BA 2ND (Political Science) Political Thought
BA 2ND (Political Science) Political Thought
BA 2ND (Political Science) Political Thought
BA [Political Science]
Second Semester
[ENGLISH EDITION]
Authors
Dr Biswaranjan Mohanty, Units: (2.3.5, 2.4.1-2.4.5, 3.3.1, 4.2-4.4) © Dr Biswaranjan Mohanty, 2016
Quaisar Alam, Units: (1.2-1.2.3, 1.2.6, 1.3-1.3.1, 1.3.3, 1.3.5, 1.4.1-1.4.4) © Quaisar Alam, 2016
Dr Madhusmita Giri, Units: (2.2-2.3.1, 2.3.3-2.3.4) © Dr Madhusmita Giri, 2016
Vikas® Publishing House, Units: (1.0-1.1, 1.2.4-1.2.5, 1.3.2, 1.3.4, 1.3.6, 1.4, 1.5-1.9, 2.0-2.1, 2.3.2, 2.4, 2.5-2.9, 3.0-3.3, 3.3.2,
3.4-3.9, 4.0-4.1, 4.5-4.10) © Reserved, 2016
Books are developed, printed and published on behalf of Directorate of Distance Education,
Tripura University by Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication which is material, protected by this copyright notice
may not be reproduced or transmitted or utilized or stored in any form of by any means now known
or hereinafter invented, electronic, digital or mechanical, including photocopying, scanning, recording
or by any information storage or retrieval system, without prior written permission from the DDE,
Tripura University & Publisher.
Information contained in this book has been published by VIKAS® Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. and has
been obtained by its Authors from sources believed to be reliable and are correct to the best of their
knowledge. However, the Publisher and its Authors shall in no event be liable for any errors, omissions
or damages arising out of use of this information and specifically disclaim any implied warranties or
merchantability or fitness for any particular use.
Unit - I
Plato: Concept of Justice, Education, Communism and Ideal Unit 1: Western Classical Political
State Aristotle: State, Slavery, Revolution, Classification of Thinkers (Pages 3-40)
Government
Machiavelli: Modern Absolutism, Prince, Secularism
Unit - II
Bentham: Jurisprudence, Principles of Morals, Legislation Unit 2: Modern Political Thinkers
J. S. Mill: On Liberty, Essays on Government, Revision of (Pages 41-84)
Utilitarianism
Lenis: State, Dictatorship of Party, Contribution to Marxism
Neo Marxism, Scientific Socialism
Unit - III
Ram Mohan: Social Reform, Liberalism Unit 3: Indian Social Thought
Bankimchandra: Nationalism, Equality (Pages 85-103)
Vivekananda: Nationalism, Socialism
Unit - IV
Gandhi: Satyagraha, State Unit 4: Modern Indian Political
M. N. Roy: New Humanism, Organised Democracy Thought (Pages 105-159)
B. R. Ambedkar: Social Justice, Political Ideas
Nehru: Model of Development, Freedom Movement
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
INTRODUCTION
NOTES
Every single individual, at one point or another, in his or her life, has thought about
the kind of society they would like to live in. Those who become seriously interested
in the field have looked towards the theories of political philosophers through the
ages to give coherence to their own ideas on society. Thus, it would not be an
exaggeration to state that from Aristotle to Marx, the thoughts of great political
thinkers on subjects as varied as liberty, justice, state, law and property have
provided the foundation for the shaping and the development of human society.
The political environment around the world has been moulded by the thinking
and visions of famous thinkers like, Plato, Aristotle and Karl Marx. All their theories
were based on philosophies, which covered subjects like, freedom, law, justice,
rights, authority and property. These theories have set a base for triggering
revolutions and global changes. The majority of political ideologies of the world
owe their guidance to these thinkers. Every person, who is studying political science,
has to have a clear understanding of the political theories of thinkers like Bentham,
J. S. Mill, and Gandhi. For students in India, it is important to understand the ideas
and thoughts of early socialists and reformers such as Rammohan Roy and
Vivekananda and also the likes of M. N. Roy and B. R Ambedkar. This
understanding is critical for analysing any situation in the current scenario of global
politics.
The book Political Thought has been designed keeping in mind the self-
instruction mode (SIM) format and follows a simple pattern, wherein each unit of
the book begins with Introduction followed by Unit Objectives to the topic. The
content is then presented in a simple and easy-to-understand manner, and is
interspersed with Check Your Progress questions to test the student’s
understanding of the topic. A list of Questions and Exercises is also provided at
the end of each unit, and includes short-answer as well as long-answer questions.
The Summary and Key Terms are a useful tools for effectual recapitulation of the
text by the students.
Self-Instructional Material 1
Western Classical Political
POLITICAL THINKERS
NOTES
Structure
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Unit Objectives
1.2 Plato
1.2.1 Plato’s Political Theory
1.2.2 Concept of Justice in an Ideal State
1.2.3 Plato’s Communism
1.2.4 Theory of Education
1.2.5 Education in The Laws
1.2.6 Relevance of Plato in Contemporary Discourse
1.3 Aristotle
1.3.1 Aristotle’s Idea of Political Theory and State
1.3.2 Ideal State
1.3.3 Classification of Governments
1.3.4 Slavery
1.3.5 Theory of Citizenship
1.3.6 Revolution
1.4 Machiavelli
1.4.1 Modern Absolutism: Machiavelli’s Theory of Political Power
1.4.2 Prince
1.4.3 Evaluation of Machiavelli’s Political Thought
1.4.4 Secularism
1.5 Summary
1.6 Key Terms
1.7 Answers to ‘Check Your Progress’
1.8 Questions and Exercises
1.9 Further Reading
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Western political thought concentrates principally on the history of the West and
different issues confronting it. Political thought is of great importance. It consists of
political institutions and social practices. It is the reflection of how best to adjust in
our collective life. A political philosopher aims at suggesting how to underline the
basic principles regarding the justification of a particular form of state. Political
philosophy can also be comprehended by analysing it through the angles of
metaphysics, epistemology and axiology. This would reveal the ultimate side of reality,
the knowledge or methodical side and the value aspects of politics. Political thought
grew in the world with the Greeks. A thousand years before the birth of Christ the
Greeks were developing city states in and around the Mediterranean region.
Consequently, Greek thinkers paid a great lead of attention to the creation of an
ideal state, its rulers and the institutional structures necessary for running it. In the
4thcentury BC three great thinkers gave birth to systematic political speculation and
Self-Instructional Material 3
Western Classical Political created the basis of modern political science: Socrates, his disciple Plato and Plato’s
Thinkers
disciple Aristotle.
A study of Western political thought involves a comprehensive investigation
of the works of various philosophers and political thinkers from the time of Plato till
NOTES the contemporary thinkers. Students of history and political science will be able to
understand its insights into the nature of political organization, citizenship, justice,
sources of state power and other related ideas. As an academic discipline, the origin
of Western political philosophy may be traced back to ancient Greek society when
different forms of political organization, such as monarchy, tyranny, aristocracy,
oligarchy and democracy were being experimented with. Plato’s Republic is one of
the first important classical works of political philosophy. This was followed by
Aristotle’s politics and Nichomachean ethics.
1.2 PLATO
Plato was an influential ancient Greek philosopher born in 427 BC in Athens, Greece.
He was a student of Socrates, another Greek philosopher, so were his two older
brothers. In due course of time, Socrates forced them to adopt the notions and ideas
and beliefs he critically laid down in the areas of ‘know thyself.’ Not to add, Socrates
was not in good terms with the Thirty Tyrants, who were in the regime, while he
was growing. Contrarily, this group was the supporter (pro-Spartan) of the oligarchy
installed in Athens, and one of its two leading members was a follower of Socrates.
This group severely reduced the number of rights of Athenian citizens. Just, a
particularly chosen 500 could participate in legal functions, nearly 3,000 people had
the right to carry weapons or receive a jury trial. Hundreds of Athenians were killed
by orders to drink hemlock and thousands were exiled. Plato, hence, alienated them
by his method and approach of critical interrogation and he was brought to trial for
4 Self-Instructional Material
having committed capital crimes of religious impiety and corruption of youth. He Western Classical Political
Thinkers
was eventually sentenced to death. His friends came to his aid and offered to pay a
fine versus the death penalty.
Socrates’ influence on Plato NOTES
Socrates had influenced Plato immensely. A great deal of Plato’s earlier works
appeared to be borrowings or adaptations from Socrates himself. However, it is
questionable as to how much of the content, discussions, argument of any given
dialogue is actually Socrates’ point of view and how much of it is Plato’s. Socrates
himself did not seem to write down any of his teachings. Surely enough, he dictated
the writings and teachings to the great people around, and those who followed as
great followers. Needless to add, in due course of time, he got a large number of
followers to understand his teachings and discussions on a variety of issues that
directly suit them and that of the contemporary society.
His writings were not merely confined to the political system and administration,
but also those which posed challenged to people at the time. His ideas particularly
dealt with debates concerning the best possible form of government featuring
adherents of monarchy, democracy, and all other issues. The focus of all these
important writings was the fight between convention and nature and the role of
heredity and the environment on human intelligence and personality. The debate
continued unabated even after the death of Plato and his disciples and followers
made their presence felt to carry out the legacy further.
The Academy
After the death of Socrates, Plato founded a school in Athens in a grove sacred to
the demigod Academus. It was called the Academy (the term academics has its
roots in this word). Plato, rather than following a political path and tradition, tried to
move on the path of education and educating people. He thought it more significant
to educate others. The Academy was considered a great learning centre of higher
education during this period. The subjects consisted of astronomy, physical science,
philosophy, mathematics.
Plato’s Republic contains a treatise on education. Plato delivered a series of
lectures on various subjects, not available nowadays or published. He was a man of
great letter who fought throughout his life for the betterment and change of the
society. He is considered by many to be the greatest philosopher till date. He is
known as the father of idealism in philosophy. He died at the age of eighty.
1.2.1 Plato’s Political Theory
Plato’s political theory was based upon Socrates’ teaching. It was intended to change
the existing conditions, not to merely create an exercise in abstract thinking. Unlike
his teacher, however, Plato was not content simply to wander the streets of Athens
discoursing upon his philosophy. His Academy functioned not only to teach philosophy
to young men but to reform Greek politics. Teachers were sent out to train political
leaders in the philosophical truths learned at the Academy. The results, however,
were rarely what Plato would have desired, for the same irrational politics prevailed
Self-Instructional Material 5
Western Classical Political no matter what the philosopher taught. This was a cause of great dismay to Plato
Thinkers
and the source of much of his hostility towards the political domain.
Plato went on some legendary teaching expeditions, all of which turned out to
be disastrous. The story of these trips is worth recounting because it will help us
NOTES understand Plato’s basic hostility toward politics. In 387 BC, when Plato was in his
early forties, he visited Sicily. There he met Dion, the brother-in-law of Dionysius I,
the tyrant of Syracuse. Dion was impressed by Plato’s philosophy and, according to
legend, persuaded Plato to teach Dionysius I. Unfortunately, Dionysius was not
enchanted by what Plato had to say and reportedly sold him into slavery. Plato
escaped with the aid of friends and returned to Athens.
Upon his return he founded the Academy, where he remained for twenty
years, glad to be rid of politics. But when Dionysius I died, Dion summoned Plato
back to Syracuse in order to teach young Dionysius II what he had failed to do with
his father. Initially Dionysius II was quite enthusiastic and spoke of reforming
Syracuse’s politics in light of Plato’s teachings. But soon he became weary of
philosophy and became distrustful of Plato’s relationship with Dion. Dion was banished
and Plato was put under virtual house arrest. Eventually, he managed to secure his
release and once again returned to Athens.
Several years later, he returned at the request of Dionysius II with the hope
of reconciling the young tyrant with Dion. The reconciliation failed, and the trip
turned out as disastrously as the first two. To make matters worse, events went in a
direction designed to utterly disgust Plato with politics and to ensure his final
withdrawal from public activity. Dionysius II became increasingly tyrannical, and
Dion eventually overthrew him. Then Dion was assassinated by one of Plato’s own
students who, in turn, established himself as a tyrant. Later, he too was assassinated.
What had begun many years earlier in philosophical enthusiasm ended in cabals and
intrigues and, for Plato, it was utter despair.
Here was the paradox and agony of Plato’s life. His attempt to teach philosophy
to tyrants indicates his unflagging belief that politics could be rationalized by truth,
yet the attempt failed utterly. Plato barely avoided the fate of Socrates. No matter
how loudly and insistently the truth was proclaimed, the same irrational element in
politics prevailed.
Even though over the years, the reality of politics slowly chipped away at
Plato’s bedrock belief in the power of philosophy to transform the human condition,
the belief was never destroyed. It was modified in Plato’s more mature works, such
as his last great political treatise, The Laws, but it was never destroyed. Plato never
lost hope that at some propitious time philosophy might enter people’s lives and
transform them. He, at least, could prepare the way philosophically. His most famous
dialogue, The Republic, was just a preparation.
1.2.2 Concept of Justice in an Ideal State
In Plato’s Republic you will see that it is by all accounts a great work of political
philosophy. It is simply a notable work of human intelligence. One cannot be untouched
about it. The kind of insights it has is unparalleled. The Republic is a phenomenal
6 Self-Instructional Material
work by Plato. It talks vividly about justice and human perception. It is definitely a Western Classical Political
Thinkers
desirable virtue for the citizens and the state alike. Because it deals with an ideal,
The Republic has often been described as a utopian work of political philosophy.
But Plato’s utopianism cannot be equated with modern utopian thinking. The Republic
is not an early form of science fiction or an ancient version of contemporary futurist NOTES
writing. Rather, it is a work that attempts to establish an ideal standard or a normative
measuring rod to judge the existing political practices. As such, The Republic is
about the ideal state of perfect justice.
Plato’s later works discuss the best possible states of less than perfect justice.
The ancients were realists who understood that the ideal cannot as a general rule be
attained in the ‘real world’. But they also understood that without an ideal standard,
they could say nothing about the real. How can we say that an existing political
system or political practice is unjust if we do not know the ideal of justice? It would
be as if we were to attempt to measure something without a ruler.
There is a hint in the very opening page of The Republic. These hints are
contained in a dialogue that begins at the house of a respected man named Cephalus
whom Socrates and others visit. In the course of the conversation, a question arises
as to what is right conduct or justice. Cephalus answers that justice is simply telling
the truth and paying back one’s debts. But Socrates argues that the definition is not
inclusive enough and, therefore, does not always apply. Socrates further points out
that if ‘a friend who had lent us a weapon were to go mad and then ask for it back,
surely ... we ought not to return it’.
Plato begins his discussion of justice in the state by arguing that the state is
natural because no one is self-sufficient. Human beings need each other. The question
that arises is what makes a society self-sufficient? Plato argues that it entails
maintaining an appropriate division of labour. Every state, he argues, will require
artisans first of all. Plato includes in this group all those who produce goods and
perform socially necessary services such as craftsmen, farmers, traders, and the
like. Theirs is an economic function. Secondly, every state will require a class of
warriors whom Plato calls the guardians. Theirs, of course, is a military function.
Finally, every state will require rulers whose function is involved in making decisions,
formulating policy, and so on. Plato proposes that this third class of rulers be drawn
from the guardians. Thus, the guardians really should form two classes according to
Plato: those who are selected to rule and those who are charged merely with the
execution of the rulers’ decisions. Plato calls the latter element of the guardian class
as the auxiliaries to distinguish it from the higher guardians who will be trained
specifically to rule.
Plato’s discussion of justice in the state is not that disputed. We might argue
that Plato’s threefold division of labour is too simple, that a truly self-sufficient state
would require a much more complex and extensive division of labour. It must be
remembered, however, that the polis was a small and a relatively self-contained
community. It did not require the complex division of labour characteristic of modern
industrial societies. What is important in any case is the underlying principle involved
in Plato’s scheme, not its technical viability.
Self-Instructional Material 7
Western Classical Political In addition to this, Plato’s Republic deals with some very practical issues.
Thinkers
Assuming we can make philosophers rulers, how can we assure that they will continue
to rule? The danger is not only that those unfit to rule may attempt a coup d’etat; the
philosophers themselves may come to promote their self-interest rather than the
NOTES public interest. They may become so trained by desire that the just state will not
continue to exist. This, at least, is Plato’s fear. Plato proposes to resolve this problem
in a variety of ways almost all of which involve the rulers. To begin with, he proposes
an elaborate system of ruler selection. We need not discuss that system in any detail
here except to note that any child, regardless of sex or class position, may become
a ruler if he or she indicates a capacity to learn philosophical truths. The selection
process, in other words, is not to be based upon artificial class or sex biases. Plato is
not advocating a hereditary male-dominated ruling class. Such a proposal would
utterly contradict the whole premise of The Republic that knowledge is the only
criterion for rulership. Clearly, Plato argues that the class into which one is born or
one’s sex is not irrelevant consideration.
Selecting the best candidates for rulership is important. However, it is not
sufficient. In addition, says Plato, the objects of desire must be removed from the
society of rulers. To this end, he proposes that the society must be based upon
communist principles. The auxiliaries and rulers will not be allowed to own property,
nor will they have families of their own. They would be carefully regulated to ensure
a pool of future rulers; rather the decision to choose the future rulers should take
place outside of the family structure. Children will be held in common, and they will
not know who their real fathers and mothers are. They will come to identify the
state as their family. In this way, Plato believes that the familial objects of desire can
be removed from the ruling class, and the children who will later be selected for
training as rulers will come to identify their interests with those of the larger community.
Theory of Division of Labour
Plato’s division of labour is based on class. It means more specifically functional
specialization. A distinct division has to be in the perspective, if the society has to
grow in the right direction. The overlapping of each other really creates problem for
one and all. Clearly, a division of labour is essential to the state. Each class must
obviously possess virtue, that is, the necessary skills to perform its tasks. The meaning
of virtue to this points is still ethically neutral, and any Greek of the time would have
understood and accepted Plato’s meaning.
What, then, are the specific virtues required for each class? The upper level
guardians, the rulers, must possess the virtue of wisdom. They must have the requisite
knowledge to know how to appropriately order the state as a whole. The lower-
level guardians, or auxiliaries, must obviously embody the virtue of courage; otherwise
they would make poor warriors indeed. The artisans must have the virtue of
temperance, i.e., the ability to restrain their passions. They must understand that
theirs is an economic function and not allow cravings for wealth or status to lead
them to take over those functions, such as rulership, that they are not equipped to
handle.
8 Self-Instructional Material
The virtue of temperance is the virtue of self-restraint, and self-restraint in Western Classical Political
Thinkers
this context means keeping one’s place in the division of labour. Clearly, then, each
class in society must be temperate. The auxiliaries, no less than the artisans, must
restrain any desire to perform a function for which they are not equipped. The point,
however, is that the artisans need only to be temperate, while the auxiliaries must be NOTES
both courageous and temperate. The rulers must be wise in addition to possessing
these other virtues.
The division of labour, in short, is a division of virtues, and those who have a
superior role in the division of labour are, in Plato’s ideal society, those who have a
superior degree of virtue. The rulers possess complete virtue because they have
wisdom or knowledge, which you will recall is identical to virtue in Socratic philosophy.
Other classes have incomplete virtue because their knowledge is limited and, in the
case of the artisans, almost non-existent.
Now the bigger question remains, what then is a rationally acceptable or just
state from Plato’s point of view? He has just mentioned it. It is one ruled by
philosophers, and that means a state in which the appropriate division of classes, and
therefore, of virtues, is maintained. Thus, justice is the virtue of virtues, it is the
virtue of maintaining proper relationship among wisdom, courage and temperance.
Injustice is rule by non-philosophers, which means the appropriate orders of classes
and virtues has broken down. In political terms, this breakdown is identical to class
war in which those not equipped to rule struggle among each other to acquire power.
This developments took place during Plato’s lifetime. The poor wanted to overthrow
the rule of the rich; the rich wanted to suppress the poor. Neither was in the least
concerned about justice; they wanted simply to promote their own class interests.
They were practising Sophists as far as Plato was concerned.
Given this analysis, the supposed advantages of philosophic rulership are clear,
but what precisely makes such rulership the defining characteristics of the just state?
Plato’s answer brings us back to our starting point. Justice is a virtue, and in the
Socratic system, virtue is identical to knowledge. Hence, a ‘just’ state must by
definition be one ruled by philosophers, by those with knowledge. The kind of political
knowledge they must possess is knowledge of how to maintain the division of labour,
which is the necessary condition for philosophical rulership and thus, for appropriate
ordering of virtues within the state. In its most general sense, then, political justice is
simply the virtue of harmony within the state and the absence of conflict. It is a
condition in which each performs his or her task well for the benefit of the whole.
This conception of justice matches perfectly with its traditional usage. The Greeks
had always considered justice as the principle of order and harmony, whether they
used it in reference to a person, a state, or the universe (the pre-Socratics frequently
described the cosmos, which means order, as just). Even our contemporary usage
of justice as equal to fairness still retains this idea of order and harmony.
But herein lay, in Plato’s own words, the central paradox of The Republic.
Philosophers must rule, yet it is precisely philosophers who have no desire to rule.
Unlike Thrasymachus and his kind, they are lovers of knowledge, not of power. Yet
rule they must, say Plato, unless either philosophers become kings in their countries
Self-Instructional Material 9
Western Classical Political or those who are now called kings and rulers come to be sufficiently inspired with a
Thinkers
genuine desire for wisdom; unless, that is to say, political power and philosophy meet
together, there can be no rest from troubles.
10 Self-Instructional Material
Plato argues that education should begin at a young age with the learning of Western Classical Political
Thinkers
basic skills such as reading, writing, recitation, and so on. His proposed programme
of studies is not markedly different from what actually existed. Plato does advocate
one major reform— censorship of poetry, and particularly that of the great epic poet
Homer. His reason is that people took from the poets what they thought to be sound NOTES
ethical knowledge when, in fact, says Plato, the poets are not different from the
Sophists. They teach people opinions of what is true, not genuine knowledge. Besides,
he complains, they present unacceptable models of human behaviour. Both heroes
and gods frequently act unjustly, if not downright basically, in the epic poems. It
would be inappropriate, Plato argues, for potential rulers to be influenced by such
models at a young and impressionable age. How, he asks are they to become just
rulers if their literature exposes them to acts of injustice?
In addition, Plato points out that poetry appeals to the emotions. Unless it is
carefully censored it will lead the young guardians astray. Instead of learning to
control their lives rationally, they will become subject to their passions. Plato is a
classicist; he believes that art should reflect order and harmony so that the same
order and harmony will begin to be reflected in the lives of those exposed to it. He is
opposed to romanticism, to art that simply appeals to feeling and emotion and that he
believes, thereby, disorders the soul. For this reason, Plato concludes that we must
not only compel our poets to make their poetry and express image of noble character,
we must also supervise craftsmen of every kind and forbid them to leave the stamp
of baseness, meanness and unseemliness, on painting and sculpture, or building, or
any other work of their hands. Anyone who cannot obey shall not practise his art in
the commonwealth.
First Account of Education
Socrates proposes in the first account that the aim of education should be to control
the guards and curb their tendency to rule and convert them into what he calls
‘noble puppies’, who can fight fiercely with the enemies, and behave gently with
those who are familiar to them. He suggests that the character of guards must be
shaped with education in two arts which the Greeks valued very highly, namely
music and gymnastics. Education in music for the enrichment of their soul, and
learning in gymnastics for the development of their bodies. The kind of education
that Socrates has in mind for the guards, i.e. the military class of his ideal state is
indeed moral in nature. And, therefore, the emphasis of the education here is not on
the development of logical and critical faculty but on the shaping their mind to follow
and accept.
According to Socrates, the nature of those who are chosen for the education
for being guardians must be ‘philosophic, spirited, swift, and strong’. He suggests
that the guardians must be able to distinguish between familiar and foreign by the
use of ‘knowledge and ignorance’. Which means that they approve of only what is
familiar to them, and consider everything new as their enemy.
Education of the guards in music (which also includes speeches and poetry)
begins at the very young age, for it is in these years that people are most susceptible
to being influenced. The tragic and epic poetry must be heavily censured, for it
Self-Instructional Material 11
Western Classical Political contains themes such as revenge, which Socrates considers unworthy. Such poetry
Thinkers
can be fatal for the moral development of the military class of the state. The tales
that are told at the very young age must also be censored, for young children can
absorb everything that they are exposed to: ‘A young thing can’t judge what is
NOTES hidden sense and what is not; but what he takes into his opinions at that age has a
tendency to become hard to eradicate and unchangeable’. Through the narration
carefully composed, fit for the education of young children, mothers and nurses will
be able to shape and nourish the souls of these children.
The tales should be composed and carefully constructed to impart virtue and
knowledge of certain theology. Socrates does not offer examples of what kinds of
tales should be appropriate for children, but attacks poets like Homer and Hesiod
and deems the tales of these poets as inappropriate and bad lies. Gods must always
be just in the tales, or the children will think it proper to do injustice. They should not
be told tales which include fighting amongst the gods or people between themselves.
This will teach them the importance of unity.
Socrates considers those tales as good which are capable of fostering courage,
moderation, and justice. Education of the children should be such that they should
grow up fearing slavery and not death. What is interesting is that though Socrates
mentions courage, moderation and justice as important values that the children should
learn, he does not mention wisdom. Absence of wisdom in education of the military
class whose sole responsibility is to defend the state suggests that Plato does not
want their rational and critical faculty to develop, after all they are supposed to be
like ‘noble puppies’, fierce and yet be able to follow what they are ordered and not
question it.
