

P a g e | 30

Individuals started being egoistic about what they possessed, which others did not.

Social Contract: According to Rousseau, there were two ways of overcoming this unhealthy society, either to go back to the state of nature or to form a new state or society.It is obviously not possible to go back to the state of nature so the only way is to form a new society.

Rousseau through the social contract wanted to establish a society where the freedom of individuals shall be retained even in the presence of authority; there shall be justice and equality of all individuals and all those privileges that human beings used to enjoy in the state of nature in the absence of any authority. Therefore, all men entered into a social contract by saying, Each one of us puts into the community his person and all his powers under the supreme direction of the general will; and as a body we incorporate every member as an indivisible part of the whole.53All human beings have two kinds of will: Real will and actual will. Actual will basically comprises of all the selfish purposes of a human being. It is centered around the well being of a single individual and is thus, very narrow. But, on the other hand, real will comprises of what the individual aims to do for the society as a whole. Here, the interest of all people is the major premise. General will is the aggregate of this real will of all the individuals. More or less the real will of each and every moral individual is the same, and the state aims to keep this will as the base structure for building up a foundation of a peaceful society. Green says, general will is the common consciousness of the common end. Wayper says, the general will is thus the will of the citizen when they are willing not their own private interest but the general good, it is the voice of all for the good of all. According to Maxey, they had transferred their freedom from themselves as individuals to themselves as a collectively.54

State and Sovereignty: According to Rousseau, sovereignty is basically the aggregate of the real will of all the members of a community that rests in the form of power with the state .He does not distinguish between the state or the society. Here also, state has unlimited power but unlike the Hobbesian structure where power lied with only a single individual, here it lies with the whole of the community.

53 54

Ibid,Pp-61-62 Maxey,Op.Cit.P.355

P a g e | 31

Rousseaus state is as unlimited, absolute and centralised as that of Hobbes Leviathan but it is a Leviathan whose head has been chopped off.55

Relation of state or sovereignty and individuals: According to Rousseau, no right or liberty can be given to any individual against the state because, that would mean that the individual shall go against his own real will to fulfil his selfish purposes as state is nothing but aggregate of real will of all individuals. Liberty and freedom can be granted to individuals only when they are in accordance with the laws. Rousseau says, Whoever refused to obey the general will shall be constrained to do so by the whole body which means nothing other than that he shall be forced to be free.56 According to Rousseau, all individuals have to sacrifice their personal or any kind of right for the general good of the community.

Criticism of Rousseaus Theory: His view of nature as man being a noble savage is biased as human also have a dark side of being selfish, egoist and rational. Rousseau segregates the human will into the real and actual will but practically it cannot be possible as these wills always co-exist. Location of the general will of the society is a very difficult task. This is because it is based on the concept of common good and it is very difficult to find common interest in a diverse society as human beings have different concepts as to what is good for the society. No individual has any liberty or freedom against the state and this would mean that the state shall do anything in the name of common good of the society.

55 55 56

An Introduction To Political Theory, 5th Edition By O.P Gauba ,Liberal Theory Of The Origin Of The State,P.216 Rousseau,Op.Cit.Pp 27-28

P a g e | 32

Criticism of the social contract theory:

This theory assumes that man once lived without any social organization but this is basically unhistorical as the modern anthropological studies have shown. This theory divided human development into-pre social and social but this cannot be possible as the development of human beings is a continuous process. According to this theory, state has been created by a voluntary agreement. But every contract needs a sanction behind it and this contract has none also the parties and the beneficiary of this contract is not clear as different philosophers have different ideas about it.

Even if this contract was entered into, then when does an individual sign it or is it implied that he shall abide by that contract. If he enters into the contract unconsciously then how can he withdraw from the contract if he feels that life shall be better without it. This theory says that society originated as a result of this contract but this is entirely absurd as human society has always existed on the face of earth ever since the seeds of human life sprouted in the universe.

According to this theory, the state is created by a man to provide him with safety and security in a society but this view is absurd as state is not created due to necessity but out of compulsion because man being a social animal cannot live without society and social organization.

The philosophers of this theory take different views about the human nature and thus no concrete theory is built up.

P a g e | 33

CHAPTER VI
DIVERSE PERSPECTIVES ON THE STATE
Concept of the state comprises the core of political thought. Political thought has been defined as thought about the state, its structure, its nature and its purpose. There is a long principle of political thought. Several political thinkers and schools of thought have developed ideas about the nature and purpose of the state according to different points of view. When new ideas appeared, old ideas were criticized and modified. None of the current political ideas can claim absolute validity. Their merits and demerits need constant examination before arriving at any consistent conclusions.

The following diverse perspectives on the state equip us with valuable insight and are treated as particularly important: 1. Organic theory of the state 2. Liberal-individualistic 3. Welfare state perspective 4. Class perspective 5. Communitarian perspective 6. Post-colonial perspective 7. Gandhian perspective 8. Feminist perspective 9. Pluralist perspective

P a g e | 34

I.

