Compilation Notes - Indian Political Thought PDF

Compilation Notes Political Science & International Relations INDIAN POLITICAL THOUGHT  List of Lectures 1. Indian Political Thought 2. Dharmashatra and Dandashastra Tradition 3. Origin of State in India 4. Indian Political Thought...

Compilation Notes Political Science & International Relations INDIAN POLITICAL THOUGHT  List of Lectures 1. Indian Political Thought 2. Dharmashatra and Dandashastra Tradition 3. Origin of State in India 4. Indian Political Thought Manu and Kautilya 5. Kautilya 6. Kautilya (Part 2) 7. Gandhi 8. Gandhi (Part-2) 9. Gandhi (Part-3) 10. Gandhi, B.R. Ambedkar 11. B R Ambedkar 12. B.R. Ambedkar (Part-3) 13. B.R. Ambedkar (Part-4) 14. M N Roy 15. M N Roy (Part-2) 16. Aurobindo Ghosh 17. Aurobindo Ghosh (Part-2) 18. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan  2 Indian Political Thought  Every thought reflects the peculiar circumstances that exist in a particular age and a particular society. Ancient Indian thought reflected the realities of its own time but Western scholars reject the existence of Indian political thought.  The following are the reasons for not accepting the existence of Indian Political thought:  The prominent political works in India are the works on statecraft and public administration. They do not deal with the issue of justice, equality, liberty, etc.  In India, political thoughts have no autonomous existence. In Ancient India, politics was a part of religion and ethics. According to Bhikhu Parekh, Hindu political texts are largely incidental, fragmentary and patchy. They are neither critical nor non- probing enough. However, there are a number of scholars in the West who gave recognition to Indian Political Thought. Views of scholars on Indian political thought are  Views of Morris Jones:  Neglect of Indian thoughts reflects the parochialism of Western philosophers.  Views of McIntyre:  Neglect of Indian thought will result in the impoverishment of the West.  Views of Max Muller:  If I have to look around the world for a country where human minds have dealt most deeply with the problems of life I will point towards India.  Views of Prof. V. R. Mehta:  West fails to recognize Indian political thought because Indian traditions are quite different from Western traditions. West works in terms of conflict and there exist dichotomies between spirit and matter, individual and society, nature and culture, necessity and freedom.  However, Indian thought considered dichotomies as unfair and artificial. According to Indian thought, there is no conflict and dichotomies between spirit and matter, individual and society, nature and culture, necessity and freedom.  3  Western thought is tied to the concept of nation states whereas Indian thought is always cosmopolitan in nature i.e. Indian thought believes in Vasudev kutumbakam - the whole world is a family. Western thought believes in the complete separation of state and religion but Indian thought believes in the principle of all religions are equal. Reasons for questioning Indian Thought:  To maintain the intellectual hegemony of the West, Eastern thought was questioned.  Indian texts were having some features which were not according to the Western parameters like Indian texts were primarily focused on statecraft and public administration.  In Indian thought, politics and religion were not separated but in Western thought, politics and religion were completely separated. Major Traditions in Indian Political Thought: 1. Dharmashastra (Manusmriti) 2. Dandashastra or Arthashastra (Kautilya) 3. Buddhist tradition (Shramanic tradition)    2 Dharmashatra and Dandashastra Tradition  In the Indian context, politics and morality were not separate or different. It is the amount of focus or differences of degree which was given to Dharma Or Danda. In Indian context, these two are the prominent traditions i.e., Dharmashastra and Dandashastra.  According to Bhikhu Parekh, Dharmashastra and Dandashastra traditions have difference of degrees than of kind. According to Bikhu Parekh, in the Indian context concepts of Dharmashastra and Dandashastra are always present together i.e., whether it is Dharmashastra or it is Dandashastra the difference was the degree in the sense that in Dharmashastra, Danda is at the periphery and Dharma is at the centre whereas in Dandashastra, Dharma is at the periphery and Danda is at the centre.  If we compare the Indian tradition with Western tradition, we can see that Western tradition differs in the qualitative term. In fact, the Realist tradition in the modern age differs from the idealist tradition of ancient Greece age because in the idealist tradition politics and ethics are present together whereas in the Realist tradition politics and ethics are completely separated.  So, we cannot simply put Indian tradition in the category of Western tradition. Even the so-called Realist tradition of India never loses sight of Ethics. It is just a matter of degree. This is the reason that many scholars believe that instead of comparing Machiavelli with Kautilya we should compare Kautilya with Aristotle.  Indian tradition shows the essential continuity if we take the work of Manu and Kautilya. In the areas of politics, we see similar types of concepts with respect to the origin of the state, its nature, functions, principles of taxation, objectives of the state and foreign policy of the state. There are a lot of similarities between different Indian traditions and the differences between different traditions are superficial.  In Indian tradition, we find the theory of the origin of the state. In Indian tradition, the state emerged when people wanted to change their situation because of anarchical conditions prevailing. They requested God and God in turn created the institution of Kingship. King had a divine personality because God had given some virtues to the King. However, King never had divine rights like in Western tradition. King was always bound  3 by Dharma. King was always under Dharma. Thus, we can see that from the beginning India adopted the concept of the constitutional state.  