NALSAR University of Law

First Semester 2024

Teacher: Mr. Murli

POLITICAL SCIENCE
___

Notes

Introduction: Goal of Politics

1. Politics as a function
2. Politics can be explained as an activity- causation
3. Righteous Behaviour (normative function)- both for the ruler and the ruled; Tawhid-
unity with God; in secular nations- common or supreme good represents this idea
4. Politics as an instrument of Power: Michel Foucault- State is the monopoly of Violence
5. Philosopher King- embodies the qualities of a philosopher in a metaphorical sense

IDEOLOGY - Individual arbitrariness does not determine how the state functions

SOCIAL CONTROL - highly functional society functions on institutionalized powers

SOCIAL STRUCTURE - Territory and boundaries of power- private/ public spheres (ambiguous)

STATE - The state does not function in vacuum

Social order- hierarchical; public order- egalitarian; religious order- secular

Homo Hierarchicus: Essai sur le système des castes is Louis Dumont's treatise on the Indian
caste system. It analyses the caste hierarchy and the ascendancy tendency of the lower castes to
follow the habits of the higher castes. This concept was termed as Sanskritisation by MN
Srinivas.

Methods to study Political Science

1. Synthetic
2. Analytic
3. Evaluative
Multidimensional Influences in politics

1. Ontological theories i.e meta theories - social control theories a) Hobbes; b) Rousseau;
c) locke; d) John Rawls- Theory of justice
2. Normative -stagnation of norms (anomi)
3. Subjective
4. Objective public institutions Marxist theory of historical materialism

Empiricist metatheory - hermeneutic circuit- Theory and methodology of interpretation

including verbal/ non verbal communication the semantic presuppositions and pre
understandings.

Wittgenstein's Poker: The Story of a Ten-Minute Argument Between Two Great Philosophers is
about the events in the history of philosophy involving Sir Karl Popper and Ludwig
Wittgenstein, leading to a confrontation at the Cambridge University Moral Sciences Club in
1946.

Karl Popper discusses the problem of rationality and human freedom from a philosophical
perspective. It uses the metaphors of "clouds" to represent unpredictable physical systems and
"clocks" to represent predictable systems. As the outcome of politics is based on Choice +
Action + Chance

Since Causation and Correlation is dangerous in Politics modest strategies/ approaches must be
adopted

Systems model of understanding politics - functionalist model

Political System/ Style/ Institution

/ \

Intermediary Structures/ Political Parties Output Structures:

/Pressure Groups Bureaucracy/ Parliaments

\ /

Social Systems/ Political cultures/ Social Structures

Political Philosophy
 1. Legitimacy of power- of state and political arrangements- eliminates need for coercion-
Plato’s ideas of justice

2. Mode of power- Machiavelli

According to Machiavelli a ruler must remember that whatever brings success is due to power.
For acquiring political power he can use any type of Means. He said politics is a constant
struggle for power. All politics is power politics.

3. Limitations of power- The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case

Values of law are dependent on the values and ideas of political philosophy.

Law interprets Values and concepts of Justice.

Survival of social order is contingent on political justice.

Methods of Political Philosophy

Political Philosophy is prescriptive but law is a normative standard of conduct

● Prescriptive standards of conduct

● Construction of theoretical frameworks eg:liberalism
● Deconstruction of theoretical frameworks eg: feminism

Example: debate of rule of law and rule by law

rule of law- normative (herding loyalist- anti plural state hood??)

Humans are not inherently unequal but so in the sense of what they want to be

rule by law- arbitrary (colonial state formations)

Challenges to Traditional Political Philosophy: post-statists; green philosophers- they argue

that politics should be nature/eco- centric.

Ideologies

Systems of ideas that are potent, often lethal political forces that shape mankind.

all these ideas pledge to shape society into a particular way. While some are dependent on
physical or ideological coercion. Backed by armies of supporters they produce different types of
economies and Societies.
ideology destabilizes our sense of existence.

Antoine Louis Claude Destutt, comte de Tracy was a French Enlightenment aristocrat and
philosopher who coined the term "ideology". According to him ideologies were comprehensive
bodies of belief whereas individuals were blank slates.

According to Karl Marx most ideologies were used to justify the interest of the dominant class
thus being an Illusion of the epoch.

Conceptions of Ideologies:

conception of ideology as a political solidarity, comradery. No ideology is scientific or

objective???? (Scientific Marxism? Historical Materialism???)

Determines perceived reality (material/ time centric…………are morals material?)

Ideologies present individuals subscribing to them as either converted or conquered.

Law however imitates positivist sciences (social sciences at times have also fallen prey to
positivist understanding)

Ideology looked at negatively- warfare and international hostility pre-world war, since ww2

1970’s communism wave placed ‘equality’ over ‘freedom’, neo-liberalism however is the
currently predominant wave that places ‘freedom’ over ‘equality’.

End of Ideology- Daniel Bell

He suggests that the older, grand-humanistic ideologies derived from the nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries had been exhausted and that new, more parochial ideologies would soon
arise. He argues that political ideology has become irrelevant among "sensible" people and that
the polity of the future would be driven by piecemeal technological adjustments of the extant
system

‘Ideological Vending Machine’- instead of confronting reality on it’s merit, ideologies

manufacture existing explanations to reality. Thus causing stagnation.

However at the moment we have multiple confronting ideologies.

Functions of Ideologies:

1. Explanation: why war? Why equality?

2. Evaluative: possesses standards to evaluate reality
 3. Orientation: explains one’s position in society in terms of caste, race, political
order….Also gives a destiny and sense of identity to an individual
4. Political program

Gramsci distinguished between “organic” and “traditional” types: organic intellectuals emerged
from a specific social class and functioned to elaborate that class's productive activity as a set of
general principles; traditional intellectuals, such as philosophers or the clergy

Power, Influence, Control and Authority

1. Power- power has both a positive and negative image as it is a morally loaded word

Concentration of power- social forces a. Enforcing b. Receiving

Concentrated in the hands of the qualified, civilized men called ‘elite’.

Max Weber on power- actor within a social relationship transforms the other regardless
of the basis for the unequal relationship (combination of personal qualities +
circumstances + determined will of the individual)- social amorphous

Constituent elements of power

● Relational- dynamics modify individuals (how does one escape this relation?
Eg:suicide bombers)
● Intentional
● Social resources
● Contextual

Power without boundaries/ restrains is illegitimate power (explicit intentions)

Basis of Power: A. Market- they form the material foundations for power as they control means
of production (informal power speaks in thousand tongues)

B. Organization- organization of bias- parties and trade unions

C. State- exclusive monopoly over coercive power

Market + Organization + State =absolute power

Levels of power: micro; medium and macro

Dimensions can be visible/ invisible

Schools of power: a. Elitist (pyramid); b. Pluralist majoritarian (onion shaped where middle
class possesses power; oceanic circle of power (periphery to the center)

Gandhi puts forward that his alternative oceanic structure shall be 'composed of innumerable
villages' in which 'there will be ever-widening, never-ascending circles'. In this framework 'Life
will not be a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom.

2. Authority- power+legitimacy+explicit+formal

Types: traditional; charismatic; legal rational authority- only authority that can exist if
rule of law is taken seriously

3. Influence
4. Control

Philosophy of Satyawada

States authority is guided by rule of law- to tame the beast of coercive power.

Anekantavada- non one sidedness

Satyawada- every truth is a conditional truth

Vedas/ Hinduism —---------------------------l---------------------------------Buddhism

(permanence) jainism (impermanence)

Saptabhangi- explained by Satyawada; limited actress to truth-the access to truth is through

language and through limited language one cannot claim the absoluteness of the truth- truth is
conditioned by time, space, substance and mode of existence.