ORGANIC THEORY OF STATE

The organic (or orgasmic theory) of the state represents the earliest thinking about the state although it has received some new interpretation in recent times. According to this theory, there are different classes and classes in the society which are naturally fit to perform different functions-some are destined to enjoy a superior position over others in the interest of the other society. In a nut shell, it compares the state with organism of a living body, and the individuals with its organs.57 STATE AS A NATURAL INSTITUTION According to this theory, the existence of the state is on the basis that it is essential for the existence of a civilized man. The only way man can be civilized through is the institution of state. It is the state which provides a good life to man. Aristotle famously said that man by nature is a political animal. He believed that politics is an organism rather than a machine. The aim of the state shall be welfare rather than economic stability. This view was though challenged by the scientific revolution which took place during the seventh century. Edmund Burke, the chief exponent of conservatism, argued that the state was the product of a process of historical growth which he often linked to the growth of a living organism. G.W Hegel, a German philosopher, was the most eloquent champion of this view was declared State is March of God on earth.58The organic theory received life again from the biological school of political theory. STATE AS AN ETHICAL INSTITUTION The second implication of the saying that the State comes into existence for the sake of life and continues for the sake of good life is that state is an instrument of good life. In other words, living in a state helps man not only survives but also secure an excellent life. Accordingly, the state has a moralizing effect on the life that, by performing his duties and enjoying his rights as a citizen of the state, man is able to achieve moral excellence. Thus, the organic theory views the state as an ethical institution.59 The biological theory contributed to the development of organic theory of the state.

II.

LIBERAL INDIVIDUALISTIC

It takes under its ambit, the social contract theory and the theory of laissez faire individualism. We will be dealing with laissez faire individualism as the social contract theory has been dealt with under the origin of state sub-head.

57 58

An Introduction To Political Theory, O.P Gauba,5 th Edition, Pg 203, Macmillan ibid 59 ibid

P a g e | 35

THEORY OF LAISSEZ FAIRE INDIVIDUALISM Laissez faire is a French term which basically means, leave alone. It signifies non-interference of the state in the sphere of economic activities of the individuals. Laissez faire individualism denotes an aspect of liberal political theory which regards property rights of the individuals as a necessary condition for liberty and seeks to set definite and circumscribed limits on the regulatory powers vested in the government over social and economic processes. It regards the interests of every individual as the basis of this philosophy. According to this, every individual has an innate ability within himself to decide what shall serve his interest best. This concept was basically started by the classical liberalists who advocated individuals right to freedom of trade, freedom of contract, freedom of bargain and freedom of enterprise. Since, all freedom of the individual ensued from the elements of reason; they were regarded valuable for society. This theory dubs the state as a necessary evil: it is evil because it imposes regulations and restricts the freedom of the individual, yet it is necessary because without its regulation, the freedom of the individual cannot be safeguarded. The champions of this theory are: Adam Smith (1723-1790), Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), James Mill (1773-1836), Jeremy Bentham (1806-1873) and Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), British economists and political thinkers. Views of Adam Smith He is regarded as the father of Economics. Adam smith learned much from them but he sought to eliminate their errors and develop their relevant ideas. He was of the thought that the government should conform to nature. So long as men do not interfere with each others liberty and do not combine among themselves in order to encroach upon the liberty of others, government should leave them free to find their own salvation. His main objective was to find out which policy of the state would be conducive to increasing the wealth of the nation and to promoting national prosperity.60 He stated that everyone has a natural propensity to trade. If given a free rein, this tendency would stimulate economic activities, resulting in an increase in the production of goods. The profit motive is a natural instinct which inspires every trader in this activity. The selfish motive of the enterpriser is, nevertheless, conducive to promotion of the general good. It harmonizes with national prosperity, thereby benefitting all-government, business and labour.

60

An Introduction To Political Theory, 5th Edition By O.P Gauba ,Diverse Perspectives On The State,P.219

P a g e | 36

In a capitalist system, virtually all economic activities are motivated by selfish considerations. He regarded man as a highly rational creature who persistently endeavoured by means of the hedonistic calculus, to maximise pleasure and minimize pain. He postulated a system of natural liberty implying perfect freedom of commerce and industry-in order to promote national prosperity. According to him, the success of business plays a crucial role in the economic development of a nation. Also, no government can know better about the business rather than the businessman himself. So, if he is left alone to do as he pleases for profit, this shall benefit the government too. Thus in his Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith defined the system of natural liberty as follows: Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left particularly free to pursue his own interest in his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man or order of men. The sovereign is completely discharged fromthe duty of superintending the industry of the private people and of directing it toward the employments most suitable to the interest of the society.61 Functions of Government: According to this system of natural liberty, the role of government is confined to three duties of great importance: A) The defence of the nation against foreign aggression; B) The protection of every member of the society, as far as possible, from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, i.e. establishing an exact administration of justice and, C) The erection and maintenance of public works and running certain public institutions which could not be undertaken by an individual or a small number of individuals because the profit accruing from their maintenance would never repay the expenditure involved. Therefore, he advocated the abolition of restrictions imposed on commerce and industry by the government in pursuance of the policy of mercantilism. Likewise, he urged that all producers should be free to compete in a market; to sell their goods, their services and their labour at prices determined by competition. In this obvious and simple system of natural liberty there would exist the freedom of enterprise, the freedom of trade between nations, the freedom of contract between buyer and seller as well as employer and worker.