Another important education that is important for those who are to become
the defenders of the state is the education of gymnastics. Instead of recommending
a complicated gymnastic routine, Socrates recommends moderate eating and drinking,
along with a simple routine of physical exercise, which according to him will ensure
a healthy and fit body. Socrates emphasises that proper education in gymnastic will
not only prevent illness but will also reduce the use of medicine in the city, which
according to him should not be used for keeping those alive who are useless.
The moral education that Socrates prescribes for the military class, the defender
of the state, is supposed to develop their ability to distinguish between good and bad,
without ever being exposed to what is bad.
There is no doubt that music is the most significant in the education of the
defender guards, but for their moral development it is important to maintain equilibrium
between music and gymnastics, for a completely gymnastics education can potentially
transform the guards into savages, and a complete musical education will make
them soft, that is why it is important to balance the education of the two arts.
Second Account of Education
After expounding the details of his ideal state, Socrates acknowledges that the ruler
of his state should be philosopher kings. He also admits that the account of education
that he gave earlier in the dialogue regarding the education of the military guard was
12 Self-Instructional Material
not adequate for the philosopher-kings. The quick and fiery natures of music are not Western Classical Political
Thinkers
stable for developing courage during the situation of war, and the brave nature that
can be trusted during the war are not reliable intellectually and critically, and therefore,
it is important that the philosopher-kings should receive a special kind of education
which will refine and develop their philosophical nature. But this does not mean that NOTES
the philosopher kings should not receive education in gymnastics: ‘It must also be
given gymnastics in many studies to see whether it will be able to bear the greatest
studies, or whether it will turn out to be a coward.’ Thus, it appears that the education,
as illustrated in the first account, serves to be a test for the philosophising nature of
the students, and once identified as a suitable candidates, the education of the
philosopher-kings will develop and strengthen their philosophizing natures. Unlike
the education of the guards, the education of the philosopher-kings would teach the
students the true love of learning and will make them philosophers instead to
transforming them into ‘noble puppies’.
The aim of philosopher kings’ education is not the attainment of four virtues,
but the knowledge of good, which is considered as the ultimate virtue by Socrates.
The importance of this knowledge can be understood by the fact that without it, the
attainment of the other four virtues is impossible. The idea of good is the supreme of
all. Socrates distinguishes between having opinions about good, and having its
knowledge. The former is not sufficient and therefore, the latter is needed: ‘When it
comes to good things, no one is satisfied with what is opined to be so but each seeks
the things that are.’ This puts the education of the philosopher kings in sharp contrast
with the education of the guards, who were trained and educated to have correct
opinions. Unlike the first account of education, this education is more philosophical
in the sense that it aims directly for true knowledge.
Socrates uses his famous sun analogy to explain something that is similar to
good. As sun makes it possible for our eyes to see things, the good makes it possible
for the intellect of the person to know. Thus, it is good that makes the knowledge
possible. It is the idea of good that ‘provides the truth to the thing known and gives
the power to the one who knows’. The idea of good is not only responsible for the
human faculty of reason, but also for one’s very ‘existence and being’.
Socrates uses his famous cave analogy to explain how education can be used
to possess the knowledge of good. Socrates evokes an image of a cave in which
some prisoners are chained in such a way that they can only see the wall they are
facing and nothing else. Behind the prisoner there is a puppeteer who casts the
shadows of figurines on the wall. The prisoners can only see the shadows and for
them these shadows are the only reality, but what they perceive is not the complete
reality, only a small segment of it. It is clear that this new education is mean to free
the prisoners and make them aware of the reality beyond their perceived reality of
the cave. In order to show why philosophical education is not readily accepted and
the way in which such education is enlightening, Socrates develops his analogy
further.
What happens when one of the prisoners is able to escape the cave and go
outside? At first, the foreign sights will hurt his eyes, and he would resist the thought
Self-Instructional Material 13
Western Classical Political that what he used to consider reality was only a fragment of it. His eyes, which are
Thinkers
accustomed to the darkness of the cave, will be blinded by the light of the sun. He
would, of course, want to go back to his familiar environment. But if somehow
someone is able to take him ‘away from there by force along the rough, steep,
NOTES upward way, and didn’t let him go before he had dragged him out into the light of the
sun’, his eyes would eventually adjust to his new surroundings, and slowly he would
begin to perceive the new reality. Once he is fully aware of the new reality, he
would never want to go back to the darkness of the cave. But, somehow if he tries
to go back to the cave only to help the other prisoners, they will call his disillusioned,
for they are still limited to the perceived reality of the cave. Through this powerful
allegory Socrates explains that the good is beyond the reality of perception, but once
its knowledge is acquired, it becomes the ‘cause of all that is right and fair in everything’,
and therefore, the ruler of the ideal state must possess its knowledge and
understanding.
For the philosopher kings, Socrates envisions an education that would teach
them to utilize their capacity of knowledge, for it is always within a man’s soul:
‘Education is not what the professions of certain men assert it to be. They presumably
assert that they put into the soul knowledge that isn’t in it, as though they were
putting sight into blind eyes…but the present argument, on the other hand…indicates
that this power is in the soul of each and that the instrument with which each learns—
just as an eye is not able to turn toward the light from the dark without the whole
body—must be turned around from that which is coming into being together with
the whole soul until it is able to endure looking at that which is and the brightest part
of that which is.’
Socrates asserts that the ruler of his ideal state cannot be the prisoners of the
cave. They cannot also be the philosophers who choose to never again go back to
the cave once enlightened. The rulers must be those who escape the cave and
receive the education of the good and then return to the cave to help the other
prisoners.
Here Socrates acknowledges the limitations of his first account of education,
for they are only helpful in teaching habits through examples. He includes the study
of numbers, geometry, and cubes in his second account of education. The study of
mathematics is both practically useful and intellectually stimulating. He also includes
the study of complex concepts and the study of dialectic. The former would help the
students to know and understand what is permanent, and the latter, through the use
of questioning and answering, would help them to understand one’s self and the
depth of one’s own knowledge, which would help them in identifying the good in
both the world and oneself.
Like the education of the guards, the education of the philosopher kings also
begins in the childhood. But unlike the former the latter is not compulsory, but is
voluntary play: ‘Don’t use force in training the children in the studies, but rather
play. In that way you can better discern what each is naturally directed towards.’
Education of gymnastic will be ceased at the age twenty. At the age of thirty,
those students will be tested in dialectics, who will excel in their studies, and duties.
The idea of the test will be to determine ‘who is able to release himself from the
14 Self-Instructional Material
eyes and the rest of sense and go to what which is in itself and accompanies truth.’ Western Classical Political
Thinkers
Socrates realizes the danger of allowing the young students a free reign with dialectics,
and cautions that it might tempt the students to rebel against the laws of the state
and indulge in a baser pursuits. But if the art of dialectic is used by the educated
older men, they will ‘discuss and consider the truth rather than the one who plays NOTES
and contradicts for the sake of the game’. At the age of thirty-five, those who have
excelled in the art study of dialectics, will hold offices in the cave, and the same
process will continue. And finally when they have reached the age of fifty, those
who have performed best in everything will know the good and will govern the city.
‘And, lifting up the brilliant beams of their souls, they must be compelled to look
toward that which provides light for everything. Once they see the good itself, they
must be compelled, each in his turn, to use it as a pattern for ordering city, private
men, and themselves for the rest of their lives. For the most part, each one spends
his time in philosophy, but when his turn comes, he drudges in politics and rules for
the city’s sake, not as though he were doing a thing that is fine, but one that is
necessary. And thus, always educating other like men and leaving them behind in
their place as guardians of the city, they go off to the Isles of the Blessed and dwell’
1.2.5 Education in The Laws
The Laws is perhaps the last dialogue written by Plato. In this dialogue the ideal
state is called the city of Magnetes or Magnesia. In Magnesia the written laws are
most important, unlike the ideal city of the The Republic where the words of the
philosopher-king is the best representation of the law, because of the educational
value of content. Respect towards the law should be there not because of the fear
but because of the realization of the role of the citizen in social development. Plato,
in this dialogue considers God as the transcendental foundation of every law: God is
the ‘norm of the norms, the measure of the measures’. What was the idea of good
in The Republic is God’s mind in The Laws. Plato asserts that like a good fountain
always gives out good water, the God always does what is fair. He is the one who
maintains the pedagogical relationship with men, and therefore, is ‘universal
pedagogue’.
In The Laws, Plato is not concerned with who will be fit to rule and govern
the state after receiving education, but is concerned with the number of people that
education will transform as patriots. And for this very reason the argument of the
dialogue is for the public character of the education, which is only possible when it is
imparted in the public building designed especially for that purposes. There should
not be any discrimination in education based on the gender of the student, and the
process of education must begin quite early in the life of the student. Plato argued
for education in dancing, wrestling, riding and archery for both boys and girls. Children
should play games which can help them channel their energy and resources towards
the activities which they might engage with in their future adult lives. Plato considered
the games of the children as something very important: ‘No one in the state has rally
grasped that children’s games affect legislation so crucially as to determine whether
the laws that are passed will survive or not.’ He considered change as something
immensely dangerous, even in games of the children, without one exception, evil.
Self-Instructional Material 15
Western Classical Political Because education is an important factor in the formation of citizens, there
Thinkers
should be someone to supervise it. Plato suggests an education minister, who should
not be more than fifty years old and should be well qualified. This minister should be
elected through secrete voting, but the thus elected candidate cannot be the member
NOTES of Nocturnal Council, which is above the various levels of servers the responsibility
of which is to carry out administration of the state. The primary responsibilities of
the council are:
• To promote and develop the philosophical studies so that the citizens develop
a proper understanding of laws of the state.
• To develop and improve the laws of the state through the exchange with the
philosophers of the other cities.
• To ensure the awareness of the philosophical and legal principles among the
citizen of the state.
• Many scholars and commentators think that in spite of being surprising in
some of its aspects, the educational theories presented in The Laws are not
very different from the educational account of The Republic, which to an
extent is true.
1.2.6 Relevance of Plato in the Contemporary Discourse
Plato’s thought and understanding, you will realize, still has real relevance. In the
modern nation-state too, there is a need for class division and functional specialization,
so that society can function properly. And yes, Plato’s division of labour is based on
each class, i.e., each class must have a certain end. Clearly a division of labour is
essential to the state, and just as obviously each class must possess virtue, i.e., the
necessary skills to perform its tasks. The meaning of virtue is to this point still
ethically neutral, and any Greek of the time would have understood and accepted
Plato’s meaning. What, then, are the specific virtues required for each class? The
upper level guardians, the rulers, must possess the virtue of wisdom. They must
have the requisite knowledge to know how to appropriately order the state as a
whole. The lower-level guardians, or auxiliaries, must obviously embody the virtue
of courage; otherwise they would make poor warriors indeed. The artisans must
have the virtue of temperance, i.e., the ability to restrain their passions. They must
understand that theirs is an economic function and not allow the craving for wealth
or status to lead them to take over those functions, such as rulership, that they are
not equipped to handle. It is high time, that the present state of governance still
follows the Platonic version of class division.
Criticisms of Plato’s Republic
Plato’s theory in The Republic does have flaws, which are discussed as follows:
• The main discrepancy in The Republic has to do with Plato’s proposals for
maintaining the distribution of labour within the state. The solution is to ensure
the sustained rule of the wise. Ideally, other classes within the state will
accept this arrangement to the extent that they appreciate its rationale.
16 Self-Instructional Material
• There is the requirement of developing philosophical virtues themselves and Western Classical Political
Thinkers
understanding the logical need of philosophical governance. It appears that
even Plato doubts the regime’s ability to appreciate the chemistry of philosophy.
• Exclusion of the myth of the metals from The Republic would have been
better. NOTES
• There appears to exist, inconsistencies between philosophers and non-
philosophers since, it exposes a fundamental inaptness between justice in the
state and justice in the personality.
• Plato moves too far when he says that knowledge indicates moral truths,
which the citizens need to include in their political institutions and lives.
1.3 ARISTOTLE
Aristotle’s works are divided into logic, physical works, psychological works,
philosophical works and works on natural history. The Peripatetic school of philosophy
groups Aristotle’s writings on ‘logic’ under the title ‘Organon’, which means
instrument because they considered logic to be the chief instrument for scientific
investigation. However, Aristotle considered ‘logic’ to be the same as verbal reasoning.
He believed that to gain knowledge of an object, people ask certain questions, and
he classified words into substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, situation,
condition, action and passion, arranged in the order in which the questions are asked.
Obviously, ‘substance’ is considered most important, including individual objects and
the species to which these objects belong.
In his works on philosophy, Aristotle first traces the history of philosophy. He
believed that philosophy grew as a result of wonder and curiosity which were not
fully satisfied by religious myths. At first there were only philosophers of nature
such as Thales and Anaximenes who were succeeded by Pythagoreans with
mathematical abstractions. Pure thought was partly a contribution of Eleatic
philosophers such as Parmenides and Anaxagoras. However, the complete level of
pure thought was reached in the works of Socrates. Socrates was able to express
general concepts in the form of definitions. Aristotle was of the opinion that
metaphysics dealt with the early principles of scientific knowledge and the final
conditions of all existence. It was concerned with existence in its basic state. In
contrast, mathematics dealt with existence in the form of lines and angles.
Self-Instructional Material 17
Western Classical Political In his works on psychology, Aristotle defined the soul as the expression or
Thinkers
realization of a natural body. He accepted the existence of a relationship between
psychological states and physiological processes. He regarded the soul or mind as
the truth of the body and not as the outcome of its physiological conditions.
NOTES The activities of the soul are manifested in specific faculties or parts
corresponding with the stages of biological development: nutritional faculties
(characteristic of plants); movement-related faculties (characteristic of animals)
and faculties of reason (characteristic of humans).
Aristotle viewed ethics as an attempt to find out the highest good or the final
purpose or end. Most ends of life merely help us to achieve other ends, there is
always some final goal or pursuit that we aspire for or desire. Such an end is usually
happiness, which must be based on human nature, and must originate from personal
experience. Thus, happiness must be something practical and human, and should
exist in the work and life which is unique to humans. It lies in the active life of a
rational human being or in a perfect realization and outworking of the true soul and
self, throughout a lifetime.
According to Aristotle, the moral ideal in political administration is merely a
different aspect of what is applicable to individual happiness.
Humans are social beings, and the ability to speak rationally results in social
union. The state is develops from the family through the village community, which is
just a branch of the family. Although originally formed to satisfy natural wants, the
state exists for moral ends and also to promote higher life. The state is a genuine
moral organization that advances the development of humans.
1.3.1 Aristotle’s Idea of Political Theory and State
Political science is the body of knowledge that practitioners will use in pursuing their
tasks. The most important role played by the politician is that of lawgiver, the one
who frames the appropriate constitution comprising laws, customs and a system of
moral education for the citizens. It is the responsibility of the politician to take measures
to maintain the constitution and introduce reforms whenever the need arises and to
prevent situations that may undermine the power of the political system. This is the
field of legislative science, which according to Aristotle is more important than politics.
According to Aristotle, a politician is similar to a craftsman. Just like a craftsman
produces an object making use of the four causes discussed earlier, namely formal,
material, efficient and final causes, a politician also works with the four causes. The
state comprises several individual citizens, who form the material cause out of which
the city-state is created. The constitution forms the formal cause. The city-state
cannot exist without an efficient cause, that is, the ruler. In the absence of the ruler,
the community, irrespective of its type will be in disorder. The constitution acts as
this ruling element.
All communities are established with the aim of achieving some good. This is
where the final cause comes in. The community with the most authority and the one
that contains the other communities has the most authority of all, and it aims at the
highest good. This explains the existence of politics for good life or happiness.
18 Self-Instructional Material
Western Classical Political
Thinkers
CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
9. How has Aristotle defined the soul?
10. What are the sub-sections of knowledge according to Aristotle? NOTES
Self-Instructional Material 19
Western Classical Political regarded state to be a natural need of human uplift, he wanted restricted interference
Thinkers
of the state in the life of individuals.
1.3.3 Classification of Governments
NOTES In Books IV to VI of Politics, Aristotle has dealt with one of the most contentious of
political questions. Who should rule the masses? Aristotle has, at this point, actually
looked at the different forms of government existent in Greece to seek answer to
this question. As we have seen above, he primarily classified the governments into
monarchy, tyranny, aristocracy, oligarchy and polity or democracy. The first criterion
he uses to distinguish between these regimes is by the number of people ruling: one
man, a few men and many. ‘[T]hose regimes which look to the common advantage
are correct regimes according to what is unqualifiedly just, while those which look
only to the advantage of the rulers are errant, and are all deviations from the correct
regimes; for they involve mastery, but the city is a partnership of free persons’
(1279a16).
In Book III Chapter 7, Aristotle describes these six types of regimes.
Depending upon the number of people involved in governing and the focus of their
interests, Aristotle distinguished six kinds of social structure in three pairs:
• A state with only one ruler is either a monarchy or a tyranny
• A state with several rulers is either an aristocracy or an oligarchy
• A state in which all rule is either a polity or a democracy
The correct regimes are monarchy (rule by one man for the common good),
aristocracy (rule by a few for the common good), and polity (rule by the many for
the common good); the flawed or deviant regimes are tyranny (rule by one man in
his own interest), oligarchy (rule by the few in their own interest), and democracy
(rule by the many in their own interest). Aristotle ranks monarchy as the best and
tyranny as the most perverted form of government. So, according to him from the
best to the worst may be put down as: monarchy—aristocracy—polity—
democracy—oligarchy—tyranny (1289a38).Aristotle considers democracy, which
is generally accepted as the best form of government, as one of the flawed regimes.
Aristotle accepts monarchy as the best form of government as a monarch works for
the greater good of the citizens. Aristotle further clarifies, that the real distinction
between oligarchy and democracy is in fact the distinction between whether the
wealthy or the poor rule (1279b39), not whether the many or the few rule. Since
every city-state has a few wealthy noblemen as well as poor people, Aristotle was
well aware of the conflicts between these two groups that even lead to civil wars.
According to Aristotle, democrats and oligarchs advance equal claims to rule.
He maintains that justice should dictate who should have the power to rule and that
equal people should have equal things. Aristotle upheld that both groups—the oligarchs
and democrats—offer judgments about this, but neither of them gets it right, because
‘the judgment concerns themselves and most people are bad judges concerning
their own things’ (1280a14). While the democrats think that the fact that all citizens
are free entitles everyone to rule, oligarchs assert that their wealth should entitle
20 Self-Instructional Material
them to form the government. According to Aristotle, democracy is the rule of the Western Classical Political
Thinkers
majority; and since the majority is poor, the rule of the poor and hence, poor rule.
Since ruling in accordance with one’s wishes is the trademark of tyranny, it is the
most despotic of all. The monarch, who has the country’s welfare in his mind, will
make the best ruler for a state. NOTES
According to Aristotle, ‘For tyranny is a kind of monarchy which has in view
the interest of the monarch only; oligarchy has in view the interest of the wealthy;
democracy, of the needy: none of them the common good of all. Tyranny, as I was
saying, is monarchy exercising the rule of a master over the political society; oligarchy
is when men of property have the government in their hands; democracy, the opposite,
when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers.’ He rests his case
with recommending polity. ‘Simply speaking, polity is a mixture of oligarchy and
democracy’ (1293a32). We need to remember that polity is one of the correct regimes
and keeps the interests of the political community in mind. In order to create a
successful polity, a combination of oligarchy and democracy needs to be made.
While in democracy the rich are paid to serve on a jury, in an oligarchy, the poor are
paid to serve and the rich fined for not serving the state free of cost.
‘Kyklos’ is the term used by Greek philosophers for the political cycles of
government. This concept was first elaborated in Plato’s Republic and has been
endorsed by Aristotle as well. Aristotle believes the cycle begins with monarchy and
ends in anarchy, but that it does not start anew.
1.3.4 Slavery
Aristotle considered slavery to be natural to human beings. In fact, he considered it
be an integral part of the household, which he justified as natural and hence, moral.
This conclusion of his can be justified from the fact that during his time slavery was
rampant and part of the domestic economy. The basis of his theory is the fact that
natural inequality exists among humans and superior humans behave differently
towards the weaker or the inferior. Thus, functions or activities of humans should be
based on this natural segregation. That is to say, the superior functions in the society,
i.e., ruling the state, should be carried out by the superior intellects and works of
labour should be carried out by the weaker intellects, who, in most cases, have
stronger physique.
Justification for Slavery
As mentioned earlier, Aristotle believed slavery to be a part of the household, hence
an institution in itself. A household consist of husbands, wife, children, freeman and
slaves. Slaves were considered a living possession of a household and a tool that
undertook actions at the command of the master. While in reality, a tool is lifeless, a
slave has life and is worth many tools.
He was critical of his criticises who considered slavery as unjust. He argued
that not having slaves would be contrary to nature and its laws. Humans with low
intellect were destined to act on commands while men endowed with high intellect
are fit to command and direct. Thus, the former is by nature a slave and the latter a
Self-Instructional Material 21
Western Classical Political master. Physically there are different; the former can only do menial duties and the
Thinkers
latter can take up military duties and hold public services. While one has the mental
strength and ability to take decisions and foresee the future, the other lacks mental
ability to take decisions. Hence, the slave is to the master what the body is to the
NOTES mind.
Just by virtue of the rule of the mind over the body, a man is destined to
become a master and the other a slave. Consequently, a slave should be used as any
other property. Aristotle says that a slave is not only a slave but his master’s property.
Aristotle further justifies that it is necessary for the society to have slaves as
it essential to boost the morale and intellect of the superior humans. Also, the facilities
required to develop the institutions for the development of the superior humans can
be done at leisure, which is not possible without having slaves. Aristotle further says
that a slave shares his master’s life and hence, his intellect.
However, he makes some distinctions between natural slavery and slavery
made compulsory by law. In case a man is made a slave, subjected to law, he
becomes a prisoner. He goes on to say that the offspring of a slave might not
become a natural slave. In case his intellect is superior, he may become a freeman.
He adds that all humans should be given the opportunity to emancipate. He, however,
does not allow enslavement of a Greek by a Greek, and tell the master to not ill-treat
their slaves.
1.3.5 Theory of Citizenship
Aristotle gives his general theory of citizenship in part III of Politics. He distinguishes
citizens from other inhabitants, such as resident aliens, slaves, even children, seniors
and ordinary workers. According to him a citizen is a person possessing the right to
participate in ‘deliberative or judicial office’. Citizens were those who had the right
to be part of juries, the assembly, the council and other bodies as was the case in
Athens, where the citizens were directly involved in governance. However, full
citizenship was not given to women, slaves and foreigners. The city-state, according
to Aristotle, comprised several such citizens. He considered the constitution as a
tool for organizing the various offices of the city-state. The governing body is defined
by the constitution (comprising either the people in a democratic set-up or a chosen
handful in an oligarchy).
The benefit that is common to all in forming a city-state is the attainment of
noble life. Aristotle also states that an individual can rule over another in many ways
depending on his own nature and the nature of the subject. The master-slave
relationship represents despotic rule wherein the slaves cannot function without a
natural master to instruct or direct them. It is a form of rule which exists primarily
for the master and is only incidental for the slaves who are born without the skill of
self-governance.
The second form of rule, paternal or marital, asserts that the male possesses
more leadership qualities than the female. Similarly, children lack the ability to
rationalize and cannot do without the supervision of adults. Aristotle firmly believed
that paternal or marital rule was necessary for the sake of the women and children,
22 Self-Instructional Material
a thought that was criticized by many modern thinkers. However, Aristotle was Western Classical Political
Thinkers
somewhat right in believing that the rule that benefitted both the ruler and the subject
were just whereas the rule that was advantageous only to the ruler was unjust and
inappropriate for the community consisting of free individuals. Going by this logic,
the case of a single ruler is just if it is a kingship and unjust if it is a tyranny. Similarly, NOTES
in case of a few rulers, aristocracy is just whereas oligarchy is certainly unjust. In
case of several rulers, polity is correct while democracy was considered deviant by
Aristotle.
According to Aristotle, the city-state is not a business enterprise concerned
with wealth maximization. It is not an association promoting equality and liberty
either. The city-state, in fact, attempts to achieve good life. Therefore, aristocracy,
he felt, was the best option wherein political rights could be assigned to those who
could make good use of it in the interest of the community. His ideal constitution
comprised fully virtuous citizens.
Aristotle divides knowledge into practical, theoretical and productive
knowledge. While theoretical knowledge is aimed at action, productive knowledge
addresses daily needs. Practical knowledge deals with knowledge of how to live
and how to act. It is possible to lead a good life by making use of practical knowledge.
Both ethics and politics are considered practical sciences and are concerned with
human beings as moral agents. While ethics deals with how human beings act as
individuals, politics deals with how human beings act in communities. However,
Aristotle felt that both ethics and politics influence each other. According to him,
abstract knowledge of ethics and politics is useless because practical knowledge is
useful only if we act on it. Both should be practiced to attain goodness or to become
good.
In his works Aristotle mentions that it is not for a young man to study politics
because he lacks experience. Also, he rightly states that youngsters act according to
emotions instead of reason. Without reason it is impossible to act on practical
knowledge, therefore, young students are not equipped to study politics. Very few
possessed the practical experiences of life and the mental discipline to gain from a
study of politics, which is why a very low percentage of the population in Athens
was given the benefits of citizenship or political participation.
Political and moral knowledge cannot possess the same level of precision or
certainty as mathematics. For example, there cannot really be a fixed and accurate
definition of ‘justice’. On the contrary, many things in geometry or mathematics
such as a point or an angle can be defined precisely. These definitions will not
change either. This is probably why Aristotle refrains from listing set rules to be
followed for making ethical and political decisions. Instead, he expects readers of
his works to become people who know what is the correct thing to do or the right
manner to act in a situation when faced with it.