Syed Asti- perhaps it is

Syed Nasthi- perhaps it is not

Syed Asti Nasthi- perhaps is is and it is not

Syed Asti Avyakta/ Avyaktanya- perhaps it is but it is indescribable

Syed Nashti Avyakta/ Avyaktanya- perhaps it is but it is describable

Syed Asti Nashti Avyakta/ Avyaktanya- it is in some ways and it is not in some way but it is not
describable
Syed Avyaktavya- perhaps it is describable/indescribable

Areas of study in philosophy:

1. Metaphysics
2. Aesthetics
3. Logic
4. Epistemology
5. Ethics
6. Political Philosophy- examines the question and attempts to answer - who is competent
to rule us?

Who is competent to rule us?

a. Philosopher king

The concept of the philosopher king was first proposed by the Greek philosopher Plato in his
dialogue, the Republic. It refers to a theoretical ruler who combines philosophical knowledge
and temperament with political skill and power.

According to Plato the philosopher king is:

● intelligent , memory, has the ability to understand emotions

● Is not tempted to be corrupt
● No ambitions to attain power (achilles heel)
● Does not have family

According to Plato the common man (demogorg) is unfit to rule with their vile sounding voices.
Thus Plato was against the idea of democracy.

Plato was challenged on the lines of incentive for the philosopher king to rule; to which he
replied with ‘who wants to obey idiots?’ Thus he proposed that common people must be trained
as philosophers to become rulers and the existing philosophers were to become rulers.

Critique:

Paradox of infallibility- the paradox arises because if these rulers are truly wise and infallible,
they wouldn't need any checks on their power. But, if they are fallible (as all humans are), then
giving them absolute power could be dangerous because their mistakes could have significant
consequences.
 b. Allegory of the Cave

In Plato's Republic, the Allegory of the Cave is a story told by Socrates to illustrate the nature of
human perception and the journey to enlightenment. It goes like this:

● The Cave: Imagine a group of prisoners who have been chained inside a dark cave their
entire lives. They face a wall and cannot turn their heads. Behind them, there's a fire,
and between the fire and the prisoners, there's a walkway where people walk carrying
objects. These objects cast shadows on the wall in front of the prisoners.

● The Shadows: The prisoners can only see the shadows on the wall. They believe these
shadows are the only reality because that's all they've ever known. They don't realize
that the shadows are mere reflections of real objects.

● The Escape: One prisoner is freed and gradually introduced to the world outside the
cave. At first, he is blinded by the light and confused. But as his eyes adjust, he begins to
see the real objects, and eventually, the sun itself, which represents the ultimate truth
and knowledge.

● The Return: The freed prisoner goes back to the cave to help the others. However, the
other prisoners resist and ridicule him because they are so accustomed to the shadows
and can't comprehend the reality outside the cave. They might even threaten him if he
insists that their understanding is wrong.

Key Interpretations:

● The Cave represents the world of appearances and illusions.

● The Shadows symbolize the perceptions of those who believe only in what they see
without questioning deeper truths.

● The Journey Out symbolizes the philosopher's path to enlightenment, moving from
ignorance to knowledge.

● The Sun represents the ultimate truth or the Form of the Good in Plato's philosophy.

c. Ship of State

● The Ship: The ship represents the state or the city. Like a ship navigating the seas, the
state needs careful guidance to stay on course and avoid danger.
 ● The Captain: The captain represents the ruler or leader of the state. In Plato's analogy,
the captain is portrayed as being weak or lacking true knowledge.

● The Crew: The crew members represent the citizens or those who seek to govern. In the
metaphor, they are depicted as quarrelsome, ignorant of the true art of navigation, and
more interested in seizing control of the ship than in steering it correctly. They flatter
and manipulate the captain, trying to take over the ship for their own gain.

● The True Navigator: The true navigator, or the philosopher, represents the ideal ruler in
Plato’s view. This person understands the art of navigation (governance) and has the
knowledge and wisdom to steer the ship (the state) correctly. However, the crew, being
ignorant and self-interested, often dismisses or ignores the navigator, considering him
useless because he does not engage in their power struggles.

Key Interpretations:

● The Incompetence of the Crew: Plato uses this metaphor to criticize democracy, where
leadership is often in the hands of those who are not truly qualified to govern.

● The Philosopher as the Ideal Ruler: Just as a ship needs a knowledgeable navigator to
reach its destination safely, Plato argues that a state needs a philosopher-king, someone
who understands the true nature of justice and the good, to lead it wisely.

● The Ignorance of the Masses: Plato suggests that the masses, like the crew, are often
ignorant of what is truly best for the state. They may be swayed by rhetoric or personal
interests, rather than by the pursuit of the common good.

Plato on Democracy

Core Idea of Democracy:

● Democracy is often described as government "of the people, by the people, and for the
people," meaning that it serves the citizens' interests, not the rulers'.

● In modern politics, democracy is generally seen as a positive and legitimate form of

government. Non-democratic governments often face international criticism.

Criticism of Democracy:

● Despite its popularity, many thinkers throughout history have criticized democracy.
 ● There isn't a single, universally accepted theory of democracy. Different interpretations
lead to debates about what democracy truly means.

Tyranny of the Majority:

● Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill highlighted a major concern: the "tyranny of
the majority." In a democracy, the majority's will can sometimes oppress minorities.

● Mill argues that people have different interests and goals, so a law passed by the
majority might harm minorities, leading to political oppression. This raises the question
of whether democracy should protect individual rights or simply follow majority rule.

Democracy vs. Expertise:

● Plato argued that ruling is a skill, like navigation or medicine, and should be left to
experts (philosopher-kings) rather than the masses.

● Plato's view suggests that democracy is irrational because most people lack the
expertise needed to make sound political decisions.

Defense of Democracy:

● Critics of Plato point out that his system is essentially a form of dictatorship. While
Plato's rulers might be experts, there are risks associated with giving unchecked power
to a small group.

● Another issue is whether rulers can truly have the people's interests at heart and if they
can even know what those interests are.

● In a democracy, people can express their interests through voting, but even this has its
challenges. People's votes might be influenced by short-term desires, mixed
motivations, or misunderstandings of their own best interests.

Final Thought:

● Despite its flaws, democracy offers a chance to make decisions that align with the
common good, even if it’s not perfect. The passage suggests that allowing people to vote
based on their idea of the common good increases the likelihood of making the right
decisions.

Social Contract Theories:

State of nature:

We imagine a 'state of nature'; a situation where no state exists and no one possesses political
power.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-78), for example, thought that so much time would have been
required to pass from a state of nature to 'civil society' (a society governed by a formal state)
that it would be blasphemous to assume that modern societies had arisen in this way.

Rousseau also believed that there were contemporary examples of peoples living in a state of
nature, while John Locke (1632-1704) thought this was true of many groups living in
seventeenth-century America.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), deeply worried by the English Civil War, thought he saw his
country falling into a state of nature. In Leviathan he drew a picture of how unpleasant this
would be, hoping to persuade his readers of the advantages of government.

Accordingly, we need not spend much time discussing the question of whether, as a matter of
fact, human beings have ever lived in a state of nature. All we need to argue is that it is
possible.

theorists claim that we have plenty of evidence that human beings have been able to live
without the state, and such claims have been vital to the case made by anarchist writers

Hobbes:

Nothing could be worse than life without the protection of the state, Hobbes argued, and
therefore strong government is essential to ensure that we do not lapse into the war of all
against all.

The essence of Hobbes's view is that, in the absence of government, human nature will
inevitably bring us into severe conflict.

Hobbes suggests that there are two keys to the understanding of human nature. One is self-
knowledge. Honest introspection tells us a great deal about what human beings are like: the
nature of their thoughts, hopes, and fears. The other is knowledge of the general principles of
physics.

Hobbes claims, include riches, reputations, and friends, and human beings have 'a restlesse
desire of Power after power, that ceaseth only in Death' -Leviathan
Everyone's natural, continual, attempt to increase power—to have riches and people under
one's command—will lead to competition. But competition is not war. So why should
competition in the state of nature lead to war? An important further step is Hobbes's
assumption that human beings are by nature 'equal'

Finally, Hobbes points out that no one in the state of nature can make himself invulnerable
against the possibility of attack.

From these assumptions of equality, scarcity, and uncertainty, it follows, thinks Hobbes, that
the state of nature will be a state of war.