61

An Introduction To Political Theory, 5th Edition By O.P Gauba .Diverse Persepectives Oof The State,P.220

P a g e | 37

Views of Jeremy Bentham He was a great champion of the theory of Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is one of the most powerful and persuasive approaches to normative ethics in the history of philosophy. Utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good. There are many ways to spell out this general claim. This theory is a form of consequentialism: the right action is understood entirely in terms of consequences produced. What distinguishes utilitarianism from egoism has to do with the scope of the relevant consequences. On the utilitarian view one ought to maximize the overall good that is, consider the good of others as well as one's own good.62

Concept of Utility: He argued that the concept of absolute rights, absolute sovereignty and absolute justice had no relevance to the realities of social life. There was only one standard of regulation of human affairs, viz . that of absolute expediency. Political institutions and public policies should, therefore not be rated as good or bad in relation to some visionary and arbitrary concept. The basic principle behind his works is: greatest happiness of the greatest numbers. He understood happiness in the context of the word pleasure. Thus, he postulated: Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.63 Bentham said that men desires only pleasure and avoids pain. He even laid out a certain criteria for measuring pleasure and pain, known as hedonistic calculus or felicific calculus. When determining what action is right in a given situation, we should consider the pleasures and pains resulting from it, in respect of their intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity (the chance that a pleasure is followed by other ones, a pain by further pains), purity (the chance that pleasure is followed by pains and vice versa), and extent (the number of persons affected).64 Principles Of legislation: He rejected the ideology of natural rights and the social contract, yet he subscribed to the sovereignty of reason and proceeded to find a formula for the application of reason to human affairs which should be free from the pitfalls of metaphysical abstraction.
62 63

Http://Plato.Stanford.Edu/Entries/Utilitarianism-History/ An Introduction To Political Theory, 5th Edition By O.P Gauba Diverse Perspectives On The State P.221 64 Available at: Http://Www.Utilitarianism.Com/Hedcalc.Htm

P a g e | 38

He disagreed with the concept of general will given by Rousseau rather he believed that common interest is basically the sum of interests as the members of the community. According to him, every individual has a tendency to increase the sum total of his happiness and diminish the sum total of his pains. So, the common interest of the society lied in increasing the sum total of happiness of the members of the community. According to Bentham, the basic premise of the formulation of the system of government was to promote happiness of its subjects. To do so, it was natural for them to even punish those who tried to take way this happiness or reward those who promoted happiness. A government which was not effective enough to do so was of no use and also did not have any authority over the people. Also, while calculating the success rate of any government to promote happiness, he considered every individual as a unit and that nobody should be given special consideration: each to count as one, and no one for more than one. He asserted that the concept of equality is necessary for a society. Also, freedom was essential for a man to be happy Bentham sought to curb the legislators tendency of ignoring the happiness of the people in pursuance of their own moral standards or in promoting the happiness of their choice. He was against the domination of any section by another as that would have meant taking away the happiness of one individual by another. Functions Of government: He agreed with the fact that man created government basically to promote his happiness but yet he did not contemplate any wide scope of state activity. He believed that every individual is the best judge for his own interest .State should not try to interfere with the happiness of any individual. Also, it should not try to restrict his happiness by stopping him from indulging in activities that give him pleasure. Bentham and his followers came to the conclusion that the main function of the state is legislation, and that the chief objective of legislation is to remove all institutional restrictions on the free actions of individuals.65 The state should not interfere in the activities of law abiding citizens as they, very well know what is right, what is wrong and what is moral or what is immoral. Views Of James Mills James Mills was a close associate and follower of Jeremy Bentham. Benthams Utilitarianism was the basis of his philosophical radicalism. Consequently, he led a radical-reformist movement which aimed at extension of franchise and representation of the interests of the working class in British Parliament.

65

An Introduction To Political Theory, 5th Edition By O.P Gauba Diverse Perspectives On The State,P.223

P a g e | 39

Mill also studies Hobbess individualism and Adam Smiths classical political economy intensively.He was well known for advocating the views of his favourite thinkers rather than an original idea. According to him, institutions such as government, legal system, mercantilist economy acted as obstructions in the path which led to, greatest happiness of greatest numbers. In his, Essay on Government (1825) he commended democratic government as good government which sought to work for the benefit of the citizens. He said that the aristocratic government is based on narrow selfish interests rather than interests of the society which led to corruption in it. And, according to him, this could be prevented by instituting a representative government based on: Universal Suffrage Secret Ballot Periodic Elections Views Of Herbert Spencer The sociological foundation of Laissez Faire Individualism was provided by Spencer in his works Social Statics (1850), The Man versus the State (1884) and the Principle of Ethics(1892-93).Herbert said that, everything had a tendency to attain the ultimate equilibrium and the consequent tendency was to transform themselves by the process of evolution and to attain this equilibrium. Once he stated that, Regarding, as I have done, equilibrium as the ultimate and highest state of society, I have assumed it to be not only the ultimate but also the highest state of the universe. And your assertion that when equilibrium was reached life must cease, staggered me. Indeed, not seeing my way out of the conclusion, i remember being out of spirits for some days afterwards. I still feel unsettled about the matter. 66 He meant that, everything had a tendency to attain the ultimate equilibrium and the consequent tendency was to transform them by the process of evolution and to attain this equilibrium. He viewed social equilibrium as a somewhat utopian state of social harmony, balance and integration. In an evolutionary sense, society never begins with equilibrium but evolves towards this state over a period of time. Spencer treated the state as a joint stock protection company for mutual assurance. It should not assume any other function nor otherwise interfere with the process of natural evolution. Thus, he argued that the state should not undertake public health nor give the poor any relief because that would defeat the operation of natural selection. He subscribed to the principle of the struggle of existence and the survival of the fittest as a guiding principle of social evolution.