Ethics and politics are interlinked because of the ultimate purpose they serve.
Human beings also have a purpose which they need to fulfil. This ultimate aim,
Aristotle feels, is ‘happiness’. However, happiness cannot be achieved without leading
a life of virtue. A person who chooses to do a particular thing because he feels it is
Self-Instructional Material 23
Western Classical Political the right thing to do will lead a flourishing life. An individual can be happy and also
Thinkers
possess a high degree of moral values only if he is placed in a political community
that is well-constructed. A well-constructed political community will encourage and
promote the right actions and ban the wrong ones and educate people about what is
NOTES right and what is wrong. This is where the link between ethics and politics becomes
clear.
Aristotle saw the political community as a partnership of citizens who pursue
a common good. It is the responsibility of the city-state to help its citizens attain
good. Each individual will try to achieve his individual goal or purpose, that of happiness.
In this way, all the individuals put together will achieve happiness or goodness.
Aristotle brings us face to face with the truth that we as individuals need to
figure out how best to lead our lives together in a group. To figure this out, human
beings, unlike animals, use the ability to reason and talk. Using this ability, they
create laws that help practice justice and facilitate survival. People, in groups, all
pursuing virtuous lives, together form a city. In the absence of this city and justice,
human begins would be as good as animals. The most important element of a city is
not the pursuit of security or wealth and riches but the pursuit of virtue and happiness.
1.3.6 Revolution
Aristotle discussed at great length on revolution in part V of his book Politics. His
ideas were shaped after reading around 158 constitutions. Before giving a scientific
analysis of the implications of revolution, Aristotle gave a broad meaning of the term
revolution, which meant two things to him. First, revolution is any kind of change,
major or minor, that is brought about in the constitution. That is to say, when a
change is noticed in the structure of the ruling body — monarchy or oligarchy.
Second, it implies a change in the ruling power, which may or may not bring a
change in the government or constitution. He also stated that a revolution can be
both direct and indirect, which can affect a particular institution.
Causes of Revolution
Aristotle classifies the reasons of revolution in two categories — one is the general
causes and the other, revolution in a particular type of state.
Let us first talk about the general causes.
All human being want to be treated equally. Whenever there is a variation in
this treatment, say favourable or unfavourable, revolutions will take place. In states
where inequality is high, the chances of revolution are higher. On the other hand,
24 Self-Instructional Material
states where the level of equality is higher, there is stability. Hence, lesser inequality Western Classical Political
Thinkers
would means less chances of revolution.
He further explains that failure of the political order to distribute property
fairly is likely to lead to tension and finally revolution. Aristotle says that less virtuous
humans motivated by the urge to hold property are the most likely force behind any NOTES
upheaval.
To Aristotle, the general causes of revolution can be tackled by
• Inculcating the habit of abiding law by citizens
• Treating various sections of the society with consideration
• Educating the citizens that the spirit of constitution is the highest
• Awarding political offices on a temporary basis
• Ensuring equal distribution of political power among citizens
• Rewarding citizens as often as possible
• Restricting foreigners from holding public offices
Coming to particular causes, Aristotle explains inequalities which are prevalent
in various forms of government. In an oligarchy or monarchy, democracy is a less
permanent feature as power is held by a restricted few. The sole reason for revolution
in such cases are jealousy of those who possess wealth and honour. But there are
other factors such as oppression of the oligarchy, dissent among the members of the
oligarchy, attraction of power, failure of the middle class to maintain balance, racial
antagonism, and fear of the law or of its abuse, personal rivalries and so on. Under
monarchy, injustice and arrogance are the causes of insurrection or fear, or contempt
for incompetence, coupled with ambition. In aristocracy, the thought of revolution
germinates from the feeling of being left out in the run for power, personal ambition,
and greater inequality in wealth. In a democracy, revolution is caused due to the
demagogic attacks on wealth as they finally lead to establishment of oligarchy and
tyranny.
1.4 MACHIAVELLI
Niccolò Machiavelli was a philosopher, author and Italian politician who is considered
as the founder of modern political science. As a Renaissance man, he was a diplomat,
a political philosopher, a musician, a poet and a playwright, but the most important
role he played was that of a civil servant of the Florentine Republic. He is well
known for his short political discourse the Prince. This is a work of realistic political
Self-Instructional Material 25
Western Classical Political theory. Nevertheless, both the Prince and the Republican Discourses that dealt
Thinkers
with more serious issues, were not published until after Machiavelli’s died.
It was Machiavelli’s firm belief that the basis of contemporary politics was
selfish political seizure and violence and not good Christian ethics. Though the Papacy
NOTES was successful in maintaining some law and order, the Holy Roman Empire continued
to disintegrate and international relations continued to become chaotic.
Machiavelli’s period was the transition stage between the middle and the
modern ages. Spirituality, salvation and god dominated the dogmatic Christian theology
and social morality were free thoughts not considered at all. Machiavelli specifically
believed in the historical method, because he preferred practical rather than
speculative politics. As a realist in politics, he did not care much for the philosophy of
politics. His writings expound a theory of the government and actual working of its
machinery rather than the state and the abstract principles of constitution.
1.4.1 Modern Absolutism: Machiavelli’s Theory of Political
Power
From Greek philosophy to Renaissance all philosophers and thinkers dealt with the
end of the state. They thought that the political power of the state would be used as
a means to achieve further end. All political thinkers from Plato, Aristotle to the
Middle age (till 16th century) had concerned themselves with the central question of
the end of the state and had considered state-power as a means to a higher end
conceived in moral terms. But Machiavelli adopted a quite different line. To him the
power of the state is the end of the state. i.e., every state must aim at maximizing its
power. The failure of the state to do so will throw it into great turmoil. Consequently,
he confined his attention to the means best suited to the acquisition, retention and
expansion of power of the state.
State is the highest form of human association. It is indispensable for the
promotion of human welfare. State is to be worshipped even by sacrificing the
individual for the interest of the state. A ruler must remember that whatever brings
success is due to power. For acquiring political power he can use any type of means.
Political statesman plays important role in organizing state, and providing it with
safety and security. Hence, the major theme of Prince is the process of acquiring
power.
Modern power politics cannot be thought of without any reference to
Machiavelli and his book the Prince.
The Prince and its central theme
The Discourses and The Art of War were Machiavelli’s famous books. It contains
analysis of body politics. The Prince is a handbook on the art of government and
state craft. Hence, it is said that the Prince is not an academic work on political-
science but a book on the art of governance. It is in the form of advice and addressed
to any ruler.
26 Self-Instructional Material
Machiavelli’s Justification for a Powerful State Western Classical Political
Thinkers
Machiavelli acquired practical experience of politics of his time. He was born in
Florence, Italy, in 1469 in a well-to-do family, when Prince Medici was at the height
of his power. At the age of 25, he entered the government service as a clerk chancery.
NOTES
Within a very short period he was appointed as an ambassador, after that he became
secretary of the king. His administrative and political experience determined his
views about politics.
Machiavelli lived in Renaissance Italy and was greatly influenced by the new
spirit. The intellectual awakening injected rational scientific approach in every sphere
of human life as renaissance replaced the faith by reason. Italy was the hotbed of
Renaissance, the most modern and urbanized country of Europe. But in Italy the
wealth, intellect and artistic achievements were accompanied by moral degradation
and political chaos. The worst aspect of the period during which Machiavelli lived
was rampant corruption and selfishness among Italian rulers and church officials
Machiavelli represents the culture, which was undergoing a period of deep political
crisis.
Italy consisted of a very large number of small but independent states. Some
of these states like Florence and Venice were republics, while others were ruled by
despots. Internally, these states were the home of fierce political rivalries and personal
ambition and externally they were involved in a constant struggle with one another.
This political division of Italy and the struggle between the states made the country
weak and a prey for the ambitions of the powerful neighbouring states of France,
Prussia and Spain. France invaded Italy and defeated the Medici rulers. Machiavelli
was witness to this tragedy. It was this traumatic experience that made Machiavelli
conclude that unless Italy was united under a strong central government, the country
would always remain under the threat of conquest and annexation by neighbouring
countries.
Machiavelli was a true patriot who thought of the plight of Italy and looked
for remedies. He did not recommend a republican form of government for Italy, as
it presupposes virtuous, honest and patriotic citizens, whereas the sixteenth century
Italians were corrupt and selfish. He suggested a strong and powerful ruler for Italy.
He was not interested in idealistic conception of the state. His chief interest
was concentrated in the unity of body politic and power. He adopted an empirical
method. He studied records of the medieval age from 4th century to 15th century.
This age was characterized by the feudal state. In this order, the king divided his
dominions into many parts. Each part was granted to a noble or tenant chief. There
were no common laws and central authority. In short, the feudal system was a
confusion. Of this confusion, the church emerged as the superior authority. This
resulted in continuous conflict between the spiritual and temporal authorities. The
Pope claimed superiority over the prince.
The state (civil authority) was merely the police department of the church.
Thus, a true national life could not grow in such a system. Machiavelli analysed the
entire Italian society and concluded that feudalism and the church not only destroyed
Self-Instructional Material 27
Western Classical Political the identity and importance of the state, but the state was considered a subordinate
Thinkers
of the church.
But Machiavelli completely divorced religion from politics. He broke the
medieval tradition that the political authority is under the control of the church. He
NOTES made the state totally independent of the church by saying that the state has its own
rules of conduct to follow, that it is the highest, supreme and autonomous body. He
said the state is superior to all associations in the human society. He rejected the
feudal system and propounded all powerful central authority, who is supreme over
all institutions.
The central theme of Machiavelli’s political ideas is power. He highlighted
power as an essential ingredient of politics. According to him, moral code of individual
prescribed by the church cannot provide guidelines to the ruler. According to
Machiavelli, a ruler must remember that whatever brings success is due to power.
For acquiring political power he can use any means. He said politics is a constant
struggle for power. All politics is power politics.
For Machiavelli, absolute state was the end and for this, means was power.
He said the sole aim of the ‘prince’ was to make the country strong and united,
establish peace and order and expel the foreign invader. To achieve this end any
means would be satisfactory.
1.4.2 Prince
Machiavelli’s Prince is in the form of advice given to a ruler on statecraft. Some
significant aspects of the advice to the ruler are as follows:
• Doctrine of raison d’état
• End justifies the means
• State is sovereign, autonomous and non-religious
• A prince must combine the qualities of a lion and a fox
• Use a double standard of morality
• Favour despotic rule
• Maintain strong army
• Human nature is low and ungrateful, so a prince must consider this nature of
man
• He should win the popularity of his people must not touch the property of the
people
28 Self-Instructional Material
• A prince must have council of wise men and not of flatterers Western Classical Political
Thinkers
• Separate politics from religion
• Remain free from emotions
Elaborating on the doctrine of raison d’état (reason of state), Machiavelli NOTES
says it implies actions and policies promoting safety and security of the state. Because
the state must preserve itself before it promotes the welfare of its people. For
preserving and safeguarding itself, all means adopted by the state are justified by
Machiavelli. According to him, in politics, one is guided by the harsh realities of
political life, which is a struggle for power and survival. The actions of the state
must be judged only on the basis of raison d’état, i.e., independent, self-sufficient,
well-ordered and well maintain state. Machiavelli advised the prince in preserving
and safeguarding this type of state through means well justified by the state.
A prince, hence, should give priority to power. Morality and ethics have
different spheres. It cannot be mingled with the reason of the state. To a prince,
power of state is of supreme importance. Self-sufficiency of the state means the
state will have its own army, a strong and unified government, unity and integrity
among the people and solid economic foundation.
End justifies means: It is a very famous statement of Machiavelli which he
justified for the ‘reason of state’. He assumed that the state is the highest form of
human association. The state is to be worshipped like a deity even by sacrificing the
individual. A ruler must remember that whatever brings success and power is virtuous,
even cunningness and shrewdness is justified. Politics is the most precarious game.
It can never be played in a decent and orderly manner. The state has some primary
objectives and responsibilities like protection of life, maintenance of law and order
and looking after wellbeing of its members. Hence, the state must have adequate
means at its disposal.
State is sovereign, autonomous and non-religious: Machiavelli said the
state is superior to all associations in the human society. It is a sovereign and
autonomous body; moral and religious considerations cannot bind the prince. A prince
is above the prelims of morality. He can use religion to realize his ends. Religion
cannot influence politics and the church cannot control the state. In fact, sovereign
state enjoys absolute power over all individuals and institutions.
A state is necessary for all institutions. It stands on a wholly different footing
and, therefore, must be judged by different standards. State power is the end and
religion is its organ and instrument. The state came into being to satisfy material
interests of the people. Machiavelli divorced politics from theology and government
from religion. He did not view the state as having a moral end and purpose, but gave
importance to man’s worldly life. He said politics is an independent activity with its
own principles and laws.
A prince must combine the qualities of a lion and a fox: Machiavelli advised
the prince to imitate the qualities of the fox and the lion. Imitating the fox (cunningness,
foresight) will enable him to visualize his goal and means to achieve it. Imitating the
lion will give him necessary strength and force to achieve that goal. A fox might
Self-Instructional Material 29
Western Classical Political have shrewdness and foresight, but he is powerless without necessary force of a
Thinkers
lion. Similarly, a lion without shrewdness and prudence of a fox would be reckless.
Hence, a ruler who wants to be very successful must combine in himself the qualities
of both fox and lion. He must possess the fearless attitude of a lion and cunningness
NOTES of a fox. Physical force is necessary when there is anarchy and indiscipline. But law
and morality is essential to check selfishness of people and to generate civic virtues.
Use double standard of politics: Here Machiavelli says that there should
be different political standards for the ruler and the ruled. According to him, morality
is not necessary for the ruler. He is creator of law and morality, hence, the prince is
above both.
A ruler has primary duty of preserving the state. For this purpose he may use
instruments of lie, conspiracy, killings and massacre. Because absolute morality is
neither possible nor desirable in politics. He insisted that morality is essential for
people. Only moral citizens willingly obey laws of the state and sacrifice their lives
for their nation. It cultivates civic sense and patriotic spirit. Thus, Machiavelli
prescribes double standard of morality.
Favoured despotic ruler: Machiavelli did not recommend the republican
form of government, because republican form requires virtuous, honest and patriotic
citizens. He also advised the prince to convert his monarchy into a republic. He
warns the prince against corruption and misuse of power for evil purposes.
According to Machiavelli, the government is founded upon the weakness and
insufficient capacity of the citizen. If in a society men are corrupt and selfish and the
law is powerless, then normal administration is not possible. A superior power is
essential for bringing the society into order. The government with absolute power
stop the excessive desires and control the behaviour of the people.
Maintain strong army: Machiavelli recommended constant military
preparedness for the preservation of the state. The prince should organize a strong
army to meet any internal and external threat to his power. Strong and regular army
is a must for a state for its own defence. The state should build its own independent
and regular army with faithful men at service. Such an army should consist of its
own citizens and be prepared not only to defend its national borders but also to
expand. The citizens must be trained for army service and all able bodied persons
should have compulsory military training.
Human nature is low and ungrateful, so the prince must consider this
nature of man: According to Machiavelli, rational analysis of politics must begin
with an account of human nature. He viewed the activities of man with special
interest and explained human nature. He viewed men to be a compound of weakness,
ungrateful, fearful, lusting for power and essentially bad.
Prominent traits of human nature are (i) there is no limit to human desires. He
is selfish and aggressive. Hence, there is strife and competition. (ii) The masses are
interested in security. They realize that only laws of the state can ensure security
hence they co-operate with the state and obey the laws. Hence, a ruler who wants
to be successful must ensure security of life and protection of people. (iii) People
must be restrained by force because force breeds fear. Only force and repression
30 Self-Instructional Material
can keep control and check on the evil tendencies in man. Hence, the method of Western Classical Political
Thinkers
government should be force and not persuasion. (iv) By nature every human being
is ambitious and remains unsatisfied. No human being in content with his position.
He is always after domination. Enmities and wars are the outcome of this desire.
Thus, human nature is selfish, power hungry, quarrelsome and guided by materialistic NOTES
considerations. Only fear of punishment is a powerful bond and it never fails.
Should be popular and try to win the heart of his people: A prince should
try to win popularity, goodwill and affection of his people. He should keep his subjects
materially contented by not imposing tax on them. The prince should not interfere in
age old customs and traditions of his people because by nature people are
conservative. He should not crave for wealth and women of his own subjects. He
should keep a watchful eye on his dissidents.
A prince must have council of wise men and not of flatterers: Powerful
government and internal unity were essential for any state. A prince must choose
wise men in his council and should give them full liberty to speak the truth to him. He
must ask them about everything and hear their opinion and afterwards deliberate by
himself in his own way.
Separate politics from religion: Before Machiavelli, medieval political
philosophers believed that religion was the basis of the state. But Machiavelli
emancipated the state completely from the control of the church. He denied medieval
philosophy of religion. He repudiates the theory of Aquinas that man needs the
guidance of the divine law. Machiavelli said that only end which man can place
before himself is the pursuit of his well-being in his material values in life. He did not
view the prince as having a moral end and purpose but gave importance to man’s
worldly life. He believed that politics is an independent activity with its own principles
and laws. Moral and religions considerations cannot bind the prince, state is above
and outside the religion.
Machiavelli does not ignore religion and morality. He gave only an instrumental
value to religion and said it should be used as an organ of the state. He advised the
ruler that religion play important role in the life of a community. According to him,
religion is necessary for unity and integrity of the people within the state. Common
religion creates a sense of unity among people. Religious rites and beliefs establish
social harmony. It also cultivate civic sense and patriotic spirit.
Lack of respect for religion among the citizen is a sign of downfall for the
state. He said religion cannot influence politics and the church cannot control the
state. In fact, the sovereign state enjoys absolute power over all individuals and
institutions. As such the church is subordinate to the state. Thus, Machiavelli separated
religion from politics and paved way for emergence of the secular state.
He was not against the religion and morality. He only propose two different
standards of morality and placed the sate above morality and religion. According to
Machiavelli, the state is the highest form of social organisation and the most necessary
of all institutions. It stands on a wholly different footing and must, therefore, be
judged by different standards. He said politics is an independent activity with its own
principles and laws. State is non-religious and secular. It has its own rules of conduct
Self-Instructional Material 31
Western Classical Political to follow. Machiavelli sanctioned the use of immoral mans by the ruler whenever it
Thinkers
was necessary to do so to save the state. Thus, separation of politics from ethics is
the essence of Machiavellian.
Prince must be free from emotions: A prince should exploit emotions of his
NOTES people for the purpose of the state. He should be cool, calculating and opportunist.
His suggestion is that a prince must know how to act as a beast.
Ordered state: In the Prince, Machiavelli advocated absolutism and an
effective government. This advocacy of absolutism was due to the fact that he had
witnessed anarchy, lawlessness, corruption and misrule that prevailed in Italy of his
times. He had witnessed how King Charles VIII of France had captured Florence
without being offered resistance. Therefore, Machiavelli advocated a well-organised,
ordered and militarily strong state. Without a strong state, a country had no hope of
survival in international politics. He believed that an ordered state was the only
security against forces of external aggression and internal chaos.
1.4.3 Evaluation of Machiavelli’s Political Thought
32 Self-Instructional Material
Criticism Western Classical Political
Thinkers
Machiavelli suggested power politics is the means and authoritarian state as the
end. This thought of Machiavelli leads to absolutism and narrow nationalism. Power
politics cannot be end, it will lead to autocracy and war.
NOTES
He ignored individualism, i.e., individual liberty, equality and justice. He
sacrificed individual at the altar of the state. Also, he held one sided views of human
nature. In Machiavelli’s view, men are universally bad. This is a biased view of
human nature. He ignores the fact that much of civilization is based on the social
and co-operative instincts of men.
He believed materialism is the product of renaissance and politics, and power
and wealth are its central concepts. Morality and idealism became less important.
According to Machiavelli, politics and power are instruments for strengthening and
unifying a state. Hence, he separated politics from religion. According to
Machiavellian, though the sole aim of a prince is unification and welfare of the state,
he explained the practical aspects of politics. He keenly observed the affairs of the
state and interstate rivalries. From his observation he deduced that the powerful
government and internal unity were the essential of any state. Hence, he
recommended constant military preparedness for the preservation of the state. Thus,
Machiavelli’s writings were free from the abstract ideals and based on facts.
According to him, the sole aim of a prince is to be an expert in managing and
organizing a war, because it is the only way of increasing power. Power is the only
reason of the state. Thus, Machiavelli justified utility of war.
Machiavelli on Ethics, Religion and Politics
Till the 15th century the state was working under the dominance of church and
religion. There were conflict between the state and the church for power, where the
church was more aggressive. Before Machiavelli, Aristotle separated politics from
philosophy and gave separate status to political science as a subject.
But Machiavelli completely divorced religion from politics and tried to
subordinate religion to the state. He repudiated the theory of Aquinas that man
needs the guidance of the divine law. Machiavelli said that only end which man can
place before himself is the pursuit of his wellbeing in his life i.e. material values.
State came into being to satisfy material needs.
He differentiated between public and private morality. While Plato and
Aristotle believed in moral nature and ethical ends of the state, Machiavelli completely
disregarded this view of the state. According to him there is vital difference between
the ruler and the citizens. He insisted that morality is essential to people. Only morally
awakened citizens willingly obey laws of the state and sacrifice their lives for their
nation. But morality is not necessary for the ruler. He is the creator of law and
morality hence, he is above both. A ruler has primary duty of preserving the state.
He may use instruments of lie, conspiracy and killings for the state.
He said absolute morality is neither possible nor desirable in politics. For
example, a corrupt state cannot be reformed without heavy dose of violence.
Self-Instructional Material 33
Western Classical Political Machiavelli does not ignore religion and morality. He wants to use the religion
Thinkers
and church as an instrument for creating national customs and habits for creating
national thought which will help the state in preserving peace and order and
maintaining the stability of society. Prince must preserve the purity of all religious
NOTES observances and treat them with proper reverence. Common religion creates a
sense of unity among people.
Machiavelli proposed two different standards of morality and placed the state
above morality. Thus, Machiavelli divorced politics from theology and government
from politics. He gave the state a non-religious character. He did not view the state
as having a moral end and purpose but gave importance to man’s worldly life. He
believed that politics is an independent activity with its own principles and law.
1.4.4 Secularism
Machiavelli borrowed the idea of secularism from the philosophy of Marsiglio. He
put emphasis on the secular character of the state and did not take cognizance of
the principle of ‘divine law’, a theory that was prevalent during the medieval period.
He not only alienated the spiritual and the sequential, but also made the spiritual
secondary to the chronological authority. This was in contrast to the medieval way
of philosophy in which spirit was treated as better to the temporal power.
Machiavelli was the first thinker to justify the study of the state as a secular
institution. According to him state is a secular political institution; a power system. A
strong state should have a uniform population and should own public spirit. He puts
emphasis on element of national unity and national homogeneity and the concentration
of power at the centre i.e. absolutism.
Machiavelli talks of secular state in the Discourses. He talks of equality as
an essential ingredient for a steady self-governing system.
He comprehends that a simple lawful arrangement is not enough. A practical
legal establishment needs a matching social constitution. It is a system of social
institutions that hold up the legal structure of the state. And of all these institutions,
says Machiavelli, none is extra imperative than that of religious belief. Such a view
appears at first astonishing given Machiavelli’s religious belief and the logic that he
considered irreligious. Machiavelli’s keen interest in religious belief is strictly political
biased. It is not based on theology.
As a political practical person, Machiavelli was the first to point out the political
significance of religion. In the words of Machiavelli, religion provides a heavenly
sanction to the laws without which the people would have no cause to follow. He
disapproved the functions of the Church for political reasons but not for religious
34 Self-Instructional Material
motive. But Machiavelli’s political assessment of the church went beyond a Western Classical Political
Thinkers
disapproval of its participation in secular affairs. Machiavelli was at best ambivalent
about Christianity .To the degree that Machiavelli did have a spiritual preference; it
was for the pagan religion of ancient times.
In the backdrop of secularism, the state has a standard inclination to make NOTES
bigger or produce in power. Machiavelli said that this inclination is present both in
the Republican as well as monarchical state. Under the monarchy the prince resorts
to strategy of development because of his insatiable desire for power. On the other
hand under the republican system, it has to follow strategy of development per force
of consideration of its continuation in the competitive world. He realized that the
ancient Roman republic as the most excellent instance of a healthy state. To him the
gaining of an empire is as normal to a state as growth to a human body. He emotionally
involved great significance to the interaction of money-oriented attention and even
subordinated the church to the state. He realized that church was subject to
commanding organization.
He requested the Prince to give due respect the spirit of religion which has
been confined to his subjects. He considered religion as an expedient gadget to
work out authority in excess of the people. It grows among the citizens the character
of humbleness, obedience, respect of law etc. He repeatedly requested the ruler to
make use of this authoritative tool to restrain the anti- social activities of the populace.
He realized that it is the best alternative to make sure men’s evil and chaotic
propensity. He treats religion is necessary for the physical condition and affluence
of the state.
1.5 SUMMARY
36 Self-Instructional Material
Western Classical Political
1.6 KEY TERMS Thinkers
1. Plato believed rather than following the political path and tradition he should
take on the path of education and educating people.
2. Plato’s political theory was based upon Socrates’ teaching. It was intended to
change the existing conditions, not to merely create an exercise in abstract
thinking.
3. Plato’s theory of justice in the state argues that the state is natural because
no one is self-sufficient. Hence, he elaborates his argument with the theory
of division of labour.
4. Plato proposes in the first account that the aim of education should be to
control the guards and curb their tendency to rule and convert them into what
he calls ‘noble puppies’, who can fight fiercely with the enemies, and behave
gently with those who are familiar to them.