Human beings, Hobbes argues, are not cruel, 'that any man should take pleasure in other mens
great harms, without other end of his own, I do not conceive it possible' (Leviathan, 126). As for
selfishness, he would agree that human beings do generally, if not always, seek to satisfy their
self-centred desires.

If we are so suspicious when we live with the protection of law, just think how afraid we would
be in the state of nature.

Hobbes seems to deny that there can be a morality in the state of nature: 'To this warre of every
man against every man . . . nothing can be Unjust.

In the state of nature there is no common power, so no law, so no breach of law, and so no
injustice.

In the state of nature there is no justice or injustice, no right or wrong. Moral notions have no
application. This is what Hobbes calls the 'Natural Right of Liberty'.

'Laws of Nature' also exist in the state of nature.The Laws of Nature, then, could easily be
called a moral code. But if Hobbes intends these as a set of moral rules which govern the state
of nature, then this seems to contradict his earlier statement that there is no right or wrong in
such a condition. Furthermore, if people are motivated to obey the moral law perhaps this will
make the state of nature rather more peaceful than Hobbes allows. However, Hobbes does not
describe the Laws of Nature as moral laws, but rather as theorems or conclusions of reason.

How can Hobbes say that rationality requires both war and peace? The answer, I think, is that
we have to distinguish between individual and collective rationality

Hence the collectively rational position is unstable, and individuals will tend to defect, even if
they know the consequences of everyone acting that way.
If only we could somehow ascend to the level of collective rationality and obey the Laws of
Nature we can live in peace, without fear.

If other people around me are disobeying the Laws, or, as will often be the case in the state of
nature, I have reasonable suspicion that they will break the Laws, then it is simply stupid and
self- defeating for me to obey.

People will spend all their time grubbing for subsistence and fighting battles. Under such
circumstances there is absolutely no chance that the arts or sciences could flourish. Our short
lives would be lived without anything to make them worthwhile.

Locke

Locke supposed that it would generally be possible to live an acceptable life even in the absence
of government.

The state of nature, says Locke, is first, a state of perfect freedom; second, a state of equality;
and third, bound by a Law of Nature

Locke, too, believes the Law of Nature to be discoverable by reason, but Locke's Law has a
theological aspect absent in Hobbes's Laws.

Locke claims state of nature to 'be a state of Liberty, yet it is not a state of License . . . The state
of Nature has a Law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one.

Clearly it is important for Locke that even in the state of nature we have a moral duty to restrict
our behavior. Yet this, on its own, does not seem enough to show that in the state of nature fear
and suspicion would not exist

If the foreigner has not consented to the sovereign's laws, then he has not accepted that he is
liable to punishment for breaching them. Therefore such a person cannot justly be punished,
unless there is some sort of natural right to punish.

This alternative argument certainly seems plausible, and so some followers of Locke have been
prepared to drop the theological underpinnings of his view in favour of this 'natural reason'
approach

According to Hobbes, the only way of subduing any power is through the exercise of a greater
power. So we might all gang up on a villain to exact reparation.
So Hobbes would probably argue that even if people did have a natural right to punish
offenders, this would rarely be used with any effect unless a single, stable, authority existed

In the state of nature, even if there were a right to punish, this would be ineffective as a means
to peace

For Hobbes, one of the key factors that brought people into conflict was a natural scarcity of
goods. Two people will often desire the same thing, and this will make them enemies. Locke, on
the other hand, appears to make a very different assumption: nature has given things richly.
There is a natural abundance of land, and plenty of room for everyone.

Locke, indeed, comes close to admitting that the state of nature may not be as peaceful as he
first supposed. After all, he has to be careful not to paint it in too idyllic tones, for then it would
be very difficult to explain why we ever left it and created the state. The primary fault, Locke
sees, is with the administration of justice. It is not so much that we will squabble over goods,
but that we will squabble over what justice requires. We will, in other words, disagree about the
interpretation of the Law of Nature. People will disagree about whether an offence has taken
place.

Locke does not say that such scarcity introduces the Hobbesian state of war, but he recognizes
that once land is in short supply and under dispute the inconveniences of the state of nature
multiply and multiply. It becomes imperative to establish civil government. So although it is
initially peaceful, eventually, even for Locke, the state of nature becomes almost unbearable

Rousseau

Like Hobbes and Locke he assumes that human beings are primarily motivated by the desire for
self-preservation. Yet he also believes that this is not the end of the story. Hobbes and Locke
overlooked a central aspect of human motivation—pity or compassion—and so overestimated
the likelihood of conflict in the state of nature.

Rousseau does not doubt that if modern citizens, moulded and corrupted by society, were
placed in a state of nature, they would act just as Hobbes depicted them.

Rousseau follows this with a second claim. When we understand how 'savage man' behaves—
motivated by both self-preservation and pity— the state of nature would be far from the
Hobbesian state of war, and even in some respects preferable to a more civilized condition.

For Rousseau took an extreme, and extremely dismal, view of human progress. His treatise on
education, Emile, begins: 'God makes all things good; man meddles with them and they become
evil.' And his early essay, the Discourse on the Arts and Sciences, argues that the development
of the arts and sciences has done more to corrupt than to purify morality.

It is surely very plausible that by nature human beings often have sympathy for one another.
But is this enough to prevent war in the absence of government? The trouble is that Rousseau
has given natural man two drives—self-preservation and compassion—and it seems more than
possible that the two could come into conflict.

But the main point is that in a condition of scarcity, natural compassion does not seem enough
to hold off the threat of war. Rousseau tries to avoid this type of problem by supposing that
savage man has few desires

Compassion is not a strong enough sentiment to create a family bond. Part of Rousseau's
explanation of the solitary life of the savage is that nature has equipped the savage to survive
alone.

Natural solitude rules out any desire for 'glory' or reputation, for the savage takes no interest in
others' opinions.Equally, the savage has no desire for power. Hobbes, we saw, defined power as
'the present means to satisfy future desires'.

Rousseau himself admits that what he says is no more than 'probable conjecture'.

However, the key is the thought that human beings, unlike brutes, have two special attributes:
free will, and the capacity for self-improvement.

It is interesting that Rousseau sees innovation, and not Hobbesian competition, as the primary
response to scarcity.

Another innovation is the idea of co-operation: mutuality of interest spurs collective pursuits.
Thus the advantages of living in groups, and making common huts and shelters, become
apparent, and the habit of living in these new conditions 'gave rise to the finest feelings known
to humanity, conjugal love and paternal affection'

In this condition another novelty arises: leisure time. Co-operation and tool-making conquer
scarcity sufficiently well to give the opportunity to create goods which go beyond bare survival
needs

Thus we arrive at war: not as part of the initial state of innocence but as a result of the creation
of the first rudimentary societies.
Conclusion: Since state of nature is so intolerable - there arose a need for state - two theories:
consent theory (Locke) and Utilitarianism (Mill)

Post Mid Sem

Post religious societies : industrialisation

They believed that bad human behaviour can be limited by good politics.

For post 17th century society, rationality was becoming central, there were people in the west
who were becoming anxious about this.

Pp l like Marx and Rousseau thought that rationality, knowledge becoming central to life is a
problem, dis-centrist.

By the beginning of 20th century, Gandhi was becoming really anxious about India, was India
going to go industrial development like the West. The path of modernity led to destruction of
nature, laborers.

A farmer may not know have to work in a factory for 12 hrs straight : redesigning of life

Redesigning of economy : lands taken over

Gandhi :

Nature of modern world is exploitative of humans and natural world. He did not want India to
go to the path of modernity, he felt it was problematic. His way of looking at East and West
were very different.

Social Contract Theoreticians spoke about liberty and equality, however it was only for the
elite. Gandhi did not make this idea central, he asked much more fundamental questions about
society and politics.

What is idealism for Gandhi?

The ideal is unalienated life from humans and nature.He feels modern life alienate us from
fellow humans and nature. His biggest complaint against modernity was this. Complete
paradigm shift from western political thinking.