66

Russett, Cynthia E. (1991). Sexual Science (Spencer And Entropy, Pg. 128). Harvard University Press.

P a g e | 40

Spencer ended his career mired in the Spencerian Dilemma of how to apply the equilibrium concept in a manner that is directly opposite to its actual meaning, because he was once informed by his colleague that equilibrium in physics connoted not an idealistic state of integration and stability in the system but rather system dissolution.67 Thus, Spencer stretched the concept of negative liberty to such an extreme that he considered elimination of the weak in the struggle for existence as a part of the process of social progress.68 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS In the past few decades, the Laissez Faire Individualism Theory has been revived. It sought new grounds of keeping the state away from interference in market forces. It is also known as: Neo-Liberalism Neo-classical Liberalism Libertarianism

By the end of, 19th and beginning of 20th century, liberalism tended to accommodate some tenets of socialist and idealist thought, which was responsible for the emergence of the theory of welfare state. The principle of liberty was sought to accommodate the principles of equality and justice within the liberal frame of thought. However, during the second half of the twentieth century some thinkers in the liberal tradition found the theory of the welfare state to be inimical to individual liberty, and sought to revive the original concern of this tradition with laissez faire philosophy. Contemporary liberal theory is named as Libertarianism. Libertarianism is sometimes identified with the principle that each agent has a right to maximum equal empirical negative liberty, where empirical negative liberty is the absence of forcible interference from other agents when one attempts to do things. Libertarianism is attractive because: (1) it provides significant moral liberty of action, (2) it provides significant moral protection against interference from others, and (3) it is sensitive to what the past was like.69

67

Encyclopedia Of Social Theory, Volumes 1, By George Ritzer,Pg:312 An Introduction To Political Theory, 5th Edition By O.P Gauba ,Diverse Perspectives On The State,Pg:224 Http://Plato.Stanford.Edu/Entries/Libertarianism/

68 69

P a g e | 41

In the political sense, libertarianism particularly insisted that mans economic activities must be actively liberated from all restrictions to enable him. Drawing inspiration from the natural right theory of John Locke, libertarianism holds that certain rights of his individuals which precede his political life are indefensible and these cannot be surrendered in the favour of collectivity. LIBERTARIANISM It condemns the taxations of the rich for the benefit of the poor. Argues that taxation of certain sections of welfare of certain sections of society involves the forced transfer of fruit. Extreme form of Libertarianism holds that all government is legitimate. Modern libertarianism concedes that government may allegedly engage in police protection and enforcement of contracts for which civil as well as criminal courts might be established. The chief exponents of Libertarianism include: F.A Hayek (1889-1892), Isaiah Berlin (1909-1997), Milton Friedman(1912-2006) and Robert Nozick (1938-2002).Thus, Robert Nozick in his Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974),following Lockes method argues that individuals do have certain rights in the state of nature. The dominant protective agency, having de facto monopoly of force in a given territory would emerge as a state like entity. Accordingly, the state has no legitimate power beyond the functions of protection, justice and defence; it is not authorised to engage in redistributive transfer among the citizens who were originally its client. Hence, welfare state is ruled out. Ideally, according to Nozick, a libertarian society is the one which allows all individuals and groups to shape their life according to their wishes, fulfils the most plausible definition of a utopian social order.

III.

WELFARE STATE PERSPECTIVE

A welfare state is a government that provides for the welfare, or the well-being, of its citizens completely. Such a government is involved in citizens lives at every level. It provides for physical, material, and social needs rather than the people providing for their own. The purpose of the welfare state is to create economic equality or to assure equitable standards of living for all70. Positive liberalism promoted the idea of welfare state71, as it pleaded for positive role of state in securing welfare of its citizens, particularly of their vulnerable sections.
70 71

What Is Welfare State, Available On: Http://Www.Wisegeek.Com An Introduction To Political Theory,5th Edition By O.P Gauba, Pg 227

P a g e | 42

Towards the close of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, the classical Liberalism underwent great modifications. It its modified form it came to be known as Modern Liberalism or Positive Liberalism72 In the revision of Liberalism philosophers like Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, T.H. Green, Harold Laski etc. played a notable role. Bentham laid emphasis on the principle of "greatest good of the greatest number" and insisted on the need of reforms in the field of law, education, parliamentary system, prisons, and poor relief. Similarly Mill while championing the cause of individual liberty wanted the state to interfere in those matters through which the social welfare of the people could be promoted. Liberalism considers the state as a positive instrument for the promotion of the general welfare of the community. It wants the State to participate in social, political, economic and cultural activities in the interest of the individual. Exponents of Positive Liberalism-:

Views of Johan Stuart Mills He was the first liberal thinker who defined liberalism in positive light, he played an important role in defining a distinction between the political and economical sphere, and working out the implications of liberal theory in these sphere. In the economic sphere he showed socialistic learning and laid the foundations of welfare state73

J.S Mills in common to all the other utilitarian thinkers insists on regarding all political questions In terms of happiness or unhappiness of human beings, and not in term of an abstraction such as the general will. Also says that its only in state that an individual can enjoy the fullest happiness, he goes on to point out that this admission does not mean that the state does not exist for happiness of individual. Mills then draws a conclusion that it is the business of the government to promote the happiness of individuals and that if the government fails, it must give chance to some other form social organization to succeed. Mills insisted on liberty of thought and expression. He defended liberty on two grounds In the first place, he says that liberty is useful to society and the only way of confirming and extending true knowledge is to submit all ideas to the test of free debate. In second place, explains liberty of expression and thought on grounds of human dignity Says that without liberty to choose between conflicting claims, a human being loses his or her dignity as a moral and rational being.