5. Music and gymnastics are the two main elements of education for state guards.
6. The aim of philosopher kings’ education is not the attainment of four virtues
but the knowledge of good, which is considered as the ultimate virtue by
Socrates.
7. Plato’s Socrates uses his famous cave analogy to explain how education can
be used to possess the knowledge of good.
8. The Law is concerned with the number of people that education will transform
as patriots. And for this very reason the argument of the dialogue is for the
public character of the education, which is only possible when it is imparted in
the public building designed especially for that purposes.
9. In his works on psychology, Aristotle defined the soul as the expression or
realization of a natural body. He regarded the soul or mind as the truth of the
body and not as the outcome of its physiological conditions.
10. Aristotle divides knowledge into practical, theoretical and productive
knowledge.
Self-Instructional Material 37
Western Classical Political 11. Depending upon the number of people involved in governing and the focus of
Thinkers
their interests, Aristotle distinguished six kinds of social structure in three
pairs:
• A state with only one ruler is either a monarchy or a tyranny
NOTES • A state with several rulers is either an aristocracy or an oligarchy
• A state in which all rule is either a polity or a democracy
12. According to Aristotle, a citizen is a person possessing the right to participate
in ‘deliberative or judicial office’.
13. Full citizenship was not given to women, slaves and foreigners.
14. According to Aristotle, revolution had a broad definition, which had two
implications for him. First, revolution is any kind of change, major or minor,
that is brought about in the constitution. That is to say, when a change is
noticed in the structure of the ruling body — monarchy or oligarchy. Second,
it implies a change in the ruling power, which may or may not bring a change
in the government or constitution.
15. To Aristotle, the general causes of revolution can be tackled by
• Inculcating the habit of abiding law by citizens
• Treating various sections of the society with consideration
• Educating the citizens that the spirit of constitution is the highest
• Awarding political offices on a temporary basis
• Ensuring equal distribution of political power among citizens
• Rewarding citizens as often as possible
• Restricting foreigners from holding public offices
16. It was Machiavelli’s firm belief that the basis of contemporary politics was
selfish political seizure and violence and not good Christian ethics.
17. State is the highest form of human association. It is indispensable for the
promotion of human welfare. State is to be worshipped even by sacrificing
the individual for the interest of the state.
18. The Prince is a handbook on the art of government and state craft. It is in the
form of advice and addressed to any ruler.
19. Elaborating on the doctrine of raison d’état (reason of state), Machiavelli
says it implies actions and policies promoting safety and security of the state.
Because the state must preserve itself before it promotes the welfare of its
people. For preserving and safeguarding itself, all means adopted by the state
are justified.
20. Some of the qualities a prince must possess are:
• Combine the qualities of a lion and a fox
• Use a double standard of morality
• Maintain strong army
• Separate politics from religion
• Remain free from emotions
38 Self-Instructional Material
21. Machiavelli borrowed the idea of secularism from the philosophy of Marsiglio. Western Classical Political
Thinkers
22. According to Machiavelli, a secular state should keep religion separate from
administration and not follow the principle of ‘divine law’.
NOTES
1.8 QUESTIONS AND EXERCISES
Short-Answer Questions
1. Why did Plato try to teach the philosophical ideas of Socrates to the rulers?
2. What argument does Plato give on division of labour?
3. What was the position of women in Aristotle’s city-state?
4. Write a note on citizenship as discussed by Aristotle.
5. Write about the particular situations/causes where revolutions are likely to
take place, according to Aristotle.
6. What was Machiavelli’s view on the state?
7. What justification did Machiavelli give for the existence of a powerful state?
Long-Answer Questions
2. Do you think The Republic is a dialogue? Give your arguments.
3. What do you understand by Plato’s concept of communism?
4. What was Aristotle’s view about citizenship?
5. What were the causes of revolution according to Aristotle?
6. Discuss Aristotle’s view on slavery.
7. Examine Machiavelli’s views on the following:
(i) Politics and morality
(ii) State and religion
(iii) End justifies the means
8. ‘Machiavelli laid the foundation of power politics’. Comment.
9. Explain Machiavelli’s advice to the prince for powerful state.
10. ‘Machiavelli laid the foundation of modern political thought’. Discuss.
Kraut, Richard (ed.). 1997. Plato’s Republic: Critical Essays. UK: Oxford.
R. F. Ferrari, G. (ed.). 2003. Plato: The Republic. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Copleston, Frederick, S. J. 1946. A History of Philosophy. Vol. I. Maryland: The
Newman Bookshop.
Gomperz, T. 1964. Greek Thinkers. Vol. IV. London: John Murray.
Self-Instructional Material 39
Western Classical Political Ross, W. D. 1937. Aristotle. London: Methuen.
Thinkers
Cronin, Michael. 1922. The Science of Ethics. Vol. II. New York: Benziger Bros.
Strauss, Leo. 1958. Thoughts on Machiavelli. London: University of Chicago Press
NOTES Ltd.
Skinner, Quentin, Russell Price (ed.). 2003. Machiavelli: The Prince. UK:
Cambridge University Press.
40 Self-Instructional Material
Modern Political Thinkers
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.2 BENTHAM
Jeremy Bentham, widely known as the founder of utilitarianism, also played the
multiple roles of a philosopher, a jurist, a social reformer and an activist. A leading
theorist in Anglo-American philosophy of law, Bentham is seen as a political radical
whose ideas paved the way for the development of welfarism. He is popularly
associated with the concept of utilitarianism, and the panopticon. His position entailed
arguments in favour of individual and economic freedom, usury, the separation of
church and state, freedom of expression, equal rights for women, the right to divorce,
42 Self-Instructional Material
and the decriminalizing of homosexual acts. He also fought for the abolition of slavery Modern Political Thinkers
and the death penalty and for the elimination of physical punishment, including that
of children. Even though he was on the side of extension of individual legal rights, he
was against the idea of natural law and natural rights, referring to them as ‘nonsense
upon stilts.’ He can be seen as one of the most influential utilitarian and his ideas NOTES
were brought to the fore through his works and that of his students. Here we have
his secretary and collaborator on the utilitarian school of philosophy, James Mill;
James Mill’s son J. S. Mill; John Austin, legal philosopher; and several political
leaders, including Robert Owe, a founder of modern socialism. He is considered the
godfather of University College London (UCL).
Bentham is often seen in relation with the foundation of the University of
London specifically University College of London (UCL), even though when UCL
opened in 1826, he was 78 years old and played no active part in its foundation. The
probable explanation is that UCL may not have been possible without his inspiration.
Among Bentham strong beliefs was that education should be more widely available,
specifically to those who were not wealthy or who did not belong to the established
church – two requirements that had to be fulfilled by both the students by Oxford
and Cambridge. UCL, being the first English university to open its doors to all
irrespective of race, creed or political belief, can be seen, thus, to be largely in
consonance with Bentham’s vision. He is credited with overseeing the appointment
of one of his pupils, John Austin, as the first professor of Jurisprudence in 1829.
Born on 15 February 1748, in London in a prosperous middle class family,
Bentham’s mother died when he was ten. His father was very strict and demanding
and arranged a thorough education for Bentham. Such an upbringing rendered
Bentham’s childhood monotonous and gloomy. Even as a child, Bentham could be
seen as deriving his primary source of enjoyment from reading books with no
inclination to play, reflecting his serious outlook.
An incident from his childhood suggests that he was nothing short of a child
prodigy: Once, as a toddler, he was found sitting at his father’s desk perusing a
multi-volume book on history of England. He began studying Latin at the age of
three. Bentham had close relations with Samuel Bentham, his one surviving sibling.
He had training as a lawyer and, was called to the bar in 1769 despite the fact that
he never even practiced. When the American colonies published their Declaration
of Independence in July 1776, the British government instead of issuing an official
response covertly commissioned London lawyer and pamphleteer John Lind to publish
a rebuttal. His 130-page tract was sent for distribution in the colonies and included
an essay titled ‘Short Review of the Declaration’, penned by Bentham, a friend of
Lind’s, which condemned and satirized America’s political philosophy.
Bentham began learning Latin at the age of three and proceeded to Queens
College, Oxford, at the young age of twelve. It is on being stationed there, that he
began developing his critical stance towards ancient or traditional ideas and
institutions. He espoused the view that the entire system of law needs an overhauling.
He had a keen interest in science, particularly in Chemistry and Botany. He was
inspired and influenced by the French Philosopher Claude Adrien Helvetius and
Self-Instructional Material 43
Modern Political Thinkers Cesare Bonesana, Marquis of Beccaria. He also drew inspiration from Feneton’s
Telemaque. From Helvetius, he took the lesson which proclaimed legislation as the
most significant of all worldly pursuits. It is from the early 1770s, that we may trace
the study of legislations becoming an important concern with Bentham. Though, he
NOTES refrained from practicing law, he nonetheless concentrated on charting out what
the lord should be, rather than delving in what it was. The period from the early
1770s to the mid1780s can be seen as marking an important phase of development
of Bentham’s ideas. During this time, he concentrated on trying to comprehend the
rational basis of law, in England as well as in other countries. During the mid-1770s,
at the age of 28, he wrote a lengthy piece criticizing William Blackstones -
Commentaries on the Laws of England. A portion of this piece appeared in 1776
as A Fragment on Government. This work had a profound influence on the Earl of
Shelbourne, a Whig aristocrat, who henceforth became his close friend. During his
close association with Earl of Shelbourne, Bentham got attracted to lady Shelbourne’s
niece Caroline Fox. This was his second love, the first being Marry Dunkley.
However, neither of the relationships led anywhere, and he remained a bachelor.
Bentham began to give his time and commitment to practical areas like public
administration, economic, social policy, in addition to working on developing a theory
on law and legislation. He laid down details for the construction of a prison or
factory or work house which is referred to as the Panopticon or the inspection
house. The panopticon was viewed as the pivotal hinge of utilitarianism, for it would
aid in scientifically meting out philosophic calculus by measuring pain justly. Though
he welcomed the French Revolution and sent forth his reform proposals, none were
accepted. Yet, he was made an honorary citizen of France in 1792 for his Draught
of a New Plan for the Organisation of the Judicial Establishment of France
(1790). The early 1800s were witness to an increase in his popularity and reputation,
which began to garner attention even in far off places like Russia and countries in
Latin America. In 1809, a close relationship between Bentham and James Mill
(1773–1836) started taking root, with Mill being convinced of the urgent need for
reforms. It is under Mill’s influence, that Bentham can be seen as having become
more radical. In 1817, he published Plan of Parliamentary Reform in the form of
catechism, and 1819 saw the completion of the draft proposals of the Radical Reform
Bill. An attack on the establishment church can be witnessed in the Church of
England in 1818. The codification of law occupied a high priority for Bentham from
the 1780s to the 1830s. He continued with his lifelong devotion to legal reform,
looking upon it as a game. Other developments ascribed to Bentham include inventing
devises like primitive telephones, suggesting reforms for the London police, the
London sewage and drainage systems, devising a central heating system, running a
law school from his home, labouring on a scheme for lowering the national debt,
securing low interest loans for the poor, planning a national public education system,
a national health service, and a national census.
Even though leading an ascetic life himself, given that saints were idlers, he is
to be seen as having regarded ascetism with contempt. He looked down upon
spiritualism and claimed that spiritualism glorified unhappiness and distrusted pleasure.
Spiritualism is, then, to be seen as being in opposition to Bentham’s unwavering
44 Self-Instructional Material
belief in happiness as the goal of all individuals. He helped in providing funds to the Modern Political Thinkers
University of London. He also composed humorous songs and was fond of rituals. It
is with progression in age that he is seen to have become light-hearted and causal.
He began, and financed, the Westminister Review in 1824 with the aim of furthering
his utilitarian principles. NOTES
The list of books penned by him include, An Introduction to the Principles
of Morals and Legislation (1789), Anarchical Fallacies (1791), Discourse on
Civils and Penal Legislation (1802), The Limits of Jurisprudence (1802), Indirect
Legislation (1802), A Theory of punishments and Rewards (1811), A treaties on
Judicial Evidence (1813), Papers Upon Codification and Public Instruction
(1817), The Book of Fallacies (1824). He also wrote Rational of Evidence (1827),
which was edited by J. S. Mill. He also had several correspondences with the Indian
thinker Ram Mohan Roy, who was his friend. Ram Mohan supported Bentham’s
negation of the natural right theory and the distinction between law and morals. He
was also appreciative of the principle of utilitarianism. Bentham lived till the age of
84 and died on 6 June, 1832. Bentham left manuscripts which account for some
5,000,000 words. Since 1968, University College London has been working on an
edition of his collected works. The Project is now attempting to bring about a
digitization of the Bentham papers and outsource their transcription. So far, 25 volumes
have come up; and there may be many more waiting in the wings to come out
before the project is completed. While most of his work was never published in his
lifetime; much of that which was published was readied for publication by others.
Several of his works first came in French translation, prepared for the press by
Etienne Dumont, while some made their first appearance in English in the 1820s
drawing from back-translation from Dumont’s 1802 collection of Bentham’s writing
on civil and penal legislation. The works which were published in Bentham’s lifetime
include:
(i) ‘Short Review of the Declaration’ (1776) was an attack on America’s
Declaration of Independence
(ii) ‘A Fragment on Government’ (1776) which served as a scathing critique
of some introductory passages relating to political theory in William
Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. The book,
published anonymously, got a good acceptance, and was ascribed to
some of the greatest minds of the time. Bentham disagreed with several
of the ideas propounded by Blackstone, such as his defense of judge-
made law and legal fictions, his theological formulation of the doctrine
of mixed government, his appeal to a social contract and his use of the
vocabulary of natural law. Bentham’s ‘Fragment’ was only a small part
of a ‘Commentary on the Commentaries’, which remained unpublished
until the twentieth century.
(iii) Introduction to Principles of Morals and Legislation (printed for
publication 1780, published 1789).
(iv) Defence of Usury (1787). Jeremy Bentham wrote a series of thirteen
‘Letters’ addressed to Adam Smith, published in 1787 as Defence of
Usury. Bentham’s main argument against the restriction was premised
Self-Instructional Material 45
Modern Political Thinkers on the view that ‘projectors’ generate positive externalities. Gilbert K.
Chesterton identified Bentham’s essay on usury as marking the very
advent of the ‘modern world.’ Bentham’s arguments had a far reaching
influence.
NOTES Many eminent writers tried to put an end to the restriction, and a repeal
was strived for in stages and fully achieved in England in 1854. There is
little evidence corroborating Smith’s reaction. He did not revise the
offending passages in The Wealth of Nations, but Smith made little or
no substantial revisions after the third edition of 1784.
(v) Panopticon (1787, 1791)
(vi) Emancipate your Colonies (1793)
(vii) Traité de Législation Civile et Penale (1802, edited by Étienne Dumont.
3 vols)
(viii) Punishments and Rewards (1811)
(ix) A Table of the Springs of Action (1815)
(x) Parliamentary Reform Catechism (1817)
(xi) Church-of-Englandism (printed 1817, published 1818) (xii) Elements
of the Art of Packing (1821)
(xii) The Influence of Natural Religion upon the Temporal Happiness
of Mankind (1822, written with George Grote and published under the
pseudonym Philip Beauchamp)
(xiii) Not Paul But Jesus (1823, published under the pseudonym Gamaliel
Smith) (xv) Book of Fallacies (1824)
(xiv) A Treatise on Judicial Evidence (1825)
John Bowring, a British politician who had been Bentham’s trusted friend,
was appointed his literary executor and given the task of bringing forth a collected
edition of his works. This appeared in 11 volumes in 1838–1843. Instead of basing
his edition on Bentham’s own manuscripts, Bowring based his edition on previously
published editions (including those of Dumont), and he did not bring out any reprint
of Bentham’s works on religion. Even though Bowring’s work includes significant
writings, such as the one on international relations as Bentham’s A Plan for the
Universal and Perpetual Peace, written 1786–89, which forms part IV of the
Principle of International Law, it has received criticism.
In 1952–54, Werner Stark published a three-volume set, Jeremy Bentham’s
Economic Writings, in which he tried collating all of Bentham’s writings on economic
matters, including both published and unpublished material. Not trusting Bowring’s
edition, he undertook great labour in reviewing thousands of Bentham’s original
manuscripts and notes; a task rendered much more difficult because of the way in
which they had been left by Bentham and organized by Bowring.
2.2.1 Utilitarian Principles
The school of thought called Utilitarianism dominated English political thinking from
the middle of the 18th century to the middle of the 19th century. Some of the early
46 Self-Instructional Material
utilitarians were Francis Hutcheson, Hume, Helvetius, Priestly, William Paley and Modern Political Thinkers
Beccaria. However, it was Bentham who established the theory of Utilitarianism
and rendered it popular on the basis of his endless proposals for reform. As Russell
has rightly pointed out, Bentham’s significant contribution is to be located not so
much in the doctrine but to various practical problems. It was through his friendship NOTES
with James Mill, the father of John Stuart Mill, that Bentham get acquainted with the
two greatest economists of his time — Malthus and David Ricardo - and was able
to learn classical economics from them. This group of thinkers referred to themselves
as philosophic radicals and aimed to bring about a revolutionary transformation of
England into a modern, liberal, democratic, constitutional, secular state based on
market economics. Utilitarianism was used interchangeably with philosophic
radicalism, individualism, laissez faire, and administrative nihilism.
The seminal assumptions of utilitarianism postulated that human beings,
naturally so, sought happiness, that pleasure alone was good, and that the only right
action was that which produced the greatest happiness of the greatest number. In
espousing such assumptions, the utilitarian thinkers can be seen reiterating the ideas
of the Greek thinker - Epicures. Bentham lent a scientific colour to this pleasure –
pain theory and brought it in application in the context of the policies of the state,
welfare measures, and the administrative, penal and legislative reforms. He brought
to the fore a psychological perspective on human nature. He conceived human
beings as seekers of pleasure. In his analytical inquiry, he used the benchmark of
utility. His book, Introduction to the principles of Moral and Legislation, provides
an explanation of his theory of utility. The central principle undergirding his theory
states that the state is useful only so long as it caters to the ‘Greatest Happiness of
the Greatest Number’. The ‘Greatest Happiness Theory’, in turn, is based on a
psychological and hedonistic theory of pleasure and pain.
Bentham’s ambition in life was to create a ‘Pannomion’ - a complete utilitarian
code of law. Bentham not only brought to the fore many legal and social reforms,
but also elaborated on an underlying moral principle on which they should be based.
The argument being put forward here stated that the right act or policy was one
which would lead to ‘the greatest good for the greatest number of people, also
known as ‘the greatest happiness principle’ or the ‘principle of utility’.
Bentham also brought to the fore a procedure which would aid in gauging the
moral status of any action, which he referred to as the Hedonistic or felicific calculus.
Utilitarianism was revised and expanded by Bentham’s student John Stuart Mill, and
it is due to Mill’s that, ‘Benthamism’ became a primary component which was
deployed in the liberal conception of state policy objectives.
Bentham proposed a classification of 12 pains and 14 pleasures and ‘felicific
calculus’ by which we might test the ‘happiness factor’ of any action. Nonetheless,
it should not be forgotten that Bentham’s ‘hedonistic’ theory unlike Mill’s, is often
said to be devoid of the principle of fairness, which is entrenched in a conception of
Justice. In ‘Bentham and the Common Law Tradition’, Gerald J. Postema states:
‘No moral concept suffers more at Bentham’s hand than the concept of justice.
There is no sustained, mature analysis of the notion . . .’
Self-Instructional Material 47
Modern Political Thinkers 2.2.2 Legislation and Morality
Bentham’s Principles of Legislation highlights the principle of utility and explains
the way this view of morality feeds into legislative practices. His principle of utility
NOTES hails ‘good’ as that which aids the production of the greatest amount of pleasure and
the minimum amount of pain, while ‘evil’ is conceived as that which produces the
most pain without the pleasure. This concept of pleasure and pain is defined by
Bentham as being of both a physical as well as spiritual nature. Bentham delineates
this principle as it manifests itself within the legislation of a society. He lays bare a
set of criteria for gauging the extent of pain or pleasure that a certain decision will
create.
Deploying these measurements, Bentham takes a review of the concept of
punishment and tries to fathom when it should be used, and whether a punishment
will end up creating more pleasure or more pain for a society. He tells legislators to
determine whether punishment can lead to an even more evil offense. Instead of
bringing down evil acts, Bentham is arguing that certain unnecessary laws and
punishments could ultimately lead to new and more dangerous vices than those
being punished to begin with. These statements are followed by propositions explaining
how antiquity, religion, reproach of innovation, metaphor, fiction, fancy, antipathy
and sympathy, and imaginary law are not a sufficient justification for the creation of
legislature. Rather, Bentham is calling upon legislators to measure the pleasures and
pains associated with any legislation and to bring forth laws in order to enable the
greatest good for the greatest number. He argues that the conception whereby the
individual pursues his or her own happiness cannot be necessarily declared ‘right’,
since often these individual pursuits can lead to greater pain and less pleasure for
the society as a whole. Hence, the legislation of a society is integral to maintaining a
society with optimum pleasure and the minimum degree of pain for the greatest
amount of people.
Pleasure and pain theory, which is quite abstruse, is brought to the fore by
Bentham in a simple and accessible manner. He points out that human beings are
creatures of feeling and sensibility, while reason is only a feeling or passion. All
experiences are either to be seen as pleasurable or painful. That action is deemed
good which increases pleasure and decreases pain, whereas, that action is deemed
bad which decreases pleasure and increases pain. The benchmark for judging the
goodness or badness of every individual’s actions is the pleasure-pain theory. Bentham
advocated that ‘nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign
masters - pain and pleasure. It is incumbent on them alone to point out what we
ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. So, we have on one hand, the
standard of right and wrong, and on the other, the chain of causes and effects.
Achievement of pleasure and avoidance of pain are, however, not to be seen as the
sole motivating forces of human behaviour; they also set the standards of values in
life’. According to him, what applies to the individual’s morals, applies with equal
force statecraft. He further pointed out that the action of the state is to be adjudged
well, if it increases pleasure and decreases pain. All actions must then be judged by
significant yardstick. Sabine in his book History of Political Theory points out that
48 Self-Instructional Material
this principle was held by the utilitarians to be the only rational factor, guiding both Modern Political Thinkers
private morals and public policy. The seminal function of jurisprudence is sensorial,
while criticism of the legal system is carried out keeping in mind its improvement.
For such criticism to function, a standard of value is required, and that can be gathered
only from the principle of utility. He pointed out that it is the greatest happiness of NOTES
the greatest number on the basis of which we may ascertain the issue of right and
wrong. All actions of the state should be geared towards providing the greatest good
of the greatest number. Hence, utilitarianism is to be seen as implying both
individualism and democracy.
In Bentham’s framework, pleasure and pain can be quantitatively and
arithmetically calculated and measured, and a comparison can be drawn between
the two qualities. In order to gauge pleasure and pain, he advocated the doctrine of
felicific calculus. The sum of the interests of the several members composing it is
the interest of the community. The calculation here would entail that the happiness
of each person is to count for one and none is to account for more than one. He
delineated a list of some factors which would be used to measure pleasure and pain:
• Intensity
• Duration
• Certainty or uncertainty
• Nearness or remoteness
• Purity
• Extent
• Fecundity
While the first four factors are clear, the fifth factor purity means that pleasure
is one which is not likely to be followed by pain. The sixth factor extent refers to the
number of persons who might be affected by this particular pleasure or pain. The
seventh factor fecundity refers to productivity. Bentham’s formula of calculation
entails that we should make an addition of the values of all the pleasures on one side,
and those of all the pains on the other. The balance or surplus of any of the sides will
be an indication if it is to be deemed good or bad. Based on his felicific calculus, he
has tried to render ethics and politics as exact sciences like physics and mathematics.
In the words of Wayper, ‘The doctrine of utility is a doctrine of quantitatively conceived
hedonism - it can recognize no distinction between pleasures except a quantitative
one. He contended that human beings by nature were marked by hedonism. Each of
their actions drew from a desire to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Every human
action could be traced to embody a cause and a motive. He saw hedonism not only
as a principle of motivation, but also as a principle of action. He listed 14 simple
pleasures and 12 simple pains, which were then classified into self-regarding and
other regarding groups. Only two, benevolence and malevolence, were put under
other-regarding action. Under self-regarding motives, he listed physical desire,
pecuniary interest, love of power and self-preservation. Self-preservation would
include fear of pain, love of life, and love of ease. He described four sanctions
which would serve as sources of pain or pleasure, such as physical sanction, political
and legal sanction, moral or popular sanction and religious sanction. He postulated
Self-Instructional Material 49
Modern Political Thinkers that an adult individual is to be hailed as the best judge of his own happiness, and to
be seen worthy of pursuing it without harming the happiness of others. He traced an
essential connection between the happiness of an individual and that of the community,
and offered the principle of utility as a standard which would aid in framing laws to
NOTES obtain overall happiness and welfare of the community. ‘I’ was constantly emphasized
by him, that a person’s actions and policies had to be judged against his intention
geared towards furthering the happiness of the community. The end and the goal of
legislation were to follow the rule: ‘each is to count for one and no one for more than
one’. His defense of the principles of utility led him to plead a case for democracy,
manhood, and, later on, universal suffrage, including female enfranchisement. As
Bentham postulated, suffrage and democracy were to be seen as integral for the
realization of the greatest happiness principle.
His views regarding monetary economics are to be seen as being at great
variance from those of David Ricardo; however, they both exhibited certain affinities
with Thornton. He focused on monetary expansion as a means of helping to create
full employment. Bentham also underlined the relevance of forced saving, propensity
to consume, the saving-investment relationship, and other matters that underlie the
content of modern income and employment analysis. His monetary view can be
seen as having a close affinity with the fundamental concepts deployed in his model
of utilitarian decision-making. His work is to be seen as occupying the centre stage
of modern welfare economics.