FIVE CENTRAL QUESTIONS ASKED BY GANDHI

Q1. How and when did we transform the mere idea of world to live in? After 17th century, we
transformed this idea to master and control it. Do we want to live or control this world? How do
we create comforts for our lives without controlling the world? MEGA QUESTION.
ALIENATION. When we say that we want to develop poor people, they are not a part of me, I
am not a part of them

Alienation began in the middle of the 17th century.

Descart influenced people like Newton, Hobbes etc. Until rationality, people thought there is
divinity in nature. They thought there is God, it is mysterious. This understanding was made
upside down by Descart, Newton and others. They believed that through knowledge we can
completely understand the world, if I don’t have knowledge about you, you don’t exist. If I can't
understand God it does not exist, it may exist. Unknown is unseen and unseen is non existing.
The tribal knowledge cannot be seen through scientificity, therefore doesn’t exist.

If we cannot measure knowledge of a specific thing on a scale we call it stupid, marginalize it.
This is the beginning of logocentricism.

Gandhi does not have a problem with science, he has a problem with science being the only
validated form of knowledge. Domination of science and knowledge is his problem. Scientific
knowledge objectified other humans and created detachment.

Gandhi spoke of objectification much before feminists. We don’t see any sacredness, divinity in
the body and nature. If we see this, ruthlessness in exploitation becomes impossible. Don’t use
knowledge as a mode of living. With the scientificity of Descart, the world became something to
study and explain, it is not a practical ground.

Gandhis perspective of education is influenced by this. Knowledge is something which needs to

be experienced. Problem solving rather than problem enquiry.

He breaks down the mega question in four more questions.

Q2. How and when did we transform the idea of nature as natural resources?

Human has also become human resource.

You do not have rights until you are a citizen. State made humans into citizens. ALIENATION.

Gandhi attacked the idea of Western citizenship

Q3. How and when did we transform the idea of people into population?
Population is a statistical concept, you are basically a number, objectified concept.

Q4. How and when did we transform the idea of knowledge to live by to the idea of knowledge
to expertise and rule by?

Now we are slaves to experts. Makes you dependent. Modernity complicated our life so much
that we lost all freedom over our lives. We therefore stopped learning knowledge to live by.

Capitalism has successfully alienated us from humans and nature. We have reached exactly
where Gandhi did not want us to reach. But how did we reach here? The proponents of
industrialism and capitalism have systematically attacked the sacredness of life and nature.
They said that nature is brute, inert and stupid. There is no divinity, do not think that you
cannot exploit nature, objectification. The entire responsibility to understand nature is given to
science, it can understand anything.

Gandhi - Refutes this. One has to believe that every life is worthy of protection.

Royal Society organized a series of lectures to say that land can be exploited. Systematically
drilled into our mind that nature can be exploited left right and center. Nature converted to
natural resource.

Central argument : Elevation of knowledge and science with objectivity resulted in alienation of
the 4 questions.

Nationalism is the new political religion created by modernity. It decides who are enemies and
people. Because of science, religion took the backseat and nationalism became the binding
factor. Without nationalism you cannot have the idea of citizen.

Gandhi was for a simple life. Rather than experiencing life we are spending decades to learn
how to manage life. Questioned blind faith in technology. He was against the power of
technology to make us slaves. He wants to restore cultural identity, pride, knowledge
democracy without being chauvinistic and favoring dominance of one kind of knowledge.

He thought that development was hugely unsustainable. Fossils created in 3lac years have been
used in 300 years.

HOW TO LIVE? (MASTER QUESTION IN OUR LIVES)

For Gandhi, this is an ethical question. Science is not the only answer, it is not the ultimate
arbiter of all truth, it should not irrationalize all other forms of truth. Spiritual, ethical and
philosophical knowledge can also answer questions. Other forms of knowledge sustained us for
many years (Religion) Science has addressed only material aspects of the question how to live.
It does not address ethical, psychological and moral dilemmas. In the name of science we have
becoming unidimensional beings. Protection of multiple modes of reasoning for protection of
multiple forms of life. This is due to linearity of science.

Scientific rationality is alienating multidimensional personality.

We want to expertise in the way which we can control the world.

Only unalienated life can create multidimensionality - Leading to knowledge democracy.

Concepts of Gandhi - how they were innovative by him in the overall framework of Indian
intellectuality To make them suitable for Indian context, they were framed within the Indian
intellectual context He was trying to reform Indian Political thinking He wants to take certain
ideas from the Indian political and religious context and reform them India is very diverse -
hence we cannot be monolithic like they are in the West The western civilization is very violent,
compared to them India was not so violent The kind of monolithic political community being
shaped in the west is not going to help us in India we need to re-define it for ourselves
Individual should be the center of the political community Came up with a new idea-
civilization What kind of civilization do we want to be? - Indian civilization is more interested
spiritual life (moksha) - Modern times- India needs to take its material needs more seriously -
The concept of voluntary poverty - Gandhi felt that there needs to be a balance - There needs to
be a balanced life where material and spiritual life are given equal importance - Modernity is
very violent - This is because body and soul are divided into separate In response to Krishna
Raja Varma (how they violently want to over through colonialism) - Torsroy says in response:
How 200 million people with great velar, body are enslaved by 2 lakh people - just 2 lakh people
were able to enslave 20 lakh people - As long as we enslave ourselves into the idea of
modernity, there is a great chance of self emancipation - - "we enslaved ourselves it is not the
British" - We are in "awe" of the West and modernity

Non-resistance, an idea by David Henry Thoreau, which later converted into civil disobedience
Non-resistance means we will not resist evil by evil, we will withdraw from cooperating with the
govt. as it is resulting in an unjust war - - We are all guilty of complexity and obedience David
Henry, who proposed non-resistance, that is withdrawing - this idea was then converted into
non-cooperation - - Non-cooperation - is meant for mass (this was Gandhi's idea) We are
obedient of the law not because it is fair and just, but due to fear and sanction (hence colonial
law was followed) - In modern politics, it requires mobilizing people on a large scale, as an
individual you can be fearful, however, once you have a group of people or join one, this is not
the case - Without individual courage, we will never be democratically political citizens on a
large scale 1906, Sept 11th - when the Indians of Africa, all resisted the discrimination (political
activity) and took a pledge - Gandhi called this moment an epiphany (we were not resisting
them through violence, they used a pledge - a religious tool/concept) - - This shows how
politics can be made effective and democratic in coordination with religion After writing all
this, he comes up with the idea of SATYAGRAHA - very imp. concept that made Gandhi distinct
from others

- Satyagraha a moral transformation of civil disobedience (civil disobedience invented by David

Henry)

- Includes 4 elements:

1. Truthfulness 2. Non-possessiveness 3. Celibacy 4. Courage

- This tool was used to resist something When we try to rationalize our inaction or resistance,
we eventually do not care about truthfulness - - Satyagraha is a political practice, - Celibacy and
sexuality is one of the imp. rights that shapes our understanding of the world - Satyagraha is a
political practice, not a simple concept - These ideas were invented as a part of practical politics
- For him practice comes before theory and spirituality Satyagraha is a more coordinated and
political action, it tames violent tendencies in the individual character - - It’s framework is
distinctly Indian (a combination between political and spiritual practices) Swaraj - Human
beings are both goal setting and goal perusing - We take into account dharma, artha, kama,
moksha - The coordinated pursuit of all these 4 goals is indispensable well balanced life All of
these constitute a system of goals, which means there must be a balance between all of them -
Pursuing all these 4 goals in unison constitutes a "good life" (which is the ultimate goal)
["Canonical goals of life"] - All these 4 goals then form the 4 concepts discussed so far (swaraj,
satyagraha, civilization, praja (civic nation)

LOGOCENTRICISM : Experience is irrational if it cannot be put to words. Language is the only

representation of reality.