72 73

Essay On Modern And Positive Liberalism, Available On: Http://Www.Preservearticles.Com An Introduction To Political Theory,5th Edition By O.P Gauba, Pg 228

P a g e | 43

Mills defines a sphere where behaviour of an individual could be directed in the interests of society, thus was trying to give a positive role to the state In securing the community welfare, even if it requires the curbing the liberty of individuals to some extent Mills argued that the right to property was not an absolute right, as no man has built the property, Which is an original inheritance of all mankind and it is on this property an individual Capitalizes and makes profit, thus state must have some portion of the profit made and that profit should be used in welfare of the weaker section of the society.

Views of Thomas Hill Green

Emphasized on individualism, which is very strong in all liberal thought. Yet, when compared to the body of preceding liberal thought, he can be seen to have replaced the formers emphasis of the autonomy of the individual with an emphasis on the organic society, and the value of community ethos. He stressed the individual being a part of society and addressed the obligations towards the community. The development of his ideas has to be seen in the context of the historic circumstances given during his lifetime. These were highly unequal socio-economic consequences of the industrial revolution. The drastic economic development was accompanied by poor work and health conditions. These conditions urged him to criticize the burdens the inequities of the market system placed on the working class and demand policies which would not only in word but de facto provide for equal opportunities and liberties. The aim, according to Green, was full and equal human development. Given the extreme sense of alienation and inequalities under which many people suffered in his time, Green stressed the need for moral and ethical considerations and obligation of society as a whole to better ensure each individual's possibility of self-realization74.

Views of Harold J Laski

Laski further developed the liberal theory, was deeply concerned with rise of capitalism. He sought to achieve socialistic goals from the mechanism of liberal democracy, also advocated the abolition of right to property which was the main element of capitalistic system Laski recognized that in the complex modern world "State invasions of private liberty may be more subtle." There must accordingly be a free press, greater access to formal education, and economic liberty in the sense of security and opportunity. Laski in one of his statement stated that "I mean by liberty the absence of restraint upon the existence of those social conditions which, in modern civilization, are the necessary guarantees of individual
74

Positive Liberalism By T.H Mills, Http://Www.Liberal-International.Org

P a g e | 44

happiness."

He pointed out, moreover, that "though it is a condition without which liberty is never

effective," economic security was not liberty. Unwilling now to go all the way with Acton's famous dictum, Laski nevertheless agreed with Acton and Mill on the dangers of tyranny. "Power as such, when

uncontrolled, is always the natural enemy of freedom." Liberty and equality, in Laski's opinion "are not so much antithetic as complementary," but the "absence of equality means special privilege for some and not for others." Laski believed the true theory of liberty denied the assumptions of Hegels idealist theory of the state. "For as encounter the state, it is for me a body of men issuing orders." The citizen can obey most of the state's commands but, as in the case of military service, not those which violate his individual conscience or religious beliefs. As a realist, Laski, in his discussion of the Bill of Rights, the value of which he continued to affirm, nevertheless pointed out that its efficacy depended more on the determination of the people than on constitutional guarantees. In the same way, together with checks on bureaucracy, he emphasized opposition to excessive centralization and the granting of as much power as possible to local government. Vital still for him in his definition of liberty, along with the need for social power, was individual intellectual freedom and respect for reason. "Liberty means being faithful to oneself and it is maintained by the courage to resist. This, and this only, gives life to the safeguards of liberty; and this only is the clue to the preservation of genuine integrity in the individual life75." Laski seems to transform the capitalistic state by democratization of economic power that is by large public control over vital instrument production and distribution and establishing a democratic state increasingly concerned with the welfare state76.

Views of Robert M MacIver

MacIver was another exponent of positive liberalism said that in a society which meets all Human needs. Men seeks to serve their varied interest through several associations, state is only one part of these association. MacIver traces the evolution of the state from primitive social structure to its fuller development as a modern democratic structure. As regards to the origin of state MacIver rejected the social contract theory formulated by the early exponent of liberal theory, he tends to agree with T.H Green who made a careful distinction between the sphere of law and the morality. MacIver stated that state comes into picture only when the interest of one group is encroaching upon another. The state acts only in order to resolve the conflicting claims of different social group

75 76

Harold J. Laski: The Liberal Manqu' Or Lost Libertarian By Arthur A. Ekirch, Jr An Introduction To Political Theory,5th Edition By O.P Gauba, Pg 238

P a g e | 45

He also stated that state is not entitled to impose its own will on any human association for protection of common interest but it only can harmonize different social interests originally expressed through human association. In his web of government MacIver argues that the state should not undertake regulations of those organizations which are formed to serve the emotional and cultural interests of men77.

IV.