Bentham stated that pleasures and pains can be graded according to their
value or ‘dimension’ such as intensity, duration, certainty of a pleasure or a pain. He
was occupied with thinking out the maxima and minima of pleasures and pains; and
this engagement triggered the trajectory which would see a future employment of
the maximization principle in the economics of the consumer, the firm, and the search
for an optimum in welfare economics.
2.2.3 Political Philosophy
More popular of Bentham’s works are Fragments on Government and Introduction
to the Principles of Moral and Legislation, in which he has laid out his political
philosophies which can be discussed under following heads.
Utilitarian Principle
Though, the principle of utility has been discussed in detail, we can retrace here a
brief outline since it is one of the most significant political ideas propounded by
Bentham. As said earlier, he was not the originator of this idea. He borrowed it from
Priestley and Hutcheson. However, Bentham reworked the idea, and owing to his
attributing to it great significance, this idea became an integral part of his philosophical
system and also a watch-word of the political movement of the later 18th and early
19th century. The keynote of this principle postulates that the state is useful only so
long as it caters to the ‘greatest happiness of the greatest number’. The ‘greatest
happiness’ theory in turn is based on a psychological and hedonistic theory of ‘pleasure
and pain’. Bentham highlighted that, action is good which increases pleasure and
decreases pain. The yardstick of judging the goodness or badness of every individual’s
50 Self-Instructional Material
action is the pleasure-pain theory. According to him, what applies to the individual Modern Political Thinkers
morals, applies with equal force to statecraft. The seminal idea which needs to be
grasped here is that pleasure and pain can be quantitatively and arithmetically
calculated and measured.
NOTES
Views on Political Society
With respect to the origin of the political society, Bentham blatantly rejected the
contract theory as absurd. He rejected the view which saw children as being bound
by the oral or written words of their forefathers. He brought to the fore a harsh
criticism of the theory of natural rights. According to him, the state is founded on the
selfish interest of the individuals. People obey the demands of the state as it furthers
their selfish interest, their life, and property. In his view, the political society has
existed and will continue to exist because it is believed to promote the happiness of
the individual who compose it. Hence, succinctly put, the origin of the state is in the
interest, welfare, and happiness of individuals which comprise it. It is the principle of
utility which is to be credited with binding individuals together. The utilitarian concept
conceives the state as a group of persons organized for the promotion and maintenance
of the greatest happiness of the greatest number of individuals comprising it. Bentham’s
view of the state entails that ‘any corporate body, such as state all society is evidently
fictitious. Whatever is done in its name is done by someone, and it’s good, as he said,
is the sum of the interests of the several members who compose it.’
Views on State, Law and Liberty
According to Bentham, the modern state is to be viewed as an ideal, and an aspiration
which examines the technique of state building and the method that would promote
modernization. He regarded diversity and fragility within political order as inevitable.
He saw the state as a legal entity with individualism as its ethical basis. He saw
modernization as entailing two things: on the one hand, it required a broad based and
diversified legal system which would take stock of desires of individuals and on the
other hand, it comprised of institutions that would extend support to the legal system,
aiding in namely the Bureaucratization of public service and legislation as a continual
process, accommodating both change and diversity. He kept secure the individualist
notion of moral autonomy with due priority given to individual interest. According to
Hume, ‘Bentham’s theory brought together in a particular way the two great themes
of modern political thought: individualism and the modern sovereign state.’
Bentham came up with ideas and devises geared to guarantee governmental
protection of individual interest, ensuring that public happiness should be seen as the
object of public policy. Government is to be seen as a trust with legislation as the
primary function and uniformity, clarity, order and consistency were to be seen as
crucial for both law and order. He was equally conscious of the need for institutional
safeguards which would see to it that the government pursued public interest. He
championed universal adult franchise and recommended it to all those who could
read the list of voters. Further, he conceived of the state as comprising a number of
persons who are supposed to be in the habit of paying obedience to a person, or an
assemblage of persons, of a known and certain description. Such a group of persons
Self-Instructional Material 51
Modern Political Thinkers taken together is to seen comprising a political society. In his Constitutional Code,
Bentham reserved for the people the power to select and dismiss their leader, and to
ensure that the interest of the rulers were closely linked with those of the people.
For furthering this, he recommended the abolition of monarchy and the House of
NOTES Lords, checks on legislative authority, unicameralism, secret ballot annual elections,
equal electoral districts, annual parliaments and election of the prime minister by the
parliament. He saw representative government as providing a solution to the problem.
He considered constitutional representative democracy as an overall political
arrangement which was seen secured by measures like widespread suffrage, an
elected assembly, frequent elections, freedom of the press, and of associations
providing a guarantee against misrule. He regarded constitutional democracy as
being of great significance to all nations and all governments who were in possession
of liberal opinions.
Bentham postulated that the state was the only source of law. The main
purpose of the state is to frame laws which attend to the greatest happiness of the
greatest number. According to him, law is to be seen as comprising the command of
the sovereign, and binding on the subjects. But the individuals obey the law of the
state only because it furthers their interest. In the words of Wayper, ‘because law is
a command, it must be the command of a supreme authority.’ Indeed it is only in the
case where such an authority is regularly obeyed, that Bentham is prepared to admit
the existence of civil society. His state, thus, is to be seen as a sovereign state. It is
the sign of a sovereign state that nothing it does can be illegal. Law is the sole
source of all rights of the individuals. There is no such thing as natural rights, and all
rights are civil rights. The individuals can never plead natural law against the state.
According to Bentham, natural rights are not to be ascribed any significance. The
basis of the political obligation comprises partly habitual obedience of the laws of the
state by the individuals and partly the calculated self-interest of the individuals. Even
though Bentham strongly believed that rights cannot be maintained against the state,
yet he justified opposition to the state if that opposition will end up producing less
pain than continued obedience. According to him, liberty is not to be perceived as an
end in itself. Happiness is the only final criterion and liberty must bow to that criterion.
The end of the state is maximum happiness and not maximum liberty. This concept
of a state can only be a democracy and that too a representative democracy. In
such a state all men should have equal rights. However, the concept of equality of
rights is not premised on any abstract notion of natural law, but rather rests on the
concrete idea that every individual seeks to pursue his interest to the best of his
mind. All individuals are invested with equal rights including right of property in the
eyes of law, despite the fact that by nature they may not be equal. Protection of
property is one of the ways to ensure a furtherance of one’s happiness. However,
Bentham also believed that law should strive for facilitating an equal distribution of
property and removal of gross inequalities. In opposition to natural rights and natural
law, Bentham recognized legal laws and rights that were enacted and enforced by a
duly constituted political authority or the state. He defined law as comprising the
command of the sovereign, and postulated that the power of sovereign be seen as
indivisible, unlimited, inalienable, and permanent.
52 Self-Instructional Material
Bentham defined liberty as signifying an absence of restraints and coercion. Modern Political Thinkers
Crucial to his concept of liberty was the idea of security, which brought together his
idea of civil and political liberty. For him, the principle of utility provided the objective
moral standard, which was seen as being considerably at variance from other theories
that supplied purely subjective criteria. NOTES
Even though Bentham downplayed the sanctity of natural rights formulations,
he acknowledged the importance of right as being essential for the security of the
individual. He rejected not just the idea of natural and inviolable right to property, but
also the idea of absolute right to property since the government had the right to
interfere with property to usher in security. He backed the need for adequate
compensation in case of a violation of the individual’s right to property. Property, for
Bentham, was neither natural, nor absolute, and nor inviolable.
2.2.4 Views on Jurisprudence and Punishment
One of the most significant aspects of Bentham’s political philosophy is located in
the sphere of jurisprudence and reforms in criminal law and prison. There was no
limitation imposed on the legislative power of the state, not even in the customs and
conventions. While the state may take help from customs and established institutions,
there were no checks on the legislative competence of the state. Bentham brought
to the fore his popular distinction between ‘descriptive’ and ‘sensorial’ jurisprudence;
namely what the law ought to be or whether a particular law was bad or good, to
establish the validity of moral propositions about legal rights. Bentham’s greatest
achievement comprises his attempt to apply the principle of greatest happiness of
the greatest number to all the branches of law - civil and criminal, procedural law as
well as to the organization of the judicial system. For furthering this end, he suggested
several reforms in civil and criminal laws and procedures. He was entirely for
simplification of English law and international law. As a jurist and legal reformer, he
brought to the fore liberal reforms in antiquated British law and procedure. The
whole of the 19th Century legislation of England can be seen as resulting from his
laborious endeavours. Bentham suggested diverse ways and means by which justice
could be administered cheaply and expeditiously. He postulated that justice delayed
is justice denied. He suggested that acts of the parliament should be framed in
simple and easily accessible language to ensure that the lawyers do not cheat the
public at large. The highly technical, rigid, obscure, capricious and dilatory legal
procedures existing during his time were nothing short of a conspiracy on the part of
the legal profession to misguide the public. Bentham suggested that there should be
single-judge courts, since the multi-judge courts led to a shirking of responsibility. He
also furthered the suggestion that judges and other officers of the court should be
paid regular salaries instead of ad hoc fees. Further, he also attacked the jury system.
In the context of punishment, he maintained that penalty is an evil but a
necessary one. It is an evil since it engenders pain, but it can be justified if it is seen
as either preventing a greater future evil or repairing an evil already committed.
Bentham strongly believed that punishment should be in consonance with the crime
committed, and that under no circumstance should it exceed the damage done. He
was not for death penalty, except in very rare cases. He was also in favour of doing
Self-Instructional Material 53
Modern Political Thinkers away with other savage penalties from the British legal system, and suggested diverse
reforms in the treatment being doled out to the prisoners. Here, the state was required
to tailor the punishment with regard to the offence in such a manner which would
restrain the offender from committing a crime, or at least from repeating it. To aid in
NOTES the furtherance of these reforms, Bentham has given a detailed account of various
punishments to be given in particular circumstances.
2.3 J. S. MILL
John Stuart Mill, a great essayist, economist, reformer and one of the greatest political
thinkers of modern times, was born in London on 20th May, 1806. His father, James
Mill, was also a political philosopher and contemporary of Jeremy Bentham. J. S.
Self-Instructional Material 55
Modern Political Thinkers Mill was a British philosopher and civil servant. An influential contributor to social
theory, political theory, and political economy, his conception of liberty justified the
freedom of the individual in opposition to unlimited state control. He was a proponent
of utilitarianism, an ethical theory developed by Jeremy Bentham, although his
NOTES conception of it was very different from Bentham’s. Mill became a strong advocate
of women’s rights and for social reforms such as labour unions and farm cooperatives.
In Considerations on Representative Government, J.S. Mill called for various
reforms of Parliament and voting, especially proportional representation, the Single
Transferable Vote, and the extension of suffrage. He was godfather to Bertrand
Russell. He died in 1873 at the age of 67.
By the end of his life, he was the acknowledged philosopher-leader of English
liberalism and in Lord Morley’s words, one of the greatest teachers of his age. In his
thinking, he was greatly influenced by the dialogues and dialectics of Plato and the
cross questioning of Socrates. He had imbibed Bentham’s principle from his father
and from Bentham himself, and he found the principle of utility the key stone of his
beliefs. He outlined in his own words ‘I now had a creed, a doctrine, a philosophy, a
religion, the inculcation and diffusion of which would be made the principal out ward
purpose of my life.’
2.3.1 On Liberty
Mill’s ‘Essay on Liberty’ is one of the finest discourses on the definition of freedom
in general and freedom of thought and expression in particular. He is an ardent
champion of liberty. According to Mill, free discussion alone can nourish fruitful
ideas. He points out that not even the whole of mankind can coerce even a single
person into accepting the majority view point. He says truth will certainly come out
of free discussion. There cannot be any self-realization or self-development of
individuals without liberty. Mill passionately advocates the right of the individual to
freedom. In its negative sense, it meant that society had no right to coerce an unwilling
individual, except for self-defense.
In Mill’s words ‘it is being left to one self: all restraints qua restrains is an
evil’. In its positive sense, it meant the greatest amount of freedom for the pursuit of
the individual’s creative impulses and energies for self- development. If there was
clash between the opinion of the individual and that of the community, it was the
individual who was the ultimate judge, unless the community could be convinced
without resorting to threat and coercion.
Mill’s ideas on liberty had a direct relationship with his theories of utility or
happiness. Mill regarded liberty as a necessary means for the development of
individuality, which was to become the ultimate source of happiness. There was
only one road for him to take and that was the road of higher utility. Mill has done a
distinction between higher and lower utility, which may better be understood
respectively as conducting to the good of society and the good of individuals. He is
keen to promote the good of the society as well as individuals. But the ultimate basis
on which he erects his grand edifice if liberty is his consideration of social good,
conceding of course, that individual has also not been lost sight of Happiness, for
Mill, was the ability of the individual to discover his innate powers and develop these
56 Self-Instructional Material
while exercising his human abilities of autonomous thought and action. Happiness Modern Political Thinkers
means liberty and individuality. He regarded liberty as a fundamental prerequisite
for leading a good, worthy and dignified life. J. Gray says ‘The contention of the
Essay ‘On Liberty’ is that happiness so conceived is best achieved in a free society
governed by the principle of liberty. NOTES
Mill insists on liberty of thought and expression as well as liberty of conduct.
He defends liberty of thought and expression on two important grounds. In the first
place, he argued that it is useful to society. He asserts that rational knowledge is the
basis of social welfare, and the only way of confirming an extending two knowledge
is to submit all ideas, old and new, to the test of free discussion and debate. In the
second place, he advocates liberty of thought and expression on the ground of human
dignity. On the liberty of conduct, he takes another line of argument. He draws a
distinction between two types of actions of man ‘self-regarding actions’ and ‘other-
regarding actions’. He advocates complete freedom of conduct for the individual in
all maters not affecting the community, i.e., in the case of ‘self-regarding actions’.
However, in the case of ‘other-regarding actions’, i.e., in matters that do effect the
community Mill concedes the right of the community to coerce the individual if his
conduct is prejudicial to its welfare. In this way, Mill defends complete freedom of
conduct for the individual unless it harms the community. But the state could also
interfere in the self-regarding action if it was thought to be very injurious to individual
himself. Mill says in his ‘Essay on Liberty’, ‘the only purpose for which power can
be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is
to prevent harm to others’.
Mill defended the right of individuality, which meant the right of choice. He
explained that as far as self-regarding actions were concerned, coercion would be
detrimental to self-development. First, the evils of coercion far outweighed the good
achieved. Second, individuals were so diverse in the needs and capacities for
happiness that coercion would be futile. Since, the person was the best judge of his
own interest, he had the information and the incentives to achieve them. Third, since
diversity was in itself good. Other things being equal, it should be encouraged. Last,
freedom was the most important requirement in the life of a rational person. Mill
contended that positive liberty, i.e., autonomy and self-mastery, were inherently
desirable and it was possible if individuals were allowed to develop their own talents
and invent their own life styles, i.e., a great deal of negative liberty. Hence, he made
a strong case for negative liberty, and the liberal state and liberal society were
essential prerequisites.
Mill had no doubt of the utility of absolute liberty of thought and expression.
He does not recognize any limitation of any kind what so ever on the right of free
discussion of individuals. According to him, no society in which these liberties are
not on the whole respected, is free, whatever may be its form of government. Mill is
not merely concerned with the advocacy of thought and discussion but he is also
concerned with the development of individuality of men and women in the community.
The freedom of thought and discussion is not the only theme of his liberty. He wants
to promote the development of individual man and woman because he is convinced
that all wise and noble things come and must come from individuals. In his opinion,
Self-Instructional Material 57
Modern Political Thinkers there can be no self-development without liberty. It is this connection between liberty
and self-development that interests him most, and even though he goes on to argue
that liberty is also necessary for the happiness of society.
Mill justified restricted interference not because he is a great democrat but
NOTES because of his in-bred distrust of authority, and especially of democratically controlled
authority. Mill’s contention was that individual in democracy was swamped in general.
Democracy prevented him from developing individuality. From the arguments of
Mill and his definitions of liberty, it becomes very clear that he is a reluctant democrat
and all the more a prophet of empty liberty. Defining liberty at one place, Mill points
out ‘liberty consists in what one desires. Mill has gone far towards admitting the
extreme idealist contention that one can be forced to be free.
Mill regarded liberty of conscience, liberty to express and publish one’s opinion,
liberty to live as one pleased and freedom of association as essential for a meaningful
life and for the pursuit of one’s own good. His defense of freedom of thought and
expression was one of the most powerful and eloquent expositions in the western
intellectual tradition. In the words of Mill ‘ if all mankind minus one were of one
opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if
he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind’.
The early liberals defended liberty for the sake of efficient government whereas
for Mill, liberty was good in itself, for it helped in the development of a humane,
civilized moral person. It was beneficial both to society that permits them and to the
individual that enjoy that. Mill accepted the observation of Tocquville that the modern
industrial societies were becoming more egalitarian and socially conformist, thereby
threatening individuality and creativity. He was fearful, ‘Lest the inevitable growth
of social equality and of the government of public opinion, should impose on mankind
an oppressive yoke of uniformity in opinion and practice’.
According to Mill, the singular threat to individual liberty was from the tyranny
of the majority in its quest for extreme egalitarianism and social conformity. This
made him realize the inadequacy of early liberalism. He pointed out that in the area
of thought and discussion; the active and inquiring mind had become morally timid,
for it concealed the true opinion when discussed in public. He further says ‘Our
merely social intolerance kills no one, roots out no public, but induces men to disguise
them.
According to Mill individuality meant the power or capacity for critical inquiry
and responsible thought. It meant self-development and the expression of free will.
He stressed on absolute liberty of conscience, belief and expression for they were
crucial to human progress. Mill offered two arguments for liberty of expression in
the liberty of truth: (i) the dissenting opinion could be true and its suppression would
rub humankind of useful knowledge; (ii) even if the opinion was false it would
strengthen the correct view by challenging it.
Mill applied the principle of liberty to mature individuals and excluded children,
invalids, the mentally handicapped and barbarian societies. Liberty could be withheld
where individuals were not educated. He considered liberty as belonging to higher
and advanced civilizations, and prescribed despotism or paternalism with severe
58 Self-Instructional Material
restrictions in case of lower ones. He also cautioned against sacrifice or infringement Modern Political Thinkers
of liberty for the sake of making a state strong.
It is generally believed Mill’s Essay on Liberty was essentially written with
the purpose of defending the idea of negative liberty. It is true that Mill advanced a
notion of positive liberty but, he valued choice and individuality as ends in themselves, NOTES
and not because they promoted general happiness. He did not propose a single over-
arching principle or values, which normally accompanied theories of positive liberty.
The theme on liberty was not the absence of restraints but the denial of individual
autonomy by the coercion exercised by moral majority and/or an intrusive public
opinion. It is criticized that Mills linkage between individuality and liberty made him
conclude that only a minority was in a position to enjoy freedom. The majority of the
people remained enslaved in customs, and hence unfree. However, in spite of his
elitism, he remained an uncompromising liberal for he ruled out paternalism, the idea
that law and society could intervene in order to do good to the individual. He explicitly
ruled out interference in self-regarding actions. Mill stated that the right of liberty
could be sacrificed only for some ‘other right’, a point that has been reiterated by
Rawls. However, he fled to analyse and establish a relationship between freedom
and responsibility. It is also argued that Mill failed to specify the proper limits of
legislation, and was unclear when it came to actual cases. For instance, he supported
compulsory education, regulations of business and industry in the interest of public
welfare and good, but regarded prohibition as an intrusion on liberty. Barker has
criticized Mill as the ‘prophet of an empty liberty and an abstract individual’. This
observation flowed from the interpretation that the absolutist statements on liberty
like the rights of one individual against the rest was not substantiated when one
accessed Mill’s writings in their totality.
There is no definite line of demarcation between the self-regarding and other-
regarding actions. At various items and various stages the disputes may arise as to
what is a self-regarding and what is other-regarding action. Mill takes a little account
of the more mysterious springs of human thought, intuition, illumination and revelation.
Though Mill’s exposition of liberty is one of the best in the history of political thought,
he was unable to reconcile the claims of individual freedom with the claims of order
and social peace satisfactorily.
For Mill, the sole end for which humankind is allowed, individually or
collectively, to interfere with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-
protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over
any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.
His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully
be compelled to do or forbear because it will make him happier, because, in the
opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. The only part of the conduct
of anyone, for which they are amenable to the society, is that which concerns others.
In the part which merely concerns them, their independence is absolute. Over himself,
and over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
Controversially by today’s standards, in On Liberty, Mill also argued that in
‘backward’ societies a despotic government is tolerable as long as the despot has
Self-Instructional Material 59
Modern Political Thinkers the best interests of the people at heart because of the barriers to spontaneous
progress. Mill’s principles in On Liberty seem to be clear. However, there are
certain complications. For example, Mill’s definition of ‘harm’ includes both acts of
omission as well as acts of commission. Thus, for Mill, not saving a drowning child
NOTES or not paying taxes are harmful acts of omission that need to be regulated. On the
other hand, it does not count as harming someone if— without force or fraud—the
affected individual consents to assume the risk. Therefore, it is acceptable according
to Mill’s standards to offer unsafe employment to others provided that this is done
without fraud and deceit. While reading Mill’s arguments in ‘On Liberty’ it is important
to keep in mind that Mill was a product of his time and also that his arguments are
based on the principle of utility and not on appeals to natural rights.
Mill’s ‘On Liberty’ also delineates an impassioned defence of free speech.
For Mill, free speech is a necessary condition for intellectual and social progress.
According to Mill, ‘We can never be sure that a silenced opinion does not contain
some element of the truth’. He also suggests that the airing of false or uninformed
opinions is productive for two reasons. Firstly, he states that an open and frank
exchange of ideas will result in people abandoning incorrect beliefs. Secondly, Mill
argues that debate forces people to examine and affirm their own opinions and thus
prevents these beliefs from declining into mere dogma. In Mill’s view, it is simply not
good enough if one believes in something that happens to be true; one must also
know why the belief in question is true.
Mill believed that people should have the right to have a say in the government’s
decisions. For Mill then social liberty meant limiting the power of rulers so that they
may not be able to use power based on whims and thereby bring harm to society.
Mill wrote that social liberty is, ‘the nature and limits of the power which can be
legitimately exercised by society over the individual’. Mill believed that to bring
about this social liberty one needed the recognition of certain immunities, called
political liberties or rights and also by establishing a system which had ‘constitutional
checks’.
The limiting of a government’s power is not enough for Mill. Mill believed
that a society can and does execute its own mandates, and if it issues wrong mandates
instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it
results in a social tyranny more fearsome than many kinds of political oppression.
Mill co-wrote ‘On Liberty’ with Harriet Taylor; the work was published a
year after Harriet’s death and is dedicated to her. ‘On Liberty’ begins with Mill’s
assertion that democratic nations like the United States would replace absolute
monarchies of the past. However, Mill goes on to examine a new problem that
would arise with people being control of their governments. Deeply influenced by
the works of Alexis de Tocqueville, especially his Democracy in America, Mill
fears that will of the people in democracies would result in the ‘will of the majority’.
Mill believed that a tyranny of the majority is a huge threat to individual liberty and
self-development if the majority started acting to oppress minority viewpoints and
lifestyles. To overcome this threat, Mill proposed what philosophers today call ‘harm
principle’. Mill’s harm principle stated that, ‘the only purpose for which power can
be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is
60 Self-Instructional Material
to prevent harm to others.’ This principle of Mill negates the tyranny of the majority Modern Political Thinkers
and thus would block democratic majorities from interfering with the liberty of any
adult unless that person threatened harm to others.
In ‘On Liberty’ Mill identified various types of liberties. They are enumerated
below: NOTES
• Liberty of conscience
• Liberty of thought and feeling
• Absolute freedom of opinion
• Liberty of expressing and publishing opinions (freedom of speech and
press)
• Freedom to unite, for any purpose (freedom of assembly)
• Liberty of making the plan of our life to suit our own character, of doing
what we like, even if this appeared to be foolish, perverse, or wrong
Mill stressed that a society that does not have such liberties is not really free.
According to Mill, ‘The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing
our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of
theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.’ Mill argued that truth is found through the
‘collision of adverse opinions’. He further wrote, ‘He who knows only his side of
the case, knows little of that.’ When people listen only to one viewpoint, he explained,
‘errors harden into prejudices, and truth itself ceases to have the effect of truth, by
being exaggerated into falsehood’. At the same time, Mill believed that there needed
to be limits on individual liberty so as to prevent harm to others. To explain his point
Mill provided the example of an ‘excited mob’ outside the house of a grain dealer
who are shouting that the grain dealer is starving the poor. Mill believed that in such
situations the police are justified in arresting those who might incite violence among
the crowd.
Mill was also against the censoring of newspaper articles by the government.
In Mill’s view, ‘an atmosphere of freedom’ was essential to make sure that all
citizens of a nation had the opportunity to develop their own individuality. Condemning
the conformist nature of British society, Mill supported original thinkers and non-
conformists who experimented with different lifestyles, thus preventing human life
from becoming a ‘stagnant pool’. Mill declared that the purpose of government was
only to provide the necessary conditions so that people could achieve the higher
objective of self-development. He cites the example of the prohibition of gambling
and also the harassment of Mormons to prove that the government is wrong in
stamping out certain lifestyles and behaviour. On the other hand in On Liberty Mill
also argued for not permitting people from getting married if they could not afford to
have children. He declared, ‘To have a child without a fair prospect of being able
not only to provide food for their body, but also to nurture their mind is a moral crime
both against the unfortunate offspring and against the society.’ From the moment it
was published On Liberty was criticized from all quarters. Some said that the work
promoted anarchy and godlessness, other’s critiqued Mill’s notion of ‘harm’ and
questioned his assumption that people actually wanted to pursue self-development.