Critique to discursive modes of understanding reality dismissing the limitations of language

modes as access to truth

Gandhi is trying to attack knowledge as the centrality of life because that becomes a form of
control over others lives.
Who does state of nature benefit- opportunity cost of collective agriculture- benefit of some-
short run and long run argument- stake was the privatization of land- no choice in contract

Garred Hardin- Tragedy of Commons

The tragedy of the commons is the concept which states that if many people enjoy unfettered
access to a finite, valuable resource such as a pasture, they will tend to overuse it and may end
up destroying its value altogether.This theory explains individuals' tendency to make decisions
based on their personal needs, regardless of the negative impact it may have on others.

The propertied men who had the right to vote paved the state in a way that served their interest
before the gradual inclusion of other individuals into the purview of voters.

Elinor Ostrom was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in 2009 “for her analysis of
economic governance, especially the commons.” She tried to prove that the tragedy of
commons was wrong through the study of mechanisms for tackling common problems that
faced communities across the world, avoiding both statist and market oriented approaches. She
did not like the image of the helpless observer caught in an inexorable web of destroying their
own resources. She argued that societies and groups regularly devise rules and enforcement
mechanisms that stop the degradation of nature.

Cultural common exists in non representational language, language is the repository of the
unconscious relationship of trust. Fluidity is not addressed by language- paradox.

G.P Grice- intention to believe and intention to communicate and intention to understand in
language to establish communication mutuality.

G.N Devi- Language disappeared through literacy not vice-versa. When language disappears,
culture disappears.

Commons became privatized- law is the foreground for restoring the trust between the
commons (if strangers are a sight of insecurity the trust is broken)- selfishness backed by John
Locke in state highly criticized- appropriated imperialism and white mans endeavors to capture
aboriginal lands.

Language is also a cultural common- unconscious relationship of trust,not politically imposed

from above- Akeel Bilgrami

Liquid modernity refers to a state of constant change and uncertainty in contemporary society.
Zingmunt Bauman argues that traditional modernity, characterized by stability, predictability,
and fixed social structures, has given way to a more fluid and flexible form of social
organization

Citizenship:

Bundle of right, identity, formal relation between two citizens and the state and citizen.

Citizenship is a legal concept, population is a statistical concept(gandhi) and people is a social

concept.

Aid (public health care/ housing/ legal aid) from the state to live as a civilized being through
citizenship.

Partial rights of citizenship can be realised in non democratic regimes. Stalins state provided
aid from the state but denied them basic political/human rights on the basis of the location of
individuals (class based) in the state.

Under what conditions can democracy be an instrument for the realization of citizenship.

Citizenship in the context of women: sexual social contract

Concept of civil society was rejected post 1990, liberal civil society never had a concern for
social/ economic rights.

In 1980, Thacher started attacking welfare states as a parasite- for creating a free market-
neoliberalism which is never a product of societal demands.

Civil society should have remained outside the market and the state.

Proving citizenship…USA- stripes and stars…UK-life in Uk….Aus-tests….the need for citizens

who weren't born there to learn the history whereas not for those born there. Tests in the
Netherlands and Germany showed that they were largely islamophobic.

In the globalized age social security is reduced to economic security and it is further reduced to
financial security and lastly to biological security.

Passive citizens- Labhartis- beneficiaries- legal qualifications given- but what they require
comes from the whims of the gov and state not from themselves- they’re nothing but votebanks

Parliament
Even though the parliament has been laughed, caricatured and ridiculed at, India can not
contemplate living without it. While the parliament is yet to the hopes and aspirations of its
founding fathers.

India is a bicameral legislature that follows parliamentary democracy consisting of the Lok
Sabha which is the house of people with 545 members and the Rajya Sabha the house of states
which has 250 members.

The first council resembling a parliament was set up by the government of India Act 1858 the
purpose of which was consultation and efficiency over representation and accountability.

Post World War 1 a call for a more account and representative Parliament was made however it
remained ethnocentric and racist.

Delimitation and census clash- there is about a 30 year disparity between the data used from
the census and the delimitation process.

Composition of the Parliament- SC ST and OBC is nothing but a reproduction of the sub-
elites. Muslims consist of about 12% of a population however they are underrepresented
Ranging from 6.44%, 4.4%, 9%. women in the parliament hold about 30% of a quota.

Here arises the question of a quota approach to under representation- Allegations of

exasperating unequal rights that is political opportunism. Other allegations include religious
identities proliferated within a secular polity.

King in parliament became parliamentary form of government- taxation without

representation.

Committee reports don’t come to the parliament in reality.

In winter session 2023, in one go 146 opp MP’s were suspended for unruly behaviour, however
key legislative bills like the three criminal law amendment bills were passed.

58 bills were passed in the 17th commencement in 2 weeks of consideration- shows how there
was no debate. Bills like the Jammu Kashmir reorganization Act were passed in 2 days. Only
16% of bills were referred to the committees for scrutiny.

729 private bills were introduced in the previous lok sabha, only 2 were discussed, none passed.
705 pvt bills were introduced in the rajya sabha and 14 were passed and received assent of the
president. No pvt member bill has been passed in both the houses since 1970. Between 2019-
2023 on an average 18% of the budget was passed without assent. Aadhar and PMLA act was
passed as money bills, misuse of privilege by the government.

Constitution

Rajeev Bhargava: constitution is a reminder of a historical movement where we envisioned an

ideal democratic future which may not be vulnerable to manipulation. Therefore arose the need
for the constitution to address needs of a community-

● Limiting power of the state. The people in the nascent state were not fully
evolved.

● States change, people change, mutating, transforming and becoming-

Constitution as reference point is required i.e., safeguards the interests of the
people in the long run

● Democratic ideals need to stay intact (however, it does undergo changes with
changes in time and changes in needs)- “Equality” as a concept in the US (at its
conception was only inclusive of white propertied men) Ideals should therefore
be viewed to be expanding and not to be restricted.

● To prevent political manipulations, Indian constitution makers made robust

constitution

● constitution assembly debates- constitution makers practiced the rules of the

conversation : Understanding what was our past, what is our present, and what
kind of future should it be- Cannot ignore history of colonialism, caste system
and patriarchy

● Nehru: Nation is on the move: throwing away the past colonial political
structure, possible even the social system (throwing away patriarchal and caste
system - much harder)

● The constitution was designed to break the shackles of traditional hierarchy but
bring in ideals of equality, liberty etc.

● Social contract is a hoax which binds unequals as equals (eg beggar and
billionaire are equal acc to constitution)
 ● Postmodernism started doubting everything even constitutional values; exists a
lack of commitment towards the constitution values- postmodernism doubts
normative claims

● Consequentialism: misuse of power and using constitutional values to do so (eg:

judges)

● for the first time we were people of a single book and not subjects or castes or
religions- Reflects commitment to protect mutual rights and collectively chose
an identity- We as a people, our destinies are locked together as a collective;
diverse people agreed to coexist - commitment in the constitution- Commitment
to coexist is under threat now

● Chosen a few values to be part of the constitution (do they have sufficient
foundation?)- Claim of a certain value should have certain underlying pillars
which uphold these values- What values have we chosen to put in the
constitution? What values have we discarded?-Criticism of indian constitution is
that it neglects family as an institution. Eg: Sexual violence against woman in
the family cannot be penalised

● Philosophical tools are needed to interpret the constitution

● What was the background that made the foreground of constitution making
possible?- Indian constitution: sanitised version of every serious fight emerging
in the constitutional assembly debates-Do individual rights only comprise
against the state?- This is the structure of the constitution. Right against
whom?- Should any right be against some entity? What would happen if this was
the case? Reduces collective coexistence and increases alienation. Are we
prioritising individual rights over collective solidarity? Are rights consistent
with duties? (every right stems from a duty) Does indian constitution support
equality, liberty, and fraternity in the same measure?Indian constitution did not
provide guidelines as to when to prioritise individual rights and when to
prioritise community rights

● Visions:

Social democratic vision of nehru where collectively society also becomes democratic

Ambedkar: individual is central to him

Gandhi: non-modern inclusive, quasi-communitarian vision (73rd amendment: panchayati raj)

Centralisation of land, property etc (KT Shah)