MARXIAN OR THE CLASS PERSPECTIVE OF THE STATE

The Marxian perspective treats the state as neither a natural institution nor as an ethical institution.78It treats society as a division between two classes that is one which owns the factors of production and the other which contributes to the production that is the labour class. It is the emergence of private property which divides the society into two conflicting classes.79According to Marx state cannot reconcile classes. The state is an organ of class rule, an organ for the suppression of the class rule, it is the creation of order which legalizes and perpetuates the oppression by the capitalists.80 The state becomes an instrument for exploitation of the oppressed class. Engels gives a general summary of his views in the most popular of his works in the following words: The state, then, has not existed from all eternity. There have been societies that did without it, that had no idea of the state and state power. At a certain stage of economic development, which was necessarily bound up with the split of society into classes, the state became a necessity owing to this split. We are now rapidly approaching a stage in the development of production at which the existence of these classes not only will have ceased to be a necessity, but will become a positive hindrance to production. They will fall as they arose at an earlier stage. Along with them the state will inevitably fall. Society, which will reorganize production on the basis of a free and equal association of the producers, will put the whole machinery of state where it will then belong: into a museum of antiquities, by the side of the spinning-wheel and the bronze axe."

77 78

Robert M Maciver, Introduction, Http://Www.Enotes.Com An Introduction To Political Theory, O.P Gauba,5 th Edition, Pg 242, Macmillan An Introduction To Political Theory, O.P Gauba,5 th Edition, Pg 242, Macmillan Www.Marxist.Org

79

80

P a g e | 46

V.

COMMUNITARIAN PERSPECTIVE

Communitarian perspective on the state indicates a recent mode of thought. It marks the departure from the philosophy of liberalism because it places the relation between individual and society in a new perspective. It is based on the philosophy of communitarians which repudiates the idea of the self as envisaged in the liberal theory. Liberal theory implied an unencumbered self detached from pre existing social forms, as exemplified by the concept of possessive individualism. Communitarian-ism is inspired by the ideas of Aristotle, Rousseau, Hegel and T.H Green.
81

VI.

POST COLONIAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE STATE

According to O.P Gauba the post colonial perspective denotes an attempt to analyze the problem of the newly independent states, particularly against the background of their relations with colonial and neo colonial powers. The most significant phenomena of the 20th century were indeed decolonization. It helped shape the history of the past century and in one way or the other, either directly or indirectly affected the lives of nearly everyone across the globe.82 Post colonial perspective analyzes the problems states face after independence, why they are subjugated to colonialism by the western powers etc. A large portion of Asia, Africa and Latin America was conquered by the western powers to get cheap materials for their industries back home. The colonialists propagated the idea that Europe was the center of progress83 and people from other parts of the world were uncivilized. Colonization would help in their transformation to a civilized society. When the states got independence, there was a huge task of nation building, reviving economy, creating and improving the existing political institutions along with establishing the rule of law. Getting a country up and running requires years and many resources, including large sums of money from the international community.84 The latest example is South Sudan, which broke away from Sudan as a result of internal conflict and persisting civil war. According to O.B Gauba, state building implies a process whereby which a common center of power is evolved in order to establish law and order throughout the state and to extend the defensive and welfare services of the state to each and every part of its territory. Nation building and state building are complementary activities. He further mentions that the task of nation building is often sought to be accomplished or facilitated by the adoption of national symbols such as the national flag, national anthem, so on and so forth. In fact in the process of nation building in colonized countries had been started by their distinguished leaders during the course of national movement. They were able to mobilize the masses and create social harmony. It was expected that with the liquidation of foreign
81 82

An Introduction To Political Theory, O.P Gauba,5 th Edition, Pg 248 ,Macmillan Www.Hks.Harvard.Edu/Ksgpress 83 An Introduction To Political Theory, O.P Gauba,5 th Edition, Pg 251, Macmillan 84 Www.Hks.Harvard.Edu/Ksgpress

P a g e | 47

domination, post colonial rule would become an instrument of fulfilling needs and aspirations of the masses. However actual happenings largely belied these hopes. Unfortunately, multiple demands by multiple sections of the society with bureaucracy, police inherited from the colonial rule has made it difficult to strive for what our leaders had aimed for.85

VII. GANDHIAN PRESPECTIVE

Known as 'Mahatma' (great soul), Gandhi was the leader of the Indian nationalist movement against British rule, and is widely considered the father of our country. His doctrine of non-violent protest to achieve political and social progress has been hugely influential.86 Mohandas Gandhi opposed the State. The State is the military, police, prisons, courts, tax collectors, and bureaucrats. He saw the State as concentrated violence. "The State represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence." Gandhi recognized that the State claims to serve the nation, but he realized that this was a fallacy. "While apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation, [the State] does the greatest harm to mankind."87 He agreed with Thoreau that the government is the best when it governs the least. Also in this respect Gandhi was a follower of Count Leo Tolstoy. Tolstoy was a Russian writer who primarily wrote novels and short stories. Later in life, he also wrote plays and essays. His two most famous works, the novels War and Peace and Anna Karenina. Both Gandhi and Tolstoy believed in spiritual bliss over material satisfaction. Both attacked private property as it enabled the few to lead a luxurious life by exploiting the labour of large numbers.88Gandhi was a firm believer of non violence or ahimsa which he believed could be adopted as a universal principle of human behaviour, political power as well as state would become redundant. 89He said Government control gives rise to fraud, suppression of Truth, intensification of the black market and artificial scarcity. Above all, it unmans the people and deprives them of initiative; it undoes the teaching of self-help. I look upon an increase in the power of the State with the greatest fear because, although while apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation, it does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality which lies at the heart of all progress.90