In Buddhist tradition also, the state originated as a result of social contract. Though Buddhist tradition was critical of Hindu tradition. In Buddhism, we find the concept of the republican form of government. People selected from among themselves the honest and noblest of all persons as king. Here, also the king was under Dhamma. Comparison between Hindu Tradition and Buddhist Tradition:  The ancient Hindu tradition in the area of foreign policy is realist. Manu as well as Kautilya talks about the four-fold policy i.e., Sama, Dama, Danda, Bheda. In comparison to Hindu tradition, Buddhist tradition represents the tradition of idealism.  The foreign policy is based on the principle of Panchsheel which is based on the philosophy of Ahimsa on Non-Violence. Buddhist tradition is egalitarian whereas Hindu tradition is hierarchical.  Buddhist tradition believes in gender equality as well as equality among people. Buddhism was a rebel child of Hinduism due to Casteism prevailing in Hindu society. Buddhism gives importance to the individual which is why this also be called a shramanic tradition. Comparison with West:  In the Western tradition, we see the theory of the state whictalkslk about the state as a natural institution. The Socratic tradition was the dominant tradition of ancient Greek times and was critical of the pragmatic tradition which adhered to the contractual theory of the state.  In medieval times, we find the theory of divine rights of the king which gives absolute power to the king. In the West, the theory of constitutional state emerged against the divine rights tradition in modern times (from the time of Locke).    2 Origin of State in India  Anarchy like the situation was existing in society and to remove anarchy, men created god and god created a king. God imparted his eternal qualities to the king. Different Gods like Indra, Varun, Agni, Surya and Kuber and Yama are represented in the king. It means King is the personification of god. It means the king is superior to the ordinary man. Manu talks about the divinity of the king but he doesn't give divine rights to the king. King is obliged to follow Raj Dharma. King is not absolute. The king must secure the welfare of his people. The king is bound to his duties. Organs of State:  In India, the organic theory of state existed. It means there is a tradition to explain the state in the context of various organs of the state. It is known as the Saptanga theory of state. It means there are 7 limbs of the state.  Limbs of state:  King  Kosha  Mitra  Janpada  Danda  Amatya  Durga (font)  All these limbs combined to form the sovereignty of the state. King is at the centre. He is the most important part of Saptanga theory but still king is dependent on other limbs of the state. Types of State:  Manu calls the state as Rashtras and he says there are 4 types of Rashtras:  Mitra Rashtra  Ari Rashtra i.e. Enemy Rashtra  Udasin Rashtra (Neutral Rashtra).  Madhyama Rashtra  3 Functions of state:  Welfare of people  Protection from external invasion  Maintenance of law and order  The state has to ensure that all the Varna must follow their Dharma  The state should control the prices of commodities  The state should promote culture and charity.  This shows that Manu Smriti talks about the theory of the Welfare state.  Indian tradition differs from the ancient Greek tradition, where there was no difference between society and state. However, in Indian tradition, the state is a Regulator of society. It possesses Danda i.e. power to punish. Hence, the Ancient Indian idea of the state also comes closer to the modern idea of the state. In modern times, Western liberal tradition differentiated between state and society. Max Weber associated the state with a monopoly to use force in a particular society. Ideas about King:  Since the king is created by god. He possesses the qualities of a god. He should belong to either Kshatriya or Brahmin Varna.  King should be a learned man.  King should know the Vedas.  King should have control over his senses. King shouldn't sleep during day time.  King should not indulge in hunting, gambling and pleasure-seeking.  We find similarities between Manu and Plato. Both of them King is an embodiment of knowledge and sacrifice. Both Plato and Manu are elitists. Duties of King  The king must ensure Dharma in society. King should punish those who break social order. Manu Manu is treated as the first lawgiver in Indian tradition. Manusmriti is the oldest book in Hindu laws. According to Puranic tradition, Manu is treated as the father of the human race. It means he is treated as the founder of society and moral order.  4  Manusmriti belongs to the Dharmashastra tradition. It is based on the Vedas. It is an address to kings and not to Scholars. It deals with social order. Manu explores the issue of 4 Purusharthas- Dharma, Artha, Kama, Moksha. He discussed the issue of Dharma at length. Note: There is nothing original in Manu's work. Manusmriti is the collection of views of a number of previous scholars. The idea of King:  Manu's theory is known as semi contractual theory of the state. Since men were living in the state of King, they should aspire to achieve Yogashema i.e. welfare of all.  The other Function of the King includes executive, legislature, judicial, administrative, military, religious, patronage of culture, collection of taxes, and respecting Brahmins. Nature of authority of King:  King does not have absolute power. According to K.P. Jaiswal, the king was the servant of the people. King did not have divine rights but only divine personality whereas, in the West, the king enjoyed divine Rights also (Divine Right's Theory of King i.e., the King can do no wrong). Manu's Theory of Law and Punishment:  Manusmriti is known as the most important book in the Hindu Code of Law. Manu discusses Various courses