Hindutva ideology (L) represented by Syama Prasad Mukherjee

● All 5 values are interlinked; they stand together or they fall apart - 5 pillars of
democracy reflect democratic liberalism and reflects no scarcity of imagination; but no
commitment to enforcing

● Nehru’s ideals were elitist and did not cater to rural and religious population- 2nd
vision: Religious and exclusivist community propelled by upper caste (strong state); no
accomodations for minorities and therefore militarises the Indian psyche and ignores
moral core of Indian civilization; ignores peaceful coexistence -Competing visions cause
tensions (eg deep tensions between Gandhian and Ambedkarite vision)

● Akeel Bilgrami: not principled intervention; lexical order

Lexical order: Rights of the individual takes precedence over community rights in the context of
Indian secularism (even if arbitrary)

Art 26: public order is a community right; in the name of public order individual rights are
impaired

Social contract in India is a peaceful coexistence of communities not of Hobbesian individuals

where everyone is against each other

Freedom of conscience precedes freedom of religion. Why? Individual rights take precedence
over community rights

5 acheivements of Indian constitution (substantive)

1. Universal adult franchise:

● Better than contingent voting franchise (when asked, voting rights given)

● When voting rights given, everyone was included in it even if the state
caters to only 5% of the population

● Entire freedom struggle and Indian national movement was based on the
premise that there would be 100% voting rights and everybody could run
for public office
 ● No choice but to make adult franchise universal

● All stratas of society were conferred with this right to prevent failure of
social structure

● Immediately after independence after experiences of loss of right to self

determination and equality

● To India, idea of a nation gave birth to democracy

2. Fundamental rights

3. Respect for communities

● Communitarian egalitarianism along with individualistic egalitarianism

● All differences among communities are not undesirable

● Some differences must be preserved (i.e., people of different communities

have different practices)

● If there is a conflict between individual egalitarianism and

communitarian egalitarianism, individual egalitarianism will prevail

● Political elite that were part of making Indian constitution were

conscious about individualistic rights and communitarian rights and
emphasised them in Chap 3, 4

4. Commitment to affirmative action/social justice

● Recognises group disadvantages

5. Commitment to protect asymmetrical federalism

● Eg: difference in rights conferred to north-eastern states

Procedural achievements

1. Commitment to protecting unrepresented communities from const assembly

● Were able to accommodate marginalised groups

● Not self interest that motivated const assembly debates but collective
interests of
 2. Spirit of compromise and accommodation

● Compromise among rival communities

● Some communities have given up

● Not immoral per se

3. Consensually rather than by majority vote

Constituent Assembly

Size- smallest: Icelandic Assembly 25-55; Norwegian-112; French Constituent Assembly of

1789 consisted of 1200 members

Duration- In large constituent assemblies chaos was avoided by delegating work to committees.
The Icelandic Assembly debated for 4 months; Indian Assembly of 200-300 people debated for
around three years to complete the task.

What is counted as a constituent assembly?

A genuine constituent assembly must always impose restrictions on the state (must be
independent of the state)

Prepared by unelected bodies

BALU
Pluralist perspective on State:

Indian society is multiple and essentially plural. Evolving a nation out of heterogeneity-
common undertaking to unite- dissent and opposition was accommodated by the congress
party.

1967- first political earthquake in India

Marxist perspective on congress systems hegemonic class bloc consisting of tradition landed
elite and industrial bourgeoisie arose.

Allied with the traditional landed elite in the countryside which wasn’t hegemonic like that of
the west hence there was a coalition of dominant classes and feudalism .
Land reforms didn’t take place in full realization, redistribution through the abolition of
zamindari was very less- India unlike other countries even capitalist ones went for land reforms
to create consumption oriented population, did not have even a basic socialist position through
land redistribution.

Several communist parties evaluate the character of the bourgeois class, In India CPI-
recognises the character of the bourgeois is progressive hence ally-ing with it. CPM- rejected
the character of the bourgeois as progressive but recognised them as strong. Naxalites- called
the bourgeois as week and a need for armed rebellion to reclaim class oriented power.

State and Politcs in 1970- state is understood as the agent of change and rapid expansion of the
public sector- nationalization of banks by Indira Gandhi.

Compromises of the 1960's led to food shortage- institutional and technical changes in terms of
the green revolution- led to the emergence of rich farmers. While it did fix the issue of food
security, class disparity was dismissed.

Strong centralization of power under Indira Gandhi, rebranding of her image as a socialist
messiah- Inflation, unemployment, trade union movements uravels by 1977- historic defeat
(164 seats)

Partha Chattergee’s Political and Civil Society

Two ways in which Indian society intercts with the state-

Nationalism

Liberal Nationalism- limitations?

Conservative Nationalism-

Expansionist Nationalism-

Anti-colonial ans post colonial nationalism-

Federalism

Method of promoting self rule and share rule of balancing the interest of a nation with that of
its regions
A modern federal state is a national political formation with at least dual and mutually
autonomous governments, internally sovereign within their respectively demarcated domains
by a constitutional overarching rule nationally.( MP Singh)

Four institutional characteristics include:

● two sets of governments each with its independence spheres of Administrative and
legislative competence

● independent tax bases

● a written constitution from which each side derives its legislative power

● finally in case of conflict that should be a system of independent judicial courts to

arbitrate between the centre and the constituent units.

The federal process accommodated ethno-national movements in the form of new regions,
gradually increasing the number of states and the governability of the union.

Why is India Quasi Federal?

● ‘Holding together’ rather than ‘Coming together’ unlike the USA. Under the Tenth
Amendment to the US Constitution, powers that are not “delegated” to the federal
government are retained by States, or the people. But in India, Article 248 confers
“residuary” powers, that is, powers not devolved to States are to be exercised by the
Centre.
● Structurally, limited space for states in revenue generation.
● Limited role of states in decisions regarding financial devolution. Even when devolution
happens, it is for Centrally sponsored schemes.
● Article 249-Power of parliament to legislate over state list.

Scholars have, however, questioned the argument that India is quasi-federal.

With the 73rd and the 74th constitutional amendments which included a third tier in the
federal process which turned into a major source of legitimization and democratization of
power in India even though one might argue that it may be unnecessarily complex and that
policy performance did not clearly improve however it defined the limits of the integrative
potential of federalism in India.

Seventh schedule- lists defined- Union, State and Residuary

Types of power sharing- vertical, horizontal and transversal with sub distinctions of non-
hierarchical and hierarchical modes of coordination.

Demos enabling model-Population decides representation- leading to asymmetry in

representation- 85 MP’s from UP in and 2 from Tripura in the Lok Sabha. A Stepan described as
the ‘demos-enabling’ model in India places fewer checks on the power of national majorities.

The composition of Rajya Sabha (House of states) mirrors that of Lok Sabha. Unlike the
American Senate. Should we think of emulating the Senate model?

Adopting a Senate-like model in India could strengthen federalism and give smaller states more
of a voice in national governance, but it risks creating inefficiencies and over-representing
smaller states at the expense of larger ones. The balance between national unity and state
autonomy is delicate in India, and any move toward a Senate model would need to carefully
address these challenges.

Governor and President Rule:

Nehru in 1949 argued that governor should ideally be acceptable for the state government,
ideally from outside the state and from a relatively apolitical background. An eminent
personality possibly.

But all these norms were flouted. Has acted as a political office. 78% of appointees have been
political. Article 356 and president’s rule were a norm until 1990s.

Sarkaria commission recommendations: Formed to address Centre-state relations.

● When the State concerned and the Centre are governed by different political parties, the
Governor shall not be from the ruling party at the Centre.
● After retiring as Governor, one should not be eligible for any other office of profit under
the government.
● The Governor’s position is an independent Constitutional office, and thus cannot be “a
subordinate or subservient agent” of the Centre, except that they would serve as an
“agent” pertaining to those functions the Constitution requires and would be
accountable to the President.
● Chief Minister to be consulted.
● 1979 Hargovind Pant vs. Dr. Raghukul Tilak – Government of India not employer of
Governor.
Presidential rule is meant to be an exceptional or crisis government, the threat of the same
hangs over the head of regional governments like the sword of Damocles in the early decades of
Independent India.