85 86

An Introduction To Political Theory, O.P Gauba,5 th Edition, Pg 254, Macmillan Http://Www.Bbc.Co.Uk/History/Historic_Figures 87 Jesudasan, Ignatius. A Gandhian Theology Of Liberation. Gujarat Sahitya Prakash: Ananda India, 1987. Pp. 236-237. 88 An Introduction To Political Theory, O.P Gauba,5th Edition, Pg 255, Macmillan 89 ibid 90 Www.Carolmoore.Net/Articles/Gandhi-Quotes.Html

P a g e | 48

VIII. FEMINIST PERSPECTIVE

Gender is a social system that divides power. It is therefore a political system. That is, over time, women have been economically exploited, relegated to domestic slavery, forced into motherhood, sexually objectified, physically abused, used in denigrating entertainment, deprived of a voice and authentic culture, and disenfranchised and excluded from public life.91 Women, by contrast with comparable men, have systematically been subjected to physical insecurity, targeted for sexual denigration and violation; depersonalized and denigrated; deprived of respect, credibility, and resources; and silencedand denied public presence, voice, and representation of their interests. Men as men have generally not had these things done to them; that is, men have had to be Black or gay (for instance) to have these things done to them as men.92 O.P Gauba writes that the Feminist perspective of the state is concerned with the following aspects: 1. State as an instrument of regulation of the public sphere. 2. State as an instrument of power. He further mentions that it is the state which distributes the scarce resources among individuals and it is the duty of the state to distribute them equally. Feminists believe that women are usually deprived of equal access to resources and it is on the state to provide them with equal opportunities as men. State is identified as a key factor in meeting the demands of women like protection from male violence, greater reproductive rights (that is the right to have children as per their choice), changes in family and environment law, provision of pension benefits and other schemes.93

IX.

THE PATRIARCHAL STATE

Feminist theory includes wide range of perspectives in it, and hence have different attitude towards state power94. (1) Liberal feminists: subscribe to a belief that state is neutral, denial of legal and political equality to women would imply that state is biased towards men and it is possible to change these laws by intervention of state, therefore believe that state is capable of promoting equality between men and women. (2) Radical feminists: Believe that the power of state is a reflection of patriarchal nature of society, for radical the roots of patriarchy lie within family. In an unequal society the definition of normal status of women is determined by application of male values and practice. Thus, radicals criticize the view of state as impartial and neutral95.
91 92

Towards A Feminist Theory Of The State, Catharine A Mackinnon, Chapter 8 ibid 93 An Introduction To Political Theory, O.P Gauba,5 th Edition, Pg 258, Macmillan 94 Introduction To Political Theory By John Hoffman And Paul Graham p 56 95 Political Theory: An Introduction By R. Bhargava And A. Acharya Pg 183

P a g e | 49

X.

PLURALIST PERSPECTIVE

Pluralism is at heart, the theory that political power is dispersed amongst a wide variety of social groups rather than an elite or ruling class.96 In a pluralist state, there are various centers of power. Such a state does not hold the ultimate power in terms of authority as authority is derived from multiple centers. 97 The pioneers of the pluralist theory are Leon Duguit- a French legal theorist, Harold J Laski-English political analyst and Robert M MacIver- American sociologist. The following extract taken from O.P Gauba, gives a fair idea about the pluralist theory in modern sense: Contemporary concept of the pluralist state appeared in different form. Robert Dahl and Charles Lindbloms Politics, Economics and Welfare and Robert Dahls A Preface to Democratic Theory are regarded as landmarks in the evolution of pluralist state. They tried to demonstrate that a democratic society was marked by a widespread distribution of political resources, and that different interests prevailed in different political disputes at different times. Dahl and Lindblom described their working model of democracy as polyarchy. This implied a situation in which power is not centralized but dispersed among numerous interests and groups.

OTHER IMPORTANT VIEWS I. TOTALITARIANISM:

In a totalitarian state, the government is a single-party dictatorship that controls every aspect of the lives of its citizens. Individual rights count for nothing. The totalitarian state is based on boundless dynamism. Totalitarian society is a fully mobilized society, a society constantly moving toward some goal. Citizens must obey the government without question, and critics are silenced. Also, the totalitarian state supports extreme nationalism. The government uses tactics of censorship, and terror to force his will on the people. Government newspaper are most often used, happened in the case of Stalin of Soviet Union.Media is manipulated in such a way, so as to praise the governments. Secret police spy on citizens, and anyone who refuses to praise the supreme commander and the state faces severe punishment, even death. In fact, it can be said that true totalitarian regimes are limited only by the extent to which mass communications have been made a reality. And, of course, with mass communications comes mass man, and the capability of total control.

96 97

Political Theory: An Introduction, Andrew Heywood,3 rd Edition, Pg 79,Palgrave An Introduction To Political Theory, O.P Gauba,5 th Edition, Pg 251, Macmillan

P a g e | 50

Paradoxically, the totalitarian state never reaches its ultimate goal. However, it gives the illusion of doing so. As soon as one goal is reached, it is replaced by another. Such was the case in Stalin's Russia. Stalin implemented a series of Five Year Plans in an effort to build up the industrial might of the Soviet Union. Production quotas were constantly announced well before they had been reached in order to supply the illusion that the Five Year Plan was working. But before the Five Year Plan had run its course, another Five Year Plan was announced. 98

II.