Mill himself stated that ‘On Liberty’ was ‘likely to survive longer than anything else
Self-Instructional Material 61
Modern Political Thinkers that I have written’. Mill’s prophecy proved to be accurate in ‘On Liberty’ which
remains one of his most popular works.
Criticism
NOTES C. L. Wayper in his book Political Thought elaborates that Bentham must have
gyrated in his grave far faster than ever at the thought that his favourite follower
could ever contemplate such a non-utilitarian position. Another writer Davidson
commenting on Mill’s freedom of action writes that his freedom of action or conduct
is admirable and his working out of the theme is skilfully done. But there are certain
points that lead to criticism. Firstly, Mill identifies individual energy with ‘geniuses or
originality. But he forgets that this energy may be mere eccentricity. Secondly, Mill
does not sufficiently recognize that whereas man’s desires and impulses are
indispensable to the development of his nature, they are not sure guide to the proper
outlet for his activity.
Self-Instructional Material 67
Modern Political Thinkers Mill said both the law and the custom prohibited women from seeking any
means of livelihood, other than being a mother and a wife. Besides equal opportunity
for women in education and property, he also pleaded for political rights to vote and
to participate in the government as administrators and rulers. In his book, The
NOTES Representative Government, he commented that the difference of sex could not be
the basis of political rights. He desired that the subjection of women be ended not
only by the law, but also by education, opinion, habits and finally a change in the
family life itself. In his book, Principles, he observed the need to open industrial
occupations for both sexes.
After ‘On Liberty’ was published in 1859 Mill turned his attention towards
reforms in the political sphere. It could be stated that many of his political opinions
were contradictory in nature. Although Mill was a strong supporter of giving voting
rights to all, especially women, he advocated a contentious voting system. Rather
than universal adult franchise, Mill wanted a voting system where people with an
education had more voting power than those who did not. Moreover, Mill was not a
supporter of the public schooling system believing that such a system would enforce
social conformity. At the same time he supported government subsidies to parents
who could not afford schooling for their children. Mill was also an opponent of
slavery, something that Britain had abolished in 1833, and was sympathetic to the
American North in the American Civil War. When the American Civil War was
raging, Mill wrote that if the American South won then this ‘would be a victory of
the powers of evil, which would give courage to the enemies to progress’.
Mill contested and won a seat in the British Parliament in 1865 on a Liberal
Party ticket. He used his Parliamentary position as a platform to give voice to his
opinions on social and political reform, especially on issues relating to women. As a
parliamentarian Mill helped found the first women’s suffrage society in Britain in
1867. Many of Mill’s speeches in parliament on issues were many years ahead of
his time. He had become a parliamentarian on the condition that he would vote
according to his conscience, unfortunately, he was defeated for re-election in 1868
after serving only one term.
The same year that Mill left the British parliament, he published perhaps his
most famous work — The Subjection of Women. The pamphlet in detail delineates
Mill’s argument for equality for men and women in society. In it Mill stressed that
both women and men should have the same rights to develop their individuality. This
entailed both men and women having equal rights to their own property, earn a
college education, choose any occupation, and participate fully in politics. Mill’s
position on the rights of women Mill was sharply different from his father. Mill Sr.
believed that women should not have a right to vote since their husbands represented
them when they voted. J. S. Mill, on the other hand, stated that a wife’s interests are
often different from those of her husband, and thus she should have an equal right to
vote.
The Subjection of Women and many other works that preceded it galvanized
society and played a huge part in breaking patriarchal mind sets and forcing the
male dominated society to finally give in to the demand of women’s suffrage. This
finally occurred in 1918, long after Mill had died.
68 Self-Instructional Material
2.3.5 Revision of Utilitarianism Modern Political Thinkers
Mill’s essay ‘On Liberty’ (1859) gave a new dimension to utilitarianism and is one of
the classical defences of freedom in the English language. Mill is a transitional
thinker who essayed his ideas at a time when the English political society was in a NOTES
state of flux, of transition from laissez faire to collectivist legislation. Beginning with
a negative view of liberty, he comes closer to a positive one when he recommends
'state regulation in the overall interests of society. He starts with a definition of
liberty as ‘being left to oneself’. ‘All restraint qua restraint is an evil’. He assumed
the existence of two different spheres of human action: those which concern himself
(self- regarding) and those which concern others (other- regarding). He claims
complete freedom of conduct for the individual in all matters not affecting the
community. The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to
society, is that which concerns others. Community has a right to coerce the individual
if his conduct is prejudicial to its welfare. Critics have said that Mill divides the
indivisible. Every action of the individual has in its very nature some social
consequences. Mill as ‘the prophet of an empty liberty and an abstract individual.
He had no clear philosophy rights, through which alone the conception of liberty
attains a concrete meaning; he had no clear idea of that social whole in whose
realization the false anti-thesis of state and individual disappears.
Mill was painfully aware of the anomaly of a ‘tyranny of the majority’ tyranny
of the prevailing opinion and feeling in modern democracies. He had a peculiar
horror of the mob mind, of the tyranny of the crowd. To offset this he made an
eloquent plea for freedom of thought, discussion and toleration of opinion. He was a
champion of individual or personal liberty. His primary purpose was to protect the
individual even his eccentricities and oddities against the attacks of society. He
contends that social and 'political progress depends largely on the originality and
energy of the individual and his free choice. Of course, he recognized the utility of
some modest form of state regulation in the interest of the common good and came
closer to socialistic ideas.
Mill declares that pleasures be at variance not only in quantity but also in
quality. He drew a distinction between superior and inferior pleasures. Mill did not
talk about with Bentham that pleasure was the only grounds and purpose for
individual's events. He held that individual happiness did not give him utmost happiness;
on the other hand it was the group happiness, which gave highest gladness and joy to
the individual. Thus, he thought that happiness comes from outer surface and not
from surrounded by. This was in absolute dissimilarity to Bentham's view that
enjoyment comes from inside. Mill greatly tapering down the bay between self-
interest and general contentment. He held that the utilitarian standard is not the
manager own maximum gladness, but the maximum amount of pleasure altogether.
Bentham was careful that individual happiness as the only decisive factor for
all human actions. Mill initiated the idea of good life as more than a life dedicated to
happiness. He positioned the ethical ends above the human being contentment and
Self-Instructional Material 69
Modern Political Thinkers thus attempted to endorse righteous life. He also distorted the state into an ethical
end.
Mill also differed from Bentham in justifying private property. The justification
of private property came from the English utilitarians. Its great exponent Jeremy
NOTES Bentham maintained that right to property was a major condition of achieving the
greatest happiness. He advocated equal distribution of property in order to strike a
balance between security and equality. Mill defended private property as essential
for the welfare of the people. He wrote: ‘The institution of property when limited to
its essential elements , consists in the recognition, in each person, of a right to the
exclusive disposal of what he or she have produced by their own exertions, or
received either by gift or by fair agreement , without force or fraud; from those
who produced it. The foundation of the whole is the right of producers to what they
themselves have produced.
Mill in his work on utilitarianism modified the views of Bentham for the
betterment of the society. He recommended numerous rudiments which ran oppose
to the hedonist doctrine of Bentham. It was the austerity of Bentham's morals and
synchronized utilitarianism with common sense. Mill made utilitarianism extra human
and less consistent.
Mill's ideas of liberty also are at variance from Bentham's concept of liberty.
Whereas Bentham did not connect any significance to the liberty because it did not
in any method add to the maximum happiness of the maximum number of people.
He was fond of more in giving importance to safety than freedom. Mill, on the other
hand measured liberty is necessary for the accomplishment of the standard of utility
and declared that minority rights could be secluded only when all take pleasure in
liberty.
Both Mill and Bentham differed in justifying public and private interests.
Bentham tried to set up identity between public and personal interests through the
concept of super-added pleasures and pains. Mill considered these as outer
authorization and therefore wanted to find this association on the basis of some
interior sanctions and emotions of conscience. He therefore said that that the happiness
and soreness concepts when restricted to oneself alone were outer, but when these
related to 'others' these were interior and as such has bearing on sense of right and
wrong.
From different diverse perspectives Mill obtained a dissimilar stand. Thus, he
situated for public voting as against secret voting developed by’ Bentham. He
preferred extraordinary treatment of women, while Bentham did not think something
of the kind. Mill was more anxious with the abolition of imperfection in the obtainable
legal system. Mill was more troubled with the social and economic harms facing the
society. Both justified democracy but for dissimilar reasons. While Bentham
recommended and suggested it because of character of man, Mill justified because
of the situation of man. Bentham talked about unicameral legislature while Mill went
for bicameral system. Mill was a great winner of the individual liberty and stood for
limiting government meddling in the life of the individual.
70 Self-Instructional Material
Modern Political Thinkers
Vladimir Lenin was the architect of the first communist state in the world, i.e., the
Soviet Union. Along with Marx, he also became a philosopher and a guide for
communists and revolutionaries all over the world. According to the author and
scholar Professor C. C. Maxey, ‘Lenin, now the beatified saint of Bolshevism was
not only a revolutionary leader of great sagacity and practical ability, but was also a
writer and thinker of exceptional penetration and power.’ Long before the Russian
Revolution, Lenin had a positive and coherent political philosophy, and this philosophy
after he became head of the Russian state, governed all his public decisions and
acts. It became and has remained to a very large degree of the political road map of
Russian communism. Lenin updated and adapted Marx’s philosophy to unique
Russian conditions. Let us now discuss Lenin’s contribution to Marxist thought at
length.
Lenin’s Theory of Imperialism
Lenin wrote about his ‘theory of imperialism’ in the essay ‘Imperialism, the Highest
State of Capitalism’. Lenin regards imperialism as the highest form of capitalism.
He argues that as capitalism develops, industries unite and become bigger and then
begin collaborating and acting like cartels to create what is known as monopoly
capitalism. In the financial world a similar process takes place. When banks combine
and become the master of capital, they assist industrialists with the capital, thus
encouraging the transformation of monopoly capitalism into finance capitalism.
Monopoly and finance capitalism have a great tendency of expanding very rapidly
and aggressively. The primary export of finance capitalism is money or capital, and
the consequences of its enforcement are the exploitation of colonial people, whom it
oppresses and subjects to the law of the capitalist society, thus increasing misery
amongst the people and destroying their liberty and freedom. As Lenin stated, ‘If it
were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism we should
have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism.’
According to Lenin, ‘Imperialism is capitalism in that stage of development in
which the domination of monopoly and finance capital has taken shape, in which the
export of capital has acquired pronounced importance in which the division of the
world by international trusts has begun, and in which the portion of all the territory of
the earth by the great capitalist countries has been completed.’
Self-Instructional Material 71
Modern Political Thinkers Lenin identified five distinct features of imperialism, which can be stated as
follows:
• The concentration of production and capital develops to such a high stage
that it creates monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life.
NOTES • The merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on
the basis of this finance capital, of a financial oligarchy.
• The export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities
acquires exceptional importance.
• The formation of international monopolist capitalist combines which share
the world among themselves.
• The territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist
powers is completed.
Lenin claimed that imperialism in spite of being the highest stage of capitalism
also contains various contradictions within itself, which shall destroy capitalism and
bring in socialism. The first contradiction is that of the antagonism between the
labour and capital. The labour is exploited by the capital, thus feelings of revolution
would be ignited in exploited workers. If it will be materialized, the spirit of socialism
will start. He also identified another feature of imperialism- the decay of capitalism.
Lenin asserted that imperialism is not only the period of monopoly capitalism, but it
is also the period of decaying capitalism- the decay resulting from its monopolistic
character. As he stated, ‘the tendency to stagnation and decay, which is the feature
of monopoly, continues, and in certain branches of industry, in certain countries, for
certain periods of time, it becomes prominent’.
NOTES
CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
18. Fill in the blanks:
(i) Communism is known as _____ _____.
(ii) In Lenin's theory, the _____ occupies an important place.
(iii) Lenin says the ____ ______ is a persistent struggle.
2.5 SUMMARY
Self-Instructional Material 81
Modern Political Thinkers • Subjugation: It defines the state of gaining control over somebody or
something.
• Representative government: The government in which the citizens delegate
the authority to elected representatives.
NOTES
• Negative liberty: Freedom from interference by other people. It is set in
contrast to positive liberty, which is defined as an individual’s freedom from
inhibitions of the social structure within the society such as classism, sexism
or racism.
82 Self-Instructional Material
• The formation of international monopolist capitalist combines which share Modern Political Thinkers
the world among themselves.
• The territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers
is completed.
NOTES
15. According to Lenin, the proletariat has no other weapon in the struggle for
power except organization.
16. According to Lenin, who agreed to Marx's view, the state had no role in a
classless society. Lenin and Marx saw the state as a tool in the hands of the
bourgeois for exploitation.
17. (i) Classless, stateless (ii) Practical
18. (i) Scientific socialism (ii) Party (iii) Dictatorship of proletariat
Short-Answer Questions
1. What is Jeremy Bentham best known for?
2. Write a short note on Bentham.
3. During which period did utilitarianism dominate English political thinking?
4. List some of Bentham’s better known works?
5. Why is Jeremy Bentham considered the godfather of University College of
London?
6. What was Bentham’s view on liberty?
7. What was the panopticon?
8. Write a short note on Bentham’s pleasure and pain theory.
9. Why does Mill consider the representative form of government as the best
form of government?
10. What are the various liberties that Mill identifies in the essay liberty?
11. What does the study on Mill’s ideas on representative government reveal?
12. What is Lenin's opinion about the state?
13. What did Lenin mean by a classless society?
Long-Answer Questions
1. Pleasure and pain is the fundamental tenets of utilitarianism. Discuss.
2. Explain in your own words Bentham’s contribution to political philosophy.
3. Critically evaluate Bentham’s idea of the Panopticon.
4. Bentham was a great liberal thinker. Justify.
Self-Instructional Material 83
Modern Political Thinkers 5. The starting point of Bentham’s political theory was his strong belief that
there was need for extensive reforms in British society and particularly in
English law and judicial procedure. Discuss.
6. Disc uss Mill’s contributions towards the emancipation of women.
NOTES
7. Hume believed that human beings are unable to ground normative arguments
in positive arguments. Discuss.
8. Pleasure and pain are the fundamental tenets of utilitarianism. Discuss.
9. According to Mill, ‘the position of the wife under the common law of Britain
was worse than that of slaves in the laws of many countries’. Discuss the
condition of women during Mill’s time in light of his statement.
10. Discuss Bentham’s theory of punishment.
11. Describe the Mill’s concept of the right of individuality.
12. Discuss the Mill’s concept of individual liberty.
13. Review Mill’s political philosophy.
14. Explain the type of democracy advocated by Mill.
15. What do you understand by scientific socialism?
16. Explain Lenin’s view on dictatorship of the proletariat.
17. What is the role of the state in a classless society, according to Lenin?
84 Self-Instructional Material
Indian Social Thought
3.0 INTRODUCTION
Social and reformist thinkers have played a significant role in making India a more
progressive and forward-looking country. These reformers have fought against several
social evils such as sati, widow remarriage, child marriage, and casteism. Raja Ram
Mohan Roy was the most famous reformist of his times. He was also known as the
‘maker of Modern India’ and he founded the Brahmo Samaj, one of the first Indian
socio-religious reform movements. He played a major role in abolishing the Sati
system. He was a great scholar and an independent thinker.
Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay was another literary figure of India who
worked relentlessly to educate the people of India on nationalism and equality. He
can be seen as a link between the period and ideologies of Rammohan Roy and the
later social reformists. His thoughts on equality of women in the society was influenced
by the thoughts of the Western philosophical thinkers.
Swami Vivekananda was one of the most influential spiritual leaders of
Vedanta philosophy. He was the chief disciple of Ramakrishna Paramahansa and
was the founder of Ramakrishna Math and Ramakrishna Mission. Swami
Vivekananda was the living embodiment of sacrifice and dedicated his life to the
country and yearned for the progress of the poor, the helpless and the downtrodden.
This unit will brings to you the political thoughts of some of the early Indian thinkers.
Self-Instructional Material 85
Indian Social Thought
3.1 UNIT OBJECTIVES
One of the most prominent leaders of the Indian Renaissance is Raja Rammohan
Roy. He is also known as the father of modern India. He was born in 1774 in
Radhanagar, in the state of undivided Bengal, to rich, orthodox, brahmin family of
zamindars (landowners). When he was hardly 15, he wrote a pamphlet in Bengali in
which he denounced idol-worship which, he asserted, was not recognized in the
Vedas. Young Rammohan Roy had to pay very heavily for it. He was turned out
from his orthodox family and he had to live in exile. However, he made the best of
the opportunity offered to him by providence. He travelled far and wide and, thus,
was able to gather a lot of experience and learning. He had deep thirst for knowledge
and had learnt many languages like Persian, Arabic and Sanskrit. He was well
versed in Hindu and Muslim religious scriptures and laws. As an employee of the
East India Company in 1797, he was exposed to the Western culture and traditions
and during that period learned English, Greek and Latin. He also learnt Hebrew (the
original language of Bible) so that he could study the Bible and other works of
Christianity. He had deep knowledge of tantra, Jainism and Buddhism.
In 1805, Rammohan Roy joined the service of the English East India Company
in Bengal, and continued to work there up to 1814. After his retirement, he settled in
Calcutta and devoted himself entirely to the service of the people. In 1814, he started
the Atmiya Sabha. In 1828, he founded the Brahmo Samaj. He went to England in
1831 on a special mission to plead the cause of the Mughal emperor of Delhi. While
he was still busy in that work, he died at Bristol on 27 September 1833. He was
given the title of Raja by the Mughal emperor.
The 18th and early 19th century was termed the dark age of India as the
Indian society was crippled with many social evils and inequalities. Some of the
practices that plagued the India society during that time were polygamy, child
marriage, female infanticide, sati and the caste system. The people were superstitious
and backward.
Roy started a campaign against all these social evils by setting up modern
religious groups, by publishing books and newspapers, by initiating debates and
discussions and by establishing modern schools and colleges.
86 Self-Instructional Material
The first book he wrote on Islam and its influence was Tuhfat-ul- Indian Social Thought
Muwahhidin. It was published in 1803 and clearly portrays the influence of Islam
and Matazilah’s philosophy on him. The great Persian Sufi poets and mystics, Maulevi
Jalal-ud-din Rumi and Hafiz also had deep impressions on him.
NOTES
The concepts of one God and absence of idol worship were the main attributes
of Islam that influenced him deeply.
His deep knowledge of Christianity and the Bible and his admiration for the
Christ and his teachings are all reflected in the various books he wrote. His book,
The Precepts of Jesus, reflects his deep respect for Jesus Christ and his teachings.
His knowledge of Sanskrit enabled him to translate the main ideas of the many old
Hindu scriptures like the Upanishads and Shankaracharya’s works into Bengali.
Gayatrir Artha and Atmanantratma Vivek are two of his famous works. The main
reason for all this research and writings was to influence the Indian society with the
concept of belief in one supreme self and god. He deeply desired that all religious
and social superstitions should be eradicated from the Indian cultural and social
psyche. His book Manazarat-ul-Adiyan showed the common message of all
religions, in order to bring about religious harmony in India. He tried to allay the
fears that Hindus had about the goals and aims of the Christian missionaries.
Roy fought for the freedom of the press. He himself founded and edited a
Bengali journal called the Samvad Kaumudi which was among the earliest Indian-
edited newspapers. He carried on a vigorous agitation against the Press Regulations
of 1823. He submitted a memorial to the supreme court in which he dwelt on the
benefits of a ‘free press. His agitation for the freedom of the press must have paved
the way for the final emancipation of the press in 1885.
3.2.1 Liberalism
Roy was a man of reason and great rationality. He had deep faith in the universal
message of all religions but also did not hesitate to reject ideas or concepts that were
unreasonable and irrational.
During his stay in England from 1831 to 1833, Roy joined the protest for
reform in the administrative system of British-India. He was the first Indian to be
consulted on Indian affairs by the British Parliament. While giving his evidence
before a Select Committee of House of Commons, he suggested reforms in practically
all branches of Indian administration.
Roy along with many other modern thinkers of that time like, Dwarkanath
Tagore (father of Devendranath Tagore), Prasanna Kumar Tagore, Kalisankar
Ghosal, Brindaban Mitra, Brajmohan Majumdar, Nandkishore Bose, Siva Prasad
Mitra and Ram Chandra Vidya Vagish, set up the Atmiya Sabha in 1814 in
Calcutta. However his ideas of one God and influence of Islam and Christianity
and his rejection of caste system shocked many traditional and conservative
Hindus and thus the Atmya Sabha could not sustain itself beyond a point and by
1819 it ceased to exist.
Self-Instructional Material 87
Indian Social Thought In the year 1829 he started the Brahmo Samaj with the philosophy of devotion to
one Supreme Being, the Brahman. He believed in the one immortal soul from which
spring the whole of the Universe and its numerous beings and non-beings to unite
with it after death. The Brahmo Samaj had some specific guidelines:
NOTES • No idol or image worship.
• People from all castes and creeds were allowed to be part of the Samaj.
• No religious rituals were practiced. Meditation and prayer were held. The
Upanishads were read.
Rammohan Roy was almost single-handedly responsible for the abolition of
the practice of sati. He proved how Sati was a ploy to keep the widow of the
deceased from inheriting a share the husband’s property and had no religious
significance. It was also a way to get rid of the widow who would now be a burden
on the relatives with the husband dead. He often went to spots were Sati was being
practiced and tried to stop the heinous ritual of burning a woman alive. A petition to
stop it from being banned was made by the orthodox Hindus before the Governor-
General Lord William Bentinck but Roy filed a counter petition and finally got it
banned. The British Government legally prohibited the practice of Sati with effect
from 1829.
Roy campaigned for the right to inheritance of women, for the remarriage of
widows especially widows who were products of child marriages. However he
himself could not explain why he wore a sacred thread when he was against caste
system, or why he had three wives when he opposed polygamy. Despite this he
remains one of the foremost torch bearers of India’s social and religious revival till
today.
The Raja has been rightly called ‘the herald of a new age’. According to
Monier-Williams, the Raja was ‘perhaps the first earnest minded investigator of the
science of comparative religions that the world has produced’. According to Seal,
‘the Raja was the harbinger of the idea of universal humanism, the humanist, pure
and simple, watching from his conning tower the procession of universal humanity in
universal history’. According to Colet, ‘Rammohan stands in history as the living-
bridge over which India marches from her unmeasured past to her incalculable
future. He was the arch which spanned the gulf between ancient caste and modern
humanity, between superstition and science, between despotism and democracy,
between immobile custom and conservative progress, between a bewildering
polytheism and a pure, if vague, theism’.
According to Nandlal Chatterjee, Rammohan Roy ‘was the human link
between the unfading past and the dawning future, between vested conservatism
and radical reform, between superstitious isolationism and progressive synthesis, in
short, between reaction and progress’.
According to Rabindranath Tagore, Roy ‘inaugurated the modern age in India’.
He has also been described as the Father of Indian Renaissance and the Prophet of
Indian Nationalism. Behind all of his ideas of social and religious reforms, there lay
the thought of bringing about the political regeneration of his countrymen. To quote
88 Self-Instructional Material
him, ‘I regret to say the system adhered to by the Hindus is not well-calculated to Indian Social Thought
promote their political interest. The distinction of castes, introducing division and
sub-divisions among them, has entirely deprived them of political feeling, multitude
of religious rites and ceremonies and the laws of purification have totally disqualified
them from undertaking any difficult enterprise. It is, I think, necessary that some NOTES
change should take place in their religion at least for the sake of their political advantage
and social comfort’.
Self-Instructional Material 89
Indian Social Thought The protection of civil rights depended on certain constitutional and political
reforms. Roy demanded for this purpose a written legal code, separation of legislative,
judicial and executive functions, independent and efficient judiciary, introduction of
the Habeas Corpus Act and the jury system, and the legal accountability of
NOTES administrations. Roy wanted that the legal code should be self-sufficient and should
preclude further references to any other books of authority, either Indian or European.
He strongly criticized the fusion of administrative and judicial powers in the collector.
He argued that the proceedings in the law courts should be made public so that the
local Indian languages and English may replace Persian as the official language of
the courts and administration. Revitalization of the Panchayat system and the inclusion
of Indians as jurors and judges could be the devices to correct the abuses of the
judicial system. Rammohan Roy firmly wanted to establish the legal accountability
of every action of an official. To prevent corruption, he advised payment of higher
salaries to Indian judges. Despite his adherence to the general principle of equality
before law, he did not mind the creation of special courts for the trial of persons of
high rank. Roy also emphasized the importance of the right to private property and
considered it is inviolable.
Like Locke, Rammohan believed that the government should follow a policy
of toleration and must not interfere with the religious beliefs and rites of the subjects.
He demanded that the British rulers should pay due respect to Indian religions and
must not imitate policies of other conquerors of the past who ridiculed and persecuted
the religion of the defeated races. He quoted the historical examples of the Greek,
Roman and Muslim conquerors who had persecuted their Jewish and Christian
subjects for their religious beliefs. He hoped that the English would not display
religious intolerance in their treatment of Hindus and Muslims in India. Criticizing
the attitude of the Christian missionaries, Roy declared:
To introduce a religion by means of abuse and insult, or by affording the
hope of worldly gain, is inconsistent with reasons and justice. If by the force
of argument they can prove the truth of their own religion and the falsity of
that of Hindus many would of course embrace their doctrines, and in case
they fail to prove this, they should not undergo such useless trouble, nor
tease Hindus any longer by their attempt at conversion.
90 Self-Instructional Material
It can enable the rulers to redress the grievances of their subjects before they Indian Social Thought
accumulate and bring about a revolutionary overthrow of the colonial regime. A free
press would diffuse knowledge, improve the minds of the people and make them
more loyal towards the British regime as this loyalty would be based on a critical
understanding of the benefits of the British rule. NOTES
3.2.4 Separation of Powers
Like Montesquieu, Raja Rammohan Roy was a firm believer in the theory of
separation of powers. While Montesquieu regarded it as a necessary precondition
of constitutional liberty, Roy considered it as a cardinal principle of good government.
In the case of district administration, Roy strongly against the fusion of executive
and judicial functions in the person of the collector.
Before the renewal of the Charter in 1833, there was, broadly speaking, two
schools of opinion regarding the creation of legislative authority for India. One school
represented by John Sullivan and others held that India must have a legislative council
on the Indian Territory to legislate for the country. The other school of opinion
wanted to preserve the status quo and wanted the British parliament to exercise
legislative authority for India. Raja Rammohan Roy too opposed the plan of vesting
legislative authority in the hands of legislative council in India because such a council
was bound to be dominated by the executive wing of the Indian government. While
he demanded that the British parliament should legislate for India, he was opposed
to the transfer of executive power from the East India Company to the Crown as
this would violate the principle of separation of powers and might lead to despotic
government.
The constitutional arrangement for India, according to Rammohan Roy, ought
to have been based on the principle of separation of powers, checks and balances
and limited government. While the British Parliament in England should be the law-
making authority for India, the executive power should continue with the
administrators of the East India Company stationed on Indian Territory. Moreover,
there should be a complete delinking of the judicial function from the executive
function and with both of these functions the educated and qualified Indians should
be associated in larger number. The Indians ought to entrust with the highest judicial
and administrative responsibilities. To a modern reader, Rammohan Roy’s faith in
the doctrine of separation of powers as the basis of institutional rearrangement for
the British colonial system seems to be highly misplaced.
3.2.5 Colonial Rule
Speaking about the attitudes of various sections of the Indian population towards
British colonial rule, Rammohan Roy said that the responses varied from extreme
hostility through total apathy to sincere administration. The hostile elements generally
belonged to the aristocratic class. He was much more impressed by the constitutional
evolution of England where absolute monarchy had gradually been transformed into
a constitutional form of government. He thought that the existing colonial rule of the
British in India could also be transformed into constitutional rule by introducing the
Self-Instructional Material 91
Indian Social Thought principle of separation of powers and through increasing association of the members
of the Indian intelligentsia with administrative and judicial functions. Roy had made
a deep and penetrating study of the British political system. He was deeply influenced
by Blackstone’s commentaries on the laws of England. Blackstone’s interpretation
NOTES of the English constitution was rigidly and narrowly legalistic which failed to take
note of the emergence of the cabinet system. Following the analysis of Blackstone,
Roy also thought that the essential merit of the British system was its reliance on the
separation of powers. Consequently, he insisted on the implementation of the same
principle in the reorganization of the Indian government. However, his advocacy of
a legal code for India showed that on this question his views were more in harmony
with those of Bentham than with those of Blackstone.
Roy did not want that law-making authority should be vested in any institution
controlled by the East India Company such as the Governor-General or his council.
This function ought to be entrusted to the sovereign in the realm as the study of
Bentham’s works must have convinced him in this regard. He recommended three
methods for ensuring good legislation for India. The first and the most important
condition was the establishment of a free press in the country. Through a free press,
the public can express its opinion; the laws enacted by them could correspond to the
opinion of the people and serve general interest. A free press allows the people to
ventilate their grievances and prevent a revolution by enabling the British rulers to
make laws in conformity with public opinion. The second method recommended by
Rammohan Roy for securing good legislation for India was the appointment of injury
by the British parliament whenever it decided to frame any new law about India.
The third method proposed by Rammohan Roy to facilitate the task of suitable
legislation for India was to ascertain the views of the aristocratic, wealthy and
educated classes on any new piece of proposed legislation before it was finally
enacted. However, some critics point out that this proposal seems to suggest his bias
towards aristocracy and his ‘contempt of the masses’. They say that for him, public
opinion meant the opinion of the zamindars, merchants and the bureaucratic
functionaries only.
3.2.6 Ideal of Internationalism
Rammohan Roy’s love of liberty had no parochial or chauvinistic quality about it
because it embraced the entire humanity irrespective of ethnic and national frontiers.
In the spiritual sphere, he was the prophet of universal religion and preached the
ideal of brotherhood of men. In the political sphere, he hoped for the victory of the
liberal doctrines throughout the world. Roy did not recognize any basic contradiction
or antagonism between nationalism and internationalism. He realized this truth at a
time when the creed of nationalism was breeding so much intolerance and bitterness
in Europe. He believed that Indian nationalism would gain strength from the
achievement of national freedom by all European nationalities. The free nations of
the world would then discover a bond of union in their common adherence to the
principles of liberty and a liberal form of government.
92 Self-Instructional Material
Thus, Roy was one of the earliest exponents of the noble ideal of Indian Social Thought
Self-Instructional Material 93
Indian Social Thought
3.3 BANKIM CHANDRA CHATTOPADHYAY
Bankim Chandra was born on 26 June 1838 and died on 8April, 1894. He had
NOTES composed the national song Vande Mataram. His song is a source of inspiration to
the leaders who were involved during the time of India’s independence movement.
He graduated from the University of Calcutta and was selected the deputy magistrate
and deputy collector in the Government of British India. He is was a prominent
literary figure of Bengal renaissance.
He was the chief exponent to make the European form of novel writing
flourish on the Indian soil. Educated in Calcutta, he was one of the first graduates of
pre-independent India and remained a civil servant throughout his career. He also
instituted Bengali, his native language, which is mainly spoken in the eastern part of
India, as a medium for prose form for artistic practice. He was a multi-lingual person
with keen interest in culture of his province and customs, traditions and conventions
that were the stumbling blocks in the path of development of the society. His works
preserve the grandeur of culture and voice out its delicacy, beauty and emotions in a
wider and universal sense. His famous literary creations include novels such as
Lalita O Manas (1858), Rajmohan’s Wife (1864), Durgesnandini (1865),
Kapalkundala (1866), Mrinalini (1869), Brisabraksa (1873), Indira (1873),
Yugalanguriya (1874), Radharani and Chandrasekhar (1875), Rajani (1877),
Krisnakanter Uil (1878), Rajsimha (Rajasingha) (1881), Anandmath (1882), Debi
Chaudhrani (1884), Sitaram (1886), and Bangadarsan (1872, a newspaper). His
song in the patriotic novel Anandmath, called ‘Bande Mataram’ became the national
song of India from the pre-independence generations. It means ‘Hail the Mother!’
He was equally well versed in Sanskrit. He purposed to invoke a cultural
renaissance through his novels and poetry, and his literary productions truly seal this
ability. His novels are written in Bengali and English and they focused on social
problems, cultural fineries, nationalistic sentiments, and uplift of the then Indian society
which was sincerely required in the pre-independence era. He wrote about Bengali
heritage in an attempt to unite the educated people and involve them in a cultural
revolution, and make it universal. His work helped to awaken the people, both politically
and culturally. His writings helped to develop rational thinking and scientific temper
among the Indians.
Interestingly, most of his novels are named after women. They also reflect
patriotic emotions, conflicts of the society, human relationships, and an overall
restoration of values. He raised a literary crusade and his example was followed by
many brilliant authors. He was a marvellous story teller and his tales were romantic
ones. His entire repertoire was translated into all the major languages of India.
Through his writings, Bankim Chandra focused on political issues of the period.
In his book Anandamath was set in the backdrop of sannyasi rebellion of the 18th
century.
94 Self-Instructional Material
Indian Social Thought
3.3.1 Nationalism
By the time Bankim Chandra began writing, Bengal was experiencing a new
awakening. People had a new thought, although it may not be called the nationalistic
feeling. It was the desire to improve the condition of the self as well as the country.
The feeling of patriotism was becoming stronger.
Nirad C. Choudhuri, well known for his critical appraisal wrote, ‘Bankim
Chandra Chattopadhyay ... besides being a genius in imaginative literature was
certainly the most powerful intellect produced by India in 19th century.’ Similarly, Sri
Aurobindo also praised Bankim Chandra. He remarks unhesitatingly, ‘Bankim never
clamoured for place or power, but did his work in silence for love of his work even
as nature does, and just because he had no aim but to give out the best that was in
him, was able to create a language, a literature, and a nation.’ Thus, Aurobindo
credits Bankim Chandra not only as a key literary figure, but also a force to reckon
with in building the nation. The praise of one of the leading nationalist in pre-
independent India who later turned ascetic is equally demanding attention.
He provides the truth and revelation of his behaviour to the study of prevailing
temperament of politics. It constituted the hallmark of his nationalism. Bankim
Chandra pointed out the spirit of truth in saying that we do not know how to go for
honey and gather it. There is no reflection in going for it. There is no positive symbol
of work to go with it. It can only be droning like a humming girl.
He advised his countrymen to wake up and rise. Without a constructive
resolution, they could not get any positive outcome from the alien government of
India. The country had to be regenerated towards effective politics. The need of the
hour was a new brand of politics. He put emphasis on new sense of identity, strength
and unity despite different primordial diversities.
Bankim Chandra recognized the need of the hour was to inspire his countrymen
with the idea of nationalism. It had to be done in combination with the spirit of
religion. He talked about the conceptual God and tangible humanity. He pointed out
the essence of dharma of man. Dharma reflects the attainment of full humanity. It
should be through the development of harmony and peace.
Bankim Chandra saw the country as the mother, and this feeling of his emerged
in all his leading novels, the most important of which was Anandamath. His political
vision was in the direction of Hindu revival. Although he ties women to tradition, he
Self-Instructional Material 95
Indian Social Thought creates enough space for them which go beyond subjugation. It can thus, be said
that women drew their strength from the tradition; and in representing nationalism
he evokes people to draw their strength from the very sprit of India.
The slogan bande mataram from his book Anandamath became an inspiring
NOTES slogan of Indian nationalism. It constituted the core value of his political philosophy.
He talked about the love for country. His patriotism comprised the maximum religion.
He put emphasis on religious spirit of patriotism. He coined the word ‘mother land’
to inspire people.
3.3.2 Equality
Samya refers to equality. It is an essay written by Bankim Chandra after studying
Jean-Jacques Rousseau and J. S. Mill. The essay presents Bankim Chandra as a
radical critique of the Indian society and the position of women here. In the essay he
argues that while no two individual are born equal, social inequality is a tool used to
create artificial inequality to assert worldly power. He did not argue on favour of
equality of income for all but talked of ‘each according to his ability and to each
according to his needs. He talked of changing the pattern of inheritance among
women and to endow them with more rights and education. Inspired by Rousseau,
he favoured a social contract that would hold rulers accountable to the people.
Bankim appreciated J. Mill’s plea for gender equality and did not feel the
need to add to what was mentioned in The Subjection of Women. In fact, he felt
that Indian women faced ‘one hundredth degree more of subjugation than what
European women faced’. Many consider Bankim Chandra paid a tribute to Mill by
agreeing with him and not making any changes.
Bankim Chandra talked about two aspects of equality, one is real equality and
the other is artificial equality. He showed how artificial equality can result in decay
of civilization. To him the world is full of inequality. There is inequality in everything.
Although man has created differences between communities, races and people, the
core value of real differences are created by the rules of nature. Then there are
artificial differences. Artificial dissimilarities are not shaped by system of nature.
The social hierarchy and man-made differences are artificial in nature. These
principles can be applied from different diverse perspectives. He talked about different
civilizations. Taking the example of Rome, he showed there are differences between
the patricians and plebeians. But these differences are dim and can be eliminated
through the course of convergence and osmosis.
Vivekananda was born in 1863 and was named Vireshwara by his mother, which
was later changed to Narendra Nath. In his short life span of 39 years, he contributed NOTES
not only to the Indian society but also to the world at large with his philosophy on
spirituality and religion. His philosophy impinges and influences the political ideas of
contemporary India as well. He tried to regenerate India through his philosophy of
truth, love and tolerance which has influenced and constituted the Indian political
thought over the years.
As a preacher of universal religion, Vivekananda is well known both in the
East and the West. He was a great advocate of the Vedanta. He was a humanist, a
patriot, a philosopher, a religious preacher who awakened the people of Hinduism
from its age-old slumber and infused into it a new life and new blood. Vivekananda
successfully infused new hope in man, both in India and abroad, with his message of
love, tolerance, service and sacrifice to mankind
His message was meant for a complete rejuvenation of India’s national life in
all its phases.
3.4.1 Nationalism
Vivekananda was a true nationalist in heart and spirit. He had immense love for his
country. His nationalism was spiritual in nature. Like Aurobindo and Bipin Chandra
Pal, Vivekananda advocated for a religious basis of nationalism. He called India as
‘punya bhumi’ (holy land). To him, India is the ancient land where wisdom made its
home before it went into any other country. To him, India was the land of immortality
of souls and birth place of spiritual leaders. It is here the highest ideals of religion
and philosophy reached their climax. It is the birth place of highest ideals, philosophy
of spirituality and ethics, of simplicity, of gentleness and of love. It has withstood the
shocks of the centuries, hundreds of invasions and hundreds of ups and downs. Yet
it stands firmer and stronger. It developed when many European civilizations did not
exist. From time immemorial, India has been the land of many precious ideas and
the world owes immense debt to India.
Vivekananda was a patriot-monk and did not take part in active politics. He
had never made any political speeches attacking the British rule in India. Similarly,
he never raised the banner of political revolt to secure India’s independence. During
Vivekananda’s time, Indian politics was largely the concern of the English educated
middle class who wanted to share in the administration and get better personal
treatment rather than a movement which aimed at the complete independence of
the country. Vivekananda was not satisfied with the working of the Indian National
Congress. He was rather interested in the moral and religious regeneration of his
countrymen. Hence, even if he was not an advocate of Swaraj, he was deeply
devoted to the cause of the liberation of the poor and the downtrodden.
Vivekananda played a significant role in preparing the ground for the politics
of independence. He gave a new political ideology through his reinterpretation of
the Vedanta and the Hindu religion and his concern for the masses and their problems.
Self-Instructional Material 97
Indian Social Thought The success of his spiritual mission to the West had acted as tonic to the people of
India and helped to restore their self-respect and revived their confidence in India’s
national destiny. Vivekananda’s writings and speeches have contributed a good deal
to the strengthening of the moral foundations of Bengal nationalism in theory and
NOTES practice. At a time when the Indian intelligentsia was busy imitating the Westerners,
he boldly proclaimed that the West had to learn much from India. Thus, Vivekananda
helped a lot in the consolidation of nationalism in India. His thinking has a tremendous
influence on the subsequent political leaders of India. The ideas of Vivekananda,
which were politically revolutionary for the India of his times, had a tremendous
influence on subsequent political thinking and action in India and embraced within its
sphere the mass-dynamism of Gandhi and the socialistic ideas of Nehru.
Vivekananda was of the view that the past historical heritage and greatness
were necessary for nationalism. His idea of nationalism, and glorification of the
nation gave courage, strength and fearlessness, to the .countrymen. India was the
‘land where all souls on this earth must come to account for karma where wisdom
made its home before it went into any country’. Though he took pride in the county’s
inheritance from the past, he was not an obscurantist or chauvinist.
Vivekananda advocated that every nation has a life centre. All the nations
are proud of their political or economic or military strength. He observed that in
India the life-centre or the backbone is religion and religion alone. Here religious life
forms the centre, the keynote of the whole music of national life; the Indian mind is
first religious and then anything else. The Indian vitality is concentrated in religion. It
cannot be changed or destroyed. Hence, Vivekananda advocated that the people of
India should not give up their spirituality. He admitted that religion in India had
forgotten its original purity and it did not recognize the kinship of religions. Hence he
tried to reform it. He wanted a reform of religion and integration of this reformed
religion with-the whole of life. Vivekananda put emphasis on universal love. He did
not approve the, love for one’s own kith and kin or one’s caste or sect or individual’,
religion. He declared, ‘unfurl the banner of love. Arise, awake and stop not till the
goal is reached’.
Vivekananda did not only praise the greatness of the past; he also dreamt of
a bright wonderful and glorious future India. He discussed the present decadence,
of India and stated that the people are to blame themselves for that. That people
were ignoring the past and it is the major cause of India’s, decadence. In the words
of a scholar, ‘As the leading exponent of the spiritual renaissance of India,
Vivekananda moulded the past and the present traditional and modern thought to
mould modern India’s future. In fact, of all the mentors of the Indian renaissance, he
was the most vehement advocate of the spirituality of India which constituted her,
national growth and vitality. He felt that each nation has a mission and a message of
her own. Pursuit of spiritualism formed India’s mission and way of life. As a supporter
of this idea, he revised the eternal teachings of the Vedas and the Upanishads to
strengthen, nation’s growth and faith in its individual. To Vivekananda the, main
causes of this degeneration were the narrowing of the view and action of the people,
perversion of religion tyranny over the masses and the neglect of women.
98 Self-Instructional Material
3.4.2 Socialism Indian Social Thought
Vivekananda was a radical social reformer. He favoured the idea of the revivalism
of Indian traditions, is main intention was to save the masses from ignorance, poverty
and evil practices and to reform and revive the Indian society on the basis of its own NOTES
ideals and values. He was of the view that the social reforms were not possible
without spiritual reforms. All reformers in India made serious mistake of holding
religion, accountable for all the horrors of the priest craft and degeneration. One
must go to the bottom or the very root of the matter. All healthy social changes are
the manifestations of spiritual forces working within.
The social ideas of Vivekananda are reflected in his views on caste system,
emancipation of women and education. Vivekananda believed that the ancient Indian
system of social stratification based upon varna is a correct system. He called it as
‘social communism’. He criticized the doctrines of superiority of Brahmins as
preached by Manu. Rather he put emphasis on the concept of spiritual equality in
the Varna system. However, he was not against giving the highest place to the
learned and the scholars called brahmins. He was a great opponent of ritualism and
priestly tyranny. Vivekananda criticized the caste segregation. He was of the view
that the degeneration of the ancient idea into a rigid caste system is the cause of the
degeneration of the nation. To him the caste system is opposed to the principle of the
vedanta. As he said, ‘There is no caste in religion.’ He further observed that caste
is simply a crystallized social institutions, which after doing its service can only be
removed by giving back to the people their last social individuality.
Vivekananda was not a socialist like the contemporary Fabian socialist or the
Guild socialists of England. He gave a new interpretation to the concept of socialism.
He spent his life in organising missionaries who would fight as soldiers for the abolition
of poverty. Vivekananda called his own brand of socialism as the vedantic socialism.
He demands the sacrifice of individual freedom to social supremacy. He applied this
definition to the Indian condition. His said, ‘if you want to find God, serve man’. He
further said, ‘It is only by doing good to others that one attains to one’s own good
and it is by leading others to bhakti and mukti that one attains. He had deep love for
the poor and said, ‘Remember that the nation lives in the cottage.’ He wanted to
give life to the aspirations and suffering of the masses through his preaching and
writings. According to him, it was necessary to improve the lot of the poor by bringing
education and religion to them.
Vivekananda was aware of the defects of the caste system. The caste system
did not provide any ideal condition for a socialist society. Vivekananda strongly
denied the thesis of religious sanction for the caste system. He did not believe ‘in the
hereditary system of the caste. The caste system was opposed the religion of the
Vedanta. He observed that religion had a connection with the soul and had no business
to interfere in social matters.
However, he was opposed to the privilege a few got in the society. He stood
for an equal chance for all the people. Swami Vivekananda was for the amelioration
of social evils which stood in the way of the people attaining true freedom. His call
to his countrymen was that India was to be raised, the poor were to be fed, education
Self-Instructional Material 99
Indian Social Thought was to be spread and the evil of priest craft was to be removed. He demanded more
bread and more opportunity for everybody. The masses should not reel under abject
misery and frustration. He strongly indicted the Indian National Congress for lacking
positive and constructive efforts for the alleviation of the suffering of masses.
NOTES Vivekananda attempted to mix socialism and individualism into a system where
the socialistic ends would be achieved with the full play of individual freedom. Defining
socialism and individualism he observed that the doctrine which demands the sacrifice
of individual freedom to social supremacy is called socialism, while that which
advocates the cause of the individual is individualism. He is a social realist and
reformer who champion the concept of equal opportunity for all members of society.
He was a socialist in the sense that he did not believe in social exploitation and
inequality. He was opposed to the exploitation of the poor. He showed his resentment
against the upper classes in India and wanted to put to an end to all privileges
enjoyed by them. Vivekananda appealed to the upper classes to give up their privileges
and to merge themselves with the lower and working classes. The new, India according
to him, as to arise from the farmer’s plough, from the huts, from the forests and
from the peasants and the working classes.
The Marxists have described religion as the opium of the people and a means
for upholding the status quo, but Vivekananda’s concept of religion was a different
one: He wanted to advise the people and make them not only discontented with their
poverty and backwardness but also stimulate in them both the desire and the will to
help themselves. He wanted to bring in material betterment first and then religion.
Hence, his religion is known as practical vedanta and his socialism is called as the
vedantic socialism. No orthodox socialist was a greater votary of the masses than
Vivekananda. Only his method of rousing them and ushering in a new social order
was different from that of the other socialists. Vivekananda cannot be listed in the
gallery of orthodox socialists, his concept of socialism rests on the climate of change
he wanted to bring about in Indian life, conduct and character and the rousing of
spirituality among his people Vedanta. Thus, Vivekananda thought of poor nationals
of India and aimed at alleviating their miseries by subordinating the bliss of the
Absolute. In the words of scholar, ‘Patriotism means love of the country and the
country means its masses. Only Vivekananda arrived at this road through religion.
Vivekananda was opposed to the inequalities based on the caste system, he
found it essential for the Indian society. No society can exist without some sort of
social stratification. According to Vivekananda the main objective of the caste-
system is’ to evolve every individual of the society to the level of Brahmin, the,
supreme and best human being. He did not believe in the hereditary, natural to the
caste system.
Vivekananda strongly condemned the evil practice of untouchability. In his
writings he discussed the personal experiences of the disabilities suffered by the
untouchable castes. He also suggested possible reforms to eradicate it. Thus, he
was a great social reformer.
3.5 SUMMARY
• In 1814, Rammohan Roy started the Atmiya Sabha. In 1828, he founded the
Brahmo Samaj.
• Roy started a campaign against all these social evils by setting up modern
religious groups, by publishing books and newspapers, by initiating debates
and discussions and by establishing modern schools and colleges.
• Roy fought for the freedom of the press. He himself founded and edited a
Bengali journal called the Samvad Kaumudi which was among the earliest
Indian-edited newspapers.
• Rammohan Roy was almost single-handedly responsible for the abolition of
the practice of sati.
• Rammohan Roy was a passionate believer in the ideal of freedom.
• For Roy the dimensions of liberty were universal and international.
• Rammohan Roy was of the view that civil rights cannot be claimed as the
natural rights of men.
• Rammohan believed that the government should follow a policy of toleration
and must not interfere with the religious beliefs and rites of the subjects.
• Raja Rammohan Roy was a firm believer in the theory of separation of powers.
• Roy did not want that law-making authority should be vested in any institution
controlled by the East India Company such as the Governor-General or his
council.
• Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay was the composer of the national song Vande
Mataram.
• He was the chief exponent to make the European form of novel writing
flourish on the Indian soil.
Short-Answer Questions
1. How did Rammohan Roy emerge as a social reformer?
2. What was Roy’s view on separation of power?
3. Write a short note on freedom of press as advocated by Rammohan Roy.
4. Why is Bankim Chandra seen as a link between the past and the future?
5. What did Bankim Chandra say about women equality?
6. Why is Vivekananda called a social reformer?
Long-Answer Questions
1. Discuss Rammohan Roy as a social reformer.
2. Explain Roy’s concept of liberalism.
3. What did Roy mean by social liberty?
4. Discuss Bankim Chandra’s thoughts on nationalism.
5. Discuss Bankim Chandra’s view on women equality as expressed in Samya.
6. How did Vivekananda fight caste system in India?
7. Explain Vivekanand’s view on nationalism.
POLITICAL THOUGHT
NOTES
Structure
4.0 Introduction
4.1 Unit Objectives
4.2 Gandhi: Preacher of Non-violence, Satyagraha
4.2.1 Satyagraha
4.2.2 Gandhi’s Concept of the Individual and the State
4.3 M. N. Roy: A Revolutionary Nationalist
4.3.1 Roy’s Marxist Beliefs
4.3.2 New or Radical Humanism
4.3.3 Concept of Organised Democracy
4.3.4 Roy and Gandhi
4.3.5 Roy’s Contribution to Indian Political Thought
4.4 B. R. Ambedkar: A Social Revolutionary
4.4.1 A Revolutionary Seeking Social Justice
4.4.2 Organisation of the Socially Oppressed Classes
4.4.3 Ambedkar and the Poona Pact
4.4.4 Political Ideas of Ambedkar
4.4.5 Ambedkar’s Ideas on Social and Economic Democracy
4.4.6 Economic Planning
4.5 Jawaharlal Nehru
4.5.1 Freedom Movement
4.5.2 Nehruvian Model of Development
4.5.3 Institution Building and Infrastructure Development
4.5.4 Critique of Nehruvian Model
4.6 Summary
4.7 Key Terms
4.8 Answers to ‘Check Your Progress’
4.9 Questions and Exercises
4.10 Further Reading
4.0 INTRODUCTION
India’s encounter with the British Empire produced two kinds of intellectual responses:
social and political. Throughout the 19th century social movements were initiated by
thinkers like Rammohan Roy, Vivekananda, Dayananda and Phule in different parts
of the country. In the twentieth century freedom movement grew mainly under the
organizational leadership of the Indian leadership. Political thinking actually developed
through the writings, speeches and other activities of individual leaders of different
hues and reflected their different stresses within the overall goal of national
independence also incorporating international ideas.
With the Indian leadership split between the moderate and extremist factions, another
leader emerged who came to dominate the freedom struggle with his principle of
non-violent opposition to British rule. This was Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, a
person with mass appeal who enjoyed the support of both the moderates and the
extremists. Gandhi, or Mahatma Gandhi, as he came to be known, turned the national
movement into a mass movement of the people. He had returned to India from
South Africa in early 1915. Gandhi had been a moderate to begin with and had
supported the British government during the war. However, a number of events, like
the conduct of the British government in Champaran and Kheda, passing of the
Rowlatt Act, and the Jallianwala Bagh tragedy, turned him from a loyalist to rebel.
He considered Gokhale to be his political mentor and, therefore, often turned to him
for advice. He went around the country for a year, travelling in third class in trains,
and getting acquainted with the people and their problems at the grassroots level.
Gradually, he led several local struggles such as the one at Champaran in
Bihar and the dispute at Ahmedabad textile mills. These local struggles were also a
landmark in the history of Indian freedom struggle as they were the first Satyagraha
protests initiated by Gandhi based on the principle of ahimsa or non-violence against
the British. His leadership earned him widespread respect and loyal support of the
people, and he rapidly rose to the helm of nationalist politics as a charismatic leader
of the nationalist movement.
Rabindranath Tagore, India’s most well-known poet and author, gave him the
title of Mahatma, or ‘Great Soul’. Though many leaders fought for the cause of
Indian independence, Mahatma Gandhi’s role stands out among them. His arrival
galvanized the nationalist movement and made it a mass movement.
4.2.1 Satyagraha
Gandhi used the word satyagraha in 1906 to express the nature of the non-violenent
action undertaken by Indians in South Africa against the racist government there.
106 Self-Instructional Material
During his involvement in the Indian National Movement, Gandhi adopted it as a Modern Indian Political
Thought
technique of love-force or soul-force that was non-violent in nature, which aimed
constantly at the search and pursuit of truth. For Gandhi, Satyagraha was the
vindication of truth, not by the infliction of suffering on the opponent but on one’s
own self. Satyagraha emphasised always the purity of means as well as the purity NOTES
of ends. It is a moral weapon in the hands of a morally strong person to fight injustice,
tyranny or evil and can be applied in any sphere. According to Gandhi, ‘It is a force
that may be used by individuals as well as communities. It may be used as well in
political as in domestic affairs. Its universal applicability is a demonstration of its
permanence and invincibility.’ Before practicing satyagraha in public life, a satyagrahi
must practice it in domestic or personal life. Like charity, satyagraha must begin
from home.
An individual in search of truth, whether in domestic or public life, has a
heavy burden of ethical code over his shoulders. His aim is self-realisation through
social service and sacrifice. For a satyagrahi, satyagraha is a weapon to be used for
public good and never for personal gains. It is not to be resorted to defend immoral
acts and wrongly earned gains. There is no place for ill-will and hatred in satyagraha.
A satyagrahi does not think of his enemy in terms of victor and vanquished.
It must be remembered that satyagraha is not the same as passive resistance.
It is true that both are peaceful techniques of meeting aggression and bringing about
social and political changes. However, there are differences between the two. Passive
resistance as practiced is a political weapon of expediency but satyagraha is a moral
weapon based on the superiority of soul force over brute force. Passive resistance
is the weapon of the weak but satyagraha can be practiced only by a mentally
strong person. The passive resister aims at embarrassing his opponent into submission,
but a satyagrahi aims at winning the opponent from error by love and patient suffering.
There is hardly any place for love for the enemy in the case of passive resistance. In
satyagraha, there is no room for ill-will.
Mahadev Desai, a close associate of Gandhi, during the freedom struggle
observed, ‘satyagraha is dynamic, passive resistance is static. Passive resistance
acts negatively and suffers reluctantly. Satyagrahi acts positively and suffers with
cheerfulness because from love he makes the suffering fruitful. Passive resistance
is not by its very nature universal in its application. It cannot be directed against
one’s nearest relations as satyagraha can be. Passive resistance offered in a spirit
of weakness and despair weakens the resister psychologically and morally. Satyagraha
emphasises on internal strength and actually develops the same. Satyagraha can
offer more effective and determined opposition to injustice and tyranny than passive
resistance.’
Forms and Techniques of Satyagraha
The techniques of satyagraha may take the form of non-cooperation and civil
disobedience or fasting and strike (stop-work). As regards to non-cooperation, Gandhi
pointed out that oppression and exploitation can be checked by non-cooperation of
the people. If people refused to co-operate with the government, the latter cannot
function. Gandhi said, ‘Even the most despised government cannot stand except
Self-Instructional Material 107
Modern Indian Political with the consent of the governed, whose consent is often forcibly procured by the
Thought
despot. Immediately the subject ceases to fear the despotic force, his power is
gone.’ Non-cooperation may manifest itself in the form of hartals, or picketing.
Hartals involved the stopping of work as a measure of protest and its objective is to
NOTES strike the imagination of the people and the government. For hartals to be effective,
they have to be voluntary without the use of violence.
According to Gandhi, ‘Object of peaceful picketing is not to block the path of
a person wanting to do a particular thing but to rely on the force of public opprobrium
and to war and even shame the blacklegs. Picketing should avoid coercion, intimidation,
discourtesy, burning or burying of effigies and hunger strike.’
Another form of satyagraha recommended by Gandhi is civil disobedience.
This is regarded by Gandhi as a ‘complete, effective and bloodless substitute of
armed revolt’. Civil disobedience implies ‘the register’s outlawry in a civil, i.e., non-
violent manner’. In espousing his concept of civil disobedience, Gandhi put the greatest
emphasis on the world ‘civil’. He stated, ‘Disobedience has to be civil, must be
sincere, respectful, restrained, never defiant, must be based on some well-understood
principle, must not be capricious and must have no ill will or hatred behind it.’ Further,
‘Its use must be guarded by all conceivable restrictions. Even possible provision
should be made against outbreak of violence or general lawlessness. The area as
well as scope should also be limited to the barest necessity of the case’. The leaders,
and not the satyagrahis, are to decide which laws were to be violated.
Another form of satyagraha suggested by Gandhi is fasting. This, he considered
as an extremely potent weapon. Thus, Gandhi recommended the greatest caution in
resorting to fasting. For Gandhi, fasting was not meant for all occasions but only on
rare occasions. It could be undertaken for self-purification or for the purpose of
resisting injustice and converting the evil-doer. According to Gandhi, fasting was
only to be undertaken by those who had spiritual fitness; it requires purity of mind,
discipline, humility and faith. Gandhi viewed fasting as a means to rouse the
conscience. He stated, ‘Those who bring about radical changes in human conditions
and surroundings cannot do it except by raising ferment in society. There are only
two methods of doing this—through violence or non-violence. Non-violent pressure
exerted through self-suffering and by fasting touches and strengthens the moral
fibre of those against whom it is directed.
The last method of satyagraha was stop-work (strikes). However, Gandhi’s
view of strikes was different than what was advocated by the Socialists and
Communists. According to Gandhi, strike is a voluntary, purificatory suffering
undertaken to convert the wrong doers. Gandhi did not believe in the theory of class
war.
Gandhi recommended satyagraha even in the case of foreign invasion. He
explained, ‘A non-violent man or society does not anticipate or provide for attacks
from without. On the contrary, such a person or society firmly believes that nobody
is going to disturb them. If the worst happens, there are two ways open to non-
violence. To yield possession, but non-co-operate with the aggressor. Thus, supposing
that a modern edition of Nero descended upon India, the representatives of the state
108 Self-Instructional Material
will let him in, but tell him that he will get no assistance from the people. They will Modern Indian Political
Thought
prefer death to submission. The second way would be non-violent resistance by
people who have been trained in the non-violent way. They would offer themselves
unarmed as fodder for the aggressor’s cannons. The underlying belief in either case
is that even a Nero is not devoid of a heart. The unexpected spectacle of endless NOTES
rows upon rows of men and women simply dying rather than surrender to the will of
an aggressor must ultimately melt him and his soldiery.’
When China was attacked by Japan during the 1930s, Gandhi said, ‘If the
Chinese had non-violence of my conception, there would be no use left for the latest
machinery of destruction which Japan possesses. The Chinese would say to Japan,
“Bring all your machinery. We present half of our population to you, but the remaining
two hundred millions won’t bend their knees to you.”’ If the Chinese did that, Japan
would become China’s slave.
According to theologian E. Stanley Jones, ‘Satyagraha is the greatest
contribution of Gandhi to the modern world.’ The question then arises, whether the
ideas of Gandhi are relevant for us even today when we see ourselves surrounded
in our day-to-day life by so-called satyagrahas, dharnas, fasts unto death and
gheraoes.
Gandhi put emphasis on the means as well as the ends. What is happening in
India today falls short of the Gandhian standard of morality and ethics. However, if
the Gandhian spirit is truly imbibed by the new generation, many of the problems in
India can be solved without recourse to violence. Gandhi’s technique can be employed
successfully to fight the evils of corruption, black-marketing or injustices in economic,
industrial or social life. Without bloodshed, Gandhism can bring a total revolution in
India.
Gandhian Socialism
Gandhi was a critic of capitalism. He condemned the 19th century doctrine of laissez
faire. To him, accumulation of capital was an evil and immoral act. Today,
unfortunately, the word ‘socialism’ has become a controversial one. Socialism is
often compared with a hat which has lost its shape because everybody wears it.
However, if socialism is defined as a political and economic theory according to
Self-Instructional Material 111
Modern Indian Political which the means of production, distribution and exchange should be owned and
Thought
controlled by the people, where everyone should be given an equal opportunity to
develop his talents and the wealth of the community should be fairly distributed, then
Gandhi may be called a socialist.
NOTES Gandhi visualised a social structure in which every attempt needed to be
made to ensure a rise of all. Let us now examine the basic tenets of Gandhian
socialism:
(i) Equitable distribution of wealth: Gandhi believed in the concept of economic
equality and advocated, ‘a wise regulation of riches and absolute social justice.’ He
once wrote, ‘Socialism is a beautiful word and, so far as I am aware, in socialism, all
the members of the society are equal, none low, none high. In the individual body, the
head is not high, because it is the top of the body, nor are the soles of the feet low
because they touch the earth. Even as parts of the individual body are equal, so are
the members of the society. This is socialism.’
This statement clearly reveals the concept of equality as embodied in Gandhian
socialism. On another occasion he wrote, ‘I am working for winning swaraj for
those toiling and unemployed millions, who do not have even a square meal a day
and have to live only on a piece of a stale roti and a pinch of salt.’
At the same time, Gandhi was a practical man. He realised that complete
equality was a chimera. Hence, he pleaded for equitable distribution. As he stated,
‘My ideal is equal distribution, but so far as I can see, it is not to be realised. I,
therefore, work for equitable distribution of wealth.’
(ii) Theory of trusteeship: Gandhi was not altogether in favour of abolishing
private property. He believed in the principle of trusteeship under which the rich
class could possess all their wealth in trust for the good of the people. This theory of
trusteeship was a cardinal point of the economic policy which Gandhi had advocated
for independent India. Gandhi strongly believed in the conception of aparigraha
(non-possession) and contended that ‘a thing not originally stolen must nevertheless
be classified as stolen property if we possess without need for it’. When in 1929
Gandhi advocated his theory of trusteeship, he expected a good response from the
elites in India. However, the response was extremely poor. Therefore, he revised
his view and accepted the idea of ‘statutory trusteeship’. In the beginning he assumed
that trusteeship would be inherited by the son, but later on, in 1938 he declared that
a trustee has no heir but the public.
(iii) Bread labour: Gandhi’s idea of bread labour is based on the principle of dignity
and sanctity of labour. According to Gandhi, the real wealth of the nation consists of
labour. The idea that man should earn his bread by the sweat of his labour greatly
influenced him. The theory of bread labour postulates that every healthy individual
must labour enough for his good and his intellectual faculties must not be exercised
in order to amass a fortune, but only in the service of mankind. According to Gandhi,
‘If all laboured for their bread and no more, then there would be enough food and
enough leisure for all. There will then be no rich and no poor, none high, none low, no
touchable and no untouchable.’
Manabendra Nath Roy, born on 6th February 1886, was one of the radicals in India’s
struggle for independence. He actively participated in the armed struggles against
British colonialism that took place in India in the early part of the 20th century. He
was also one of the founders of the Communist Party in India as well as Mexico and
also actively engaged in the revolutionary struggle in China during that time. In the
early part of his life, Roy was a great champion of the philosophy of Marxism. But
later on, Roy lost faith in Marxism and expounded his theory of Radical Humanism
or New Humanism.
As a radical revolutionary, Roy also spent a great deal of his life in prison.
The forced confinement in jail gave him more time to observe, reflect and theorise.
Roy used his prison years to write a systematic study of ‘the philosophical
consequences of modern science’, which would be in a way a re-examination and
re-formulation of Marxism to which he had been committed since 1919. The
reflections grew over a period of five years into nine thick volumes. The Prison
Manuscripts were never published in totality; however, selected portions were
published as separate books in the 1930s and the 1940.
4.3.1 Roy’s Marxist Beliefs
Roy is regarded as one of the first Indian Marxists. A nationalist, Roy came into
contact with Michael Borodin, a member of the Communist International, who
114 Self-Instructional Material
indoctrinated him to Marxism. According to Roy, ‘I left the land of my rebirth (Mexico) Modern Indian Political
Thought
as an intellectually free man, though with a new faith. I no longer believed in political
freedom without the content of economic liberation and social justice.’ Roy tried to
link nationalism with Marxism. It was Marxist philosophy’s anti-imperialistic dimension
which attracted him. However, later in life, he discarded Marxism and emerged as NOTES
one of the leading proponents of radical humanism.
Roy was deeply impressed by the philosophy of Karl Marx, even during his
humanist phase. He considered Marx as a merciless critic of social injustice in the
traditions of the great Jewish prophets. For Roy, Marxism was more than a mere
political and economic approach or a technique of revolution. As he stated, ‘As a
philosophy, Marxism is the outcome of development of thought from the dawn of
history. Therefore, it is the heritage of humanity; it is the ideological equipment
belonging to everybody for a better world.’
According to Roy, materialist philosophy was corroborated by the latest
scientific knowledge. Like Marx, Roy regarded the capitalist system as unjust, rotten
and outdated. He was of the opinion that industry should be controlled by the people
themselves. Like Marx, he worked on the fundamental principle that there should be
no exploitation of the poor by the rich. Roy supported the idea of Marx that any
action to be successful must be in consonance with a clear thought and plan. But
any plan or actions, to be effective should also be based on the existing structure of
things. Roy also believed that knowledge has its roots in the physical universe.
According to Roy, ‘To seek the knowledge of the phenomena of nature in a
hypothetical supernatural sense, is logically absurd and philosophically inadmissible.’
Roy regarded sensation, actions and perceptions as the source of knowledge.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mn_roy2.jpg
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ambedkar_speech_at_Yeola.gif
Jawaharlal Nehru (1889–1964) a man with vision and dynamism was one of the
few Indians who could come out of the lap of luxury provided by his father Motilal
Nehru and dedicate his life for political activism for the nation. It is through his role
in the political activities that he contributed to the modem Indian political thought. He
was also a historian who recorded the British rule in India and the overview of the
Indian nationalist movement. Prior to India’s independence, he spoke and wrote on
various problems facing India and the world at great length. Some of his famous
books include The Discovery of India and Glimpses of World History. The
Discovery of India provides a broad view of Indian history, philosophy and culture,
as viewed from the eyes of an Indian fighting for the independence of his country
while Glimpses of World History provides a panoramic sweep of the history of
humankind.
Nehru was influenced by Marxist thinking and had a good grasp on Marxist
literature, which gave a new orientation to his thinking. He had acquired clarity in
understanding the Indian society and felt that socialism suited Indian traditions because
he saw the Indian society to be in the same state of pre-socialist Soviet Russia. As
the first Prime Minister of independent India, he continued to speak on problems
facing free India and the nuclear world. He articulated his ideas and his views on
political thought in general and on nationalism and social revolution in particular.
4.5.1 Freedom Movement
Jawaharlal Nehru was born in an aristocratic family of Allahabad on 14 November
1889. His father, Motilal Nehru, was a famous lawyer and was one of the wealthiest
140 Self-Instructional Material
people in Allahabad. Nehru described his early childhood as a ‘sheltered and Modern Indian Political
Thought
uneventful one.’ He was educated by a series of British governesses and tutors until
he was sixteen. He also had Indian tutors who taught him Hindi and Sanskrit. Nehru
went on to attend Harrow in England before earning an honours degree in natural
science from the Trinity College in Cambridge University. Nehru returned to India in NOTES
1912 and joined the Allahabad High Court as a barrister. He soon lost interest in his
legal career as neither the practice of law, nor the company of lawyers stimulated
his interests. Rather, Nehru became attracted towards the national movement for
home rule, joining Annie Besant’s India Home Rule League. He made his first
appearance at a Congress platform as a delegate to the Bankipore session in 1912.
He campaigned on behalf of the Congress against the indentured labour system
forced upon Indian workers in Fiji as well as the discrimination faced by Indians in
South Africa. In 1920, he joined the Non-cooperation Movement started by Gandhi,
suffering imprisonment for the first time in 1921. He would be imprisoned by the
British colonial authorities another eight times for his activities during the freedom
struggle. In 1942, he also joined Gandhi’s ‘Quit India Movement’ and as imprisoned
until 1945. It was during this period of imprisonment that Nehru wrote ‘The Discovery
of India,’ a book that was to have a lasting impact on the shaping of India’s nationhood.
On 15th August 1947, India won her freedom and Jawaharlal Nehru became
independent India’s first Prime Minister, serving the nation in this capacity until his
death on 27 May 1964.
Nehru drew much of his inspiration from Mahatma Gandhi, whom he first
met in 1916. It was under Gandhi’s mentorship that Nehru rose to prominence in the
Congress and became one of the most important leaders in the freedom struggle.
4.6 SUMMARY
• Gandhi used the word Satyagraha in 1906 to express the nature of the non-
violence action undertaken by Indians in South Africa against the racist
government there.
• For Gandhi, satyagraha was the vindication of truth, not by the infliction of
suffering on the opponent but on one’s own self. Satyagraha emphasised
always the purity of means as well as the purity of ends. It is a moral weapon
in the hands of a morally strong person to fight injustice, tyranny or evil and
can be applied in any sphere.
• The techniques of satyagraha may take the form of non-cooperation and civil
disobedience or fasting and strike.
• Gandhi believed in the concept of the individual being the soul of the social
system. According to Gandhi, the individual is the centre of the social system,
however, the individual and the society are also interdependent, the individual
is the root and the society is the fruit.
• Gandhi was a philosophical anarchist for whom the state was an unacceptable
institution.
• Like Marx and anarchists, Gandhi thought that the State was an instrument
of exploitation based on violence and sustained by violence.
• Gandhi was a critic of capitalism. He condemned the 19th century doctrine
of laissez-faire. To him, the accumulation of capital was an evil and immoral
act.
• The basic tenets of Gandhian socialism include equitable distribution of wealth,
theory of trusteeship, bread labour, decentralised order, democratic non-violent
socialism, moral, spiritual and indigenous socialism.
• Manabendra Nath Roy was also one of the founders of the Communist Parties
in India as well as Mexico and also actively engaged in the revolutionary
struggle in China during that time.
Self-Instructional Material 153
Modern Indian Political • Like Marx, Roy regarded the capitalist system as unjust, rotten and outdated.
Thought
He was of the opinion that industry should be controlled by the people
themselves. Like Marx, he worked on the fundamental principle that there
should be no exploitation of the poor by the rich.
NOTES • In the latter half of his life, Roy became a critic of Marxism and came to the
conclusion that communism provided no solution to worldly problems.
• In his book, Reason, Romanticism and Revolution, Roy observed, ‘The
abolition of private property, state ownership of the means of production and
planned economy, do not by themselves end exploitation of labour nor lead to
an equal distribution of wealth.’
• In the latter half of his life, M.N. Roy became an exponent of ‘New
Humanism’. New Humanism was the name given by Roy to the ‘new
philosophy of revolution’. The philosophy was summarized by Roy in the
‘Twenty-Two Theses’ and elaborated in his New Humanism - A Manifesto.
• Roy’s radical humanist philosophy, in some ways, brought Roy close to Gandhi.
Both Gandhian socialism and Roy’s Radical humanism accepted the individual
as the central point of all social thought and action. Both stood for the
decentralization of political and economic power. Both also suggested party-
less democracy for purifying politics.
• Roy was of the view that New Humanism or Radical Humanism was the
perfect answer to the crisis faced by humanity. For Roy, in the post Hitler-
Mussolini-Stalin world, the major problem facing humanity was how to
guarantee individual freedom against the encroachments of the totalitarianism
of the great Leviathan.
• Materialism is another fundamental principle of Roy’s philosophy. Roy regarded
matter as real and independent. On the basis of matter, Roy explained the
origin of life and mind.
• Roy was a critic of democratic institutions. Like Jayaprakash Narayan, he
was against the concept of the western model of parliamentary democracy.
Roy argued that in a parliamentary democracy, political power was
concentrated in the hands of a few people.
• Roy’s conception of organised democracy was a ‘direct democracy with
small cooperative commonwealth.’
• Roy’s radical humanist philosophy, in some ways, brought Roy close to Gandhi.
Both Gandhian socialism and Roy’s Radical humanism accepted the individual
as the central point of all social thought and action. Both stood for the
decentralisation of political and economic power. Both also suggested party-
less democracy for purifying politics.
• In spite of these similarities, there were some fundamental differences
between Roy and Gandhi.
• Roy is one of the most learned of modern Indian writers on politics and
philosophy. His book, Reason, Romanticism and Revolution is a major
contribution to the history of political thought in India.
154 Self-Instructional Material
• Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, born to a Mahar family in Madhya Pradesh in Modern Indian Political
Thought
1891, experienced personal humiliation and inhuman treatment and social
taboo.
• His experience however did not embitter Ambedkar against Hindus at the
individual level. But he worked actively against Hinduism, more specifically NOTES
Brahmanism, because it stood in the way of establishment of an egalitarian
society.
• Ambedkar realised that the lower castes were oppressed on account of two
reasons: firstly, they had potentially internalised hierarchy, and secondly, the
characteristics of caste-based inequality. Therefore, Ambedkar appealed to
the people of the lower castes to reform their way of life.
• Ambedkar was the protagonist of a new social order which was to be based
on the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity. His views on social problems
like caste, untouchability and women constitute the foundations of his socio-
political idea.
• Ambedkar believed that democracy is not merely a form of governments; it
is primarily a mode of associated living of conjoint communicated experience.
It is essentially an attitude or respect of reverence for fellow human being.
• For Ambedkar, in a democracy, there should be freedom to choose one’s
profession. To talk of democracy and not to allow this freedom is to perpetuate
slavery.
• Ambedkar was convinced that for social justice and progress of the nation, it
was essential that the conditions of women should be improved to a great
extent.
• Ambedkar realized the inevitability of organizing the Depressed Classes to
agitate against the social wrongs which they have been experiencing since
long.
• Ambedkar sought to mobilise the Untouchables under one fold and for which
he established an organisation called Bahiskrita Hitakarini Sabha in 1924.
The motives of the Sabha were to ‘Educate, Agitate and Organize.’
• Nehru can be seen as a product of the Indian freedom struggle. Like many
other leaders of the Indian Nationalist Struggle, the appalling oppression and
exploitation by the British, the overwhelming poverty in India and the deep
sense of nationalism that was gripping the Indian people, convinced him to
join the nationalist movement.
• Nehru drew much of his inspiration from Mahatma Gandhi, whom he first
met in 1916. It was under Gandhi’s mentorship that Nehru rose to prominence
in the Congress and became one of the most important leaders in the freedom
struggle. However, Nehru’s model of state-led development was largely
influenced by industrialized Europe.
• Jawaharlal Nehru wanted to modernize India as fast as possible and to catch
up with the West in terms of economic development. For Nehru,
Short-Answer Questions
1. What is the meaning of Satyagraha?
2. Why is Gandhi considered a philosophical anarchist?
3. Why was Roy criticized for his idea of radical humanism?
4. What was Roy’s opinion on the Western form of parliamentary democracy?
What form of democracy did Roy prefer?
5. What is the basis of the caste system in India?
6. Write a short note on the life of B.R. Ambedkar.
7. What was Ambedkar’s idea of an ideal social structure and highlight his role
in the framing of Indian Constitution.
8. What is meant by a mixed economy?
9. What does the Nehruvian model emphasis?
10. Why is Nehru called a visionary?
11. Write a note on economic policies of Nehru.
12. What are the objectives and responsibilities of the Planning Commission?
Long-Answer Questions
1. Discuss the basic philosophy of Gandhism.
2. Explain the various techniques of Satyagraha that Gandhi advocated.
3. Gandhi believed that the individual was the soul of the social system. Discuss
4. Discuss the meaning and philosophy behind Gandhian socialism.
5. Discuss Roy’s opinion in the 1920s and contrast it with his opinion of Marxism
in the 1940s.
6. The concept of radical humanism is the greatest contribution of Roy to modern
Indian political thought. Discuss.