Devolution of funds: Why is devolution important? State expenditure is high compared to their
revenue collection.

Article 270 (Finance Commission) The taxes that are shared between the Centre and the States
include Corporation tax, Personal income tax, Central GST, The Centre’s share of the
Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) etc.

This division is based on the recommendation of the Finance Commission (FC) that is
constituted every five years as per the terms of Article 280.

Apart from the share of taxes, States are also provided grants-in-aid as per the
recommendation of the FC. The divisible pool, however, does not include cess and surcharge
that are levied by the Centre.

The Finance Commissions have always favored assigning more than 75% weight to equity
indicators over efficiency. Currently it is 85%. This can create tensions for federal relations.
Many have argued that while equity is important, markers of efficiency must be increased.

R. Ramakumars criticisms:

Net Proceeds=Gross Tax Revenue–Cesses– Surcharges–Cost of Collection. Lack of statistical

clarity on what amounts to Net Proceeds.

Surcharge and Cess not part of divisible pool. Continuously renamed. Also, questions if they
have been used for actual purpose.

Between 2009–10 and 2024–25, a cumulative amount of `42.1 lakh crore would have been
collected as cesses and surcharges.

Even 42% devolution towards states was contentious. Centre was not happy. Finance
Commission recommendations not followed-Between 2009–10 and 2024–25, a cumulative
amount of `2.1 lakh crore was not devolved to the states as opposed to the finance commission
recommendations.

Centrally sponsored schemes-This is not part of devolution, but here also spaces for
contentions have emerged. One size fits all guidelines resulting in contestations.
Post 2014: The BJP’s general election manifesto vowed “to place center-state relations on an
even keel,” “strive for harmonious center-state relations,” or “Cooperative Federalism”.

As Chief Minister, Modi had argued for increased financial devolution to states from central tax
pool. (From 32% to 50%). 14th Finance commission recommended increased devolution to
states(32% to 42%). However, this was not implemented.

State are also increasingly being made more responsible for centrally sponsored schemes.

Conflict regarding cess collection.

Why the unitary tendencies?

● Ideological.
● State election defeats underlined the role of welfare schemes.
● The necessity of branding.

Caste and Politics

Analysing democratic political processes in terms of caste and communities has become
commonplace in contemporary India.

Many would argue that caste is a more active politically largely thanks to electoral processes
and competitive politics- what does the survival of caste indicate in reference to the working of
democracy in India or as an evidence of its failure.

Orientalist Imaginings of Caste- Propagation of textbook view of caste-Pan Indian social system
with no variations. Virtually no changes.

“no questioning of the relationship between prescriptive normative statements derived from
the texts and the actual behavior of individuals and groups”.

Caste was perceived as a varna system. But is that the case?

Colonial Contributions- Enumeration exercises strengthened caste solidarities. Arguments for

and against colonial intervention- eliminating class struggle v class solidarity/ political sense-
KHAM Gujarat

Louis Dumont contrasts Indian society, which he describes as holistic (where the individual is
subordinate to the collective), with Western society, which he views as individualistic. In India,
the individual’s identity is shaped primarily by their caste, which is a part of the collective,
while in the West, personal freedom and individual rights are prioritized. This difference,
according to Dumont, explains why caste persists as a social institution in India.

Caste is an ideology. Ideology is not subservient to socio-political dimensions.

The Hindu mind was concerned with maintaining social difference and inequalities (as in Homo
Hierarchichus). Hierarchy, defined as superiority of the pure over the impure, was the keystone
in Dumont’s model of the caste system. Caste system is defined by these opposites.

Status and power does not go together. Status encompassed power. Can caste be disconnected
from power? ‘Power’- reproduction of such a hierarchy can only be through power.

Fluidity of the dominant caste?

Criticisms:

● Brahminical view of caste.

● Overlooked empirical features of caste. Was Brahmin status in society delinked from
material power? Dumont would argue that he is concerned primarily about building a
theory of caste. But can theory be disconnected from reality? Can materiality and
exploitation be overlooked?

Caste and Power:“These mobilizations generated a new kind of collective sentiment, ‘the
feeling of caste solidarity’ which could be ‘truly described as caste patriotism” (G S Ghurye in
the context of 1920s)

Caste and Party politics: Congress Party

● Catch all political agenda

● Influential castes joined the party
● Coalition of extremes (sandwich coalition)
● Is it really a coalition or alliance? (Jaffrelot)
● Competition of elites

Hindutva and Caste: Traditionally, a Brahmin-Baniya party. Partition memories also

contributes to its social base.

Upper-caste shift in North Indian towards the BJP. Mandal Commission recommendations
(Chibber) or fear of plebianization (Hansen) ?
Paternalism towards lower castes. Reflected in Sangh division of Labour(Hansen). Alongside,
social engineering tactics and Mandalisation of the BJP.

New social bloc-Support from two axis of privilege-Caste and class (Yadav).

Third Movement of Caste: In the new context of social movements, the question of caste and
politics began to be articulated in the language of identity politics by Daalit Groups in different
parts of the country- Caste as a traditional identity in the modern Indian state.

Democratic upsurge in 1990s (Yadav). Increased participation from Dalits and OBCs. But how
successful was the politicization of OBCs?

In the South, this path was already existing. This was due to historical variations in the way
lower castes in these regions understood the caste system (Sanskritization vs Ethnicization).

For the BSP, increased middle class presence among Dalits was crucial in their relative success.
Also failure of Open elite system of Congress.

Future of Caste Politics: The number of votes in a particular caste group matters more than its
ritual status in the traditional hierarchy- spatial contributions- democratic equality- but what
about casteless individuals.

Secularism

Strict separation between state and religion? Equidistance between religions? What about
minority rights? If minority rights are addressed, can there be claims of equidistance or
seperation?

Secularism as separation between state and religion:

● The state shall not concern itself with religious beliefs, practices, and institutions.
● The state shall not be associated with a particular religion.
● The state shall permit freedom of conscience, belief and religion for all citizens.
● The state shall not discriminate between citizens on the basis of their religious beliefs.
● But is this the history of secularism in India?

Secularization enables separation of state and religion:

● Religion is no more the supreme belief system that one has to adhere to . It is one
among the many.
 ● ‘Rational’ individuals are able to balance religious and non-religious considerations,
subordinate former to the latter.
● State does not require legitimacy from religion.
● Separation of private and public spheres.
● In this case, separation between state and religion becomes an easy task.

Secularism in India:

Gandhi's doctrine of Sarva dharma sambhava, which can be read as 'equality of all religions' or
‘all religions should be treated equally’.

Nehru’s Dharma nirapekshatha- state would not be moved by religions. However, Nehru’s
position also transformed over time.

“It is perhaps not very easy even to find a good word for secular'. Some people think that it
means something opposed to religion. That obviously is not correct. What it means is that it is a
state which honours all faiths equally and gives them equal opportunities; that, as a state, it
does not allow itself to be attached to one faith or religion, which then becomes the state
religion.” An understanding which the judiciary has also upheld.

Crisis of Secularism.: Ashish Nandy’s anti-secularist manifesto.

Increased presence of communalism not only in India, but across South Asia.

Modern state, in its attempt to dominate individual lives, has banished religious affiliations to
the periphery, marking them as inferior. Vibrancy of the public sphere is lost. Religion also gets
ossified and frozen.

The entry of religion to the public sphere in this context is through communal avatars. Solution
is to get back the idea of tolerance that is present in ‘lived faiths’.

TN Madan writes similarly, Privatization of religion is not possible in South Asia. For South
Asians, religion as the overarching end seems to be more important than any other cultural or
social aspects. Imposition of secularism won’t work. Beliefs of individuals have to be taken
seriously. Sidelining religion can lead to space for fanatics.

Traditions of religious tolerance can help us carry forward inter-religious harmony.