UTILITARIANISM

We can argue that the state is justified because of its utility in bringing about greater happiness to greater number of people than any other political arrangement this is called utilitarianism. Utilitarianism has two aspects: (1) human happiness and well-being are important (2) We assess all the acts purely on the basis of its consequence. By putting forth this claim we can say that utilitarianism aims at bringing about a state of affairs that results greatest happiness of the greatest number99. The justification of state in this case is based on its utility, to provide happiness to the greater number rather than that of consent in social-contract. There could be a situation is this case wherein the happiness of majority is based on sacrifice of an individual rights, this instance would be found unacceptable by a liberal100

III.

LIBERALISM-THE NEUTRAL STATE

Liberals believe that a state is neutral agent between different units with competing interests And stands to realize what is called common good. Indian constitution can be characterized as liberal as it provides its citizens with equal rights and equality before law. The neutrality of state is defined by an idea of moral equality of individuals and their ability to think, feel, or make choice, it depends on the ability of an individual rather than the actual exercise hence all individuals are entitled to equal respect from state. According to liberals the best state of affair would be that a government treats all its citizens with equal respect, a state to have rules to ensure the liberty of people, to allow them to pursue idea of what they think good life is, as long as freedom of other individual is not affected. A liberal also bases his/her arguments on the concept of one vote for one person hence according to votes also each individual is entitled to have equal rights and freedom.

98 99

Available At: Http://Www.Historyguide.Org/Europe/Lecture10.Html Political Theory, MP Jain, p200 100 Political Theory: An Introduction By R. Bhargava And A. Acharya,Pg178

P a g e | 51

COMPARISON BETWEEN LIBERAL STATE AND UTILITARIAN STATE

The main difference between a utilitarian state and a liberal state is that, in the former one common good of the people is the main aim but the path adopted to reach that aim my result in sacrifice of rights of some individuals and in the latter one, again the main aim is common good of people but the path adopted should not result in sacrifice of rights of even one individual.

P a g e | 52

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS AND ARTICLES

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Gabriel,A.Almond And James,S. Coleman, The Politics Of Developing Areas Garner J.W., Political Science And Government O.P Gauba, An Introduction To Political Theory,5th Edition, Macmillan Montevideo Convention On The Rights And Duties Of The State,1933 Legal Issues In Plain Language,69th Edition, , Legal Information Center, State Library Of New South Wales, Australia 6. Western Sahara Advisory Opinion 1975 ICJ Reports 12 7. Political Theory: An Introduction, Andrew Heywood,3rd Edition, Palgrave 8. The Modern State ,R.M. Maciver,1926 9. Political Theory: An Introduction By R. Bhargava And A. Acharya 10. Misra, K.K - Political Theory 11. E.Jenks ,A History Of Politics 12. Robert L.Carlneiro, A Theory Of The Origin Of The State 13. Leviathan Edited By Macpherson (Politician, 1968)Chap XII. 14. John Locke, Two Treatises Of Civil Government, Sect 19 15. Russett, Cynthia E. (1991). Sexual Science (Spencer And Entropy).Harvard University Press. 16. Encyclopaedia Of Social Theory, Volumes 1, By George Ritzer 17. Harold J. Laski: The Liberal Manqu' Or Lost Libertarian By Arthur A. Ekirch, Jr 18. Jesudasan, Ignatius. A Gandhian Theology Of Liberation. Gujarat Sahitya Prakash: Ananda India, 1987. 19. Towards A Feminist Theory Of The State, Catharine A Mackinnon, Chapter 8 20. Introduction To Political Theory By John Hoffman And Paul Graham

ONLINE MATERIAL 1. http://www.Slideshare.Net/Marshascott.Com 2. http://www.Britannica.Com 3. http://www.Stanford.Edu 4. http://www.Legalanswers.Dl.Nsw.Gov.Au 5. http://Www.Geography.About.Com/Cs/Politicalgeog/A/Statenation.Htm 6. http://Www.Historyguide.Org/Europe/Lecture10.Html 7. http://Www.Bbc.Co.Uk/History/Historic_Figures 8. https://www.Carolmoore.Net/Articles/Gandhi-Quotes.Html 9. http://www.Hks.Harvard.Edu/Ksgpress 10. https://Www.Marxist.Org 11. Robert M Maciver, Introduction, Http://Www.Enotes.Com 12. Positive Liberalism By T.H Mills, Http://Www.Liberal-International.Org 13. Essay On Modern And Positive Liberalism, Available On: Http://Www.Preservearticles.Com 14. Http://Plato.Stanford.Edu/Entries/Utilitarianism-History/ 15. Http://Www.Utilitarianism.Com/Hedcalc.Htm 16. Http://Plato.Stanford.Edu/Entries/Libertarianism/ 17. What Is Welfare State, Available On: Http://Www.Wisegeek.Com 18. Http://Www.Preservearticles.Com/201106238474/Process-Of-Evolution-Of-The-State-From-ThePrimitive-Times-To-The-Modern-Nation-State.Html

P a g e | 53

19. Http://Www.Preservearticles.Com/201106238474/Process-Of-Evolution-Of-The-State-From-ThePrimitive-Times-To-The-Modern-Nation-State.Html