Several critisisms have been leveled against both Nandy and Madan mainly by Partha
Chattergee and Ahkeel Bilgrami. Vanaik argued that the root cause of religious communalism is
religion itself, hence the struggle should be the secularization and diminution of religion in
civil society.

Partha Chatergee argues that clear separation of state and religion is not feasible for minority
rights.

But if secularism means equidistance from all religious groups, then the political biography of
the Indian state belies the norm. The state has, after all, intervened selectively in different
religious communities.

Principles of toleration crucial for minority rights. “What this will mean in institutional terms
are processes through which each religious group will publicly seek and obtain from its
members consent for its practices insofar as those practices have regulative power over the
member.”

Secularism and minority rights: Secularism in the Indian context is linked to the idea of social
reform. However, what about minority rights?

Academics have questioned whether Indian polity can be called secular in this context.

This has been complicated by the Shan Bano episode.How could the government, or the
defenders of secularism, justify the retention of personal laws of the minorities when these
violated the basic precepts of gender justice?

Second, why did the state not interfere in personal laws in the cause of social reform when it
had done so in the case of the Hindu majority?

Nationalism

The term "nation" originates from the Latin word nasci, meaning "to be born," and was initially
used to describe a group united by common birth or birthplace without political significance.

Nationalism as a political doctrine emerged in the late 18th century, particularly during the
French Revolution. Influenced by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, began to assert the idea of the
"nation" as the sovereign entity, with political power belonging to the people rather than a
monarchy or ruling dynasty.

Nationalist ideas spread across Europe during the Napoleonic Wars, influencing movements for
national unity in places like Italy and Germany. Similarly, Latin American independence
movements, led by figures such as Simón Bolívar, embraced nationalism to resist colonial rule
and create sovereign states.
The redrawing of the map of Europe, nationalist uprisings and the short-lived Frankfurt
parliament illustrates the desire for national unity. However enthusiasm for nationalism was
largely restricted to the rising middle classes who were not strong enough to accomplish the
process of nation building on their own. Nationalism became truly popular by the end of the
nineteenth century.

Patriotic fervor however was no longer aroused by the prospect of political liberty or democracy
but by chauvinism and xenophobia. Each nation claimed its own unique or superior qualities,
while other nations were regarded as alien, untrustworthy, even menacing. This new climate of
popular nationalism helped to fuel policies of colonial expansion that intensified dramatically
in the 1870s and 1880s. It also contributed to a mood of international suspicion and rivalry,
which led to world war in 1914.

Nation-Building in Europe After World War I: The breakup of the German, Austro-Hungarian,
and Russian Empires at the Paris Peace Conference led to the creation of several new nation-
states, following U.S. President Woodrow Wilson’s principle of national self-determination.
While this aimed to create nations aligned with ethnic or national groups, it largely failed to
resolve deep-seated national and ethnic tensions, as exemplified by the instability that
followed.

The frustration with the post-war settlement was most prominent in Germany, Italy, and Japan,
where the rise of fascist and authoritarian movements can be seen as a direct response to
feelings of defeat and disappointment.

It is, however, often argued that nationalism has had its day and is now an anachronism,
relevant only to European nation building in the nineteenth century, or the anticolonial
struggles of the post-Second-World-War period.

Three main challenges to treating nationalism as an ideology:

Political Doctrine vs. Full Ideology: Nationalism is often seen as a simple belief that the nation
should be the primary unit of government, unlike complex ideologies like liberalism or
socialism. However, this view overlooks other forms, such as cultural and ethnic nationalism,
which highlight nationalism's broader influence on movements and ideas emphasizing the
nation as central, beyond just state sovereignty.

Psychological Phenomenon vs. Theoretical Construct: Nationalism is sometimes reduced to

emotional loyalty or dislike of other nations. While its emotional appeal is significant,
conflating nationalism with patriotism diminishes its ideological dimensions, which extend
beyond mere sentiment to organized political thought and movements.

Schizophrenic Political Character: Nationalism has been associated with a wide spectrum of
political movements—progressive and reactionary, democratic and authoritarian. It has been
adopted by liberals, socialists, conservatives, fascists, and even communists, though anarchism
rejects it due to its opposition to the state. Despite this diversity, nationalism has a consistent
core involving concepts like the nation, organic community, self-determination, and identity
politics.

Attribution of ‘nation’ and ‘Nationhood’- groups conferred the status of nationhood? Eg- Kurds

Objective definitions: if culture is the basis for this identity formation how can it be objective?
Elements of culture include- A. Language: French speakers in quebec? B. religion: Ireland-
catholic and protestant divide? C. Ethnicity and Racial determinism: but nation formed more on
the lines of culture rather than biological basis- USA? Hotpot?? D. Shared History: India and
Pak; nationalist feelings can be based on future expectations also- in the case of immigrants
who have been ‘naturalized’ in USA.

Hence ‘culture’ is very diffi1cult to pin down, it is a varying combination rather than a fixed
formula. Nations can thus only be defined ‘subjectively’ by their members.

Perspectives on the Nation:

Liberals- ‘civic’ view, self determination both in terms of identity and fate

Conservatives- organic entity

Socialists- artificial division of humankind- disguised social injustice in terms of creating an

established order

Anarchist- tainted by association with the state and thus us oppressive.

Fascist- organically unified social whole, often defined by race- gives purpose and meaning to
individual existence.

Fundamentalist- regard nation in essence to religious entities and communities of believers.

Nation is held together by a primordial bond- innate emotional attachment to language,

religion, tradition etc. Nationalists may disagree about the defining features of the nation but
they all are unified in the belief that nations are organic communities.
Pre-modern and agro-literate societies were structured by a network of feudal bonds and
loyalties, emerging industrial societies promoted social mobility and competition that required
a new kind of cultural cohesion- nationalism.

According to Benedict Anderson nations constituted only ‘imagined communities’- constructed

for us through education, mass media and political socialization.

Eric Hobsbawm argued that a belief in historical continuity and cultural purity is invariably a
myth created by nationalism- nationalism creates nations not the other way around-
nationalism is a device through which the ruling class counters the threat of social revolution
by ensuring national loyalty (stronger than class solidarity) thus binding the working class to
existing power structures.

Nationalism and Patriotism:

Patriotism is a sentiment or an attachment to one’s nation. Not all patriots are nationalists. Not
all of those who identify themselves or love their nation, see it as a means through which their
political demands can be articulated.

Nationalism places primary emphasis on the regeneration of the nation as a distinctive

civilization rather than a discreet political community

Nationalism and Politics: nationalism has been both liberating and oppressive- brought about
self government and freedom. It has the capacity to absorb various political causes and
aspirations like liberal nationalism- general will and aspiration for popular self governance
embodied by Giuseppe Mazzini; conservative nationalism-saw nationalism as a natural ally in
maintaining social order and defending traditional institutions while essentially being nostalgic
and reflecting upon a past age of national glory or triumph; expansionist nationalism- opposite
to the idea of national self determination, dominant image of aggression and militarism and
and idea of racial and cultural superiority; anti colonial and postcolonial nationalism- quest for
political independence closely related to their awareness of the economic underdevelopment
and subordination to the industrialized states.

Creole nationalism:

Creole nationalism refers to the form of nationalism that emerged in Latin American and
Caribbean colonies, primarily during the 18th and 19th centuries, among the Creole population
—people of European descent born in the colonies. It was driven by the unique position of the
Creoles, who, although racially European, were often treated as second-class citizens by
colonial powers.

Their nationalist movements sought political and economic independence from European
colonial rulers. Led by the landowning classes.

Why did this nationalism emerge? Is it because of attempts of centralization by Madrid?-The

Spanish Crown, in its efforts to tighten control over its colonies, centralized administrative
functions, often ignoring local Creole elites. Or because of spread of liberal ideas?

South American republics were administrative units. They were self-contained. Separate
economic zones.

Anderson draws parallels between pilgrimage and navigation of administrative apparatus.

Exclusion of creoles also contributed. Their movement was constrained. Born in savage
hemisphere. In this context, the print capitalism emerged. Imagined communities came into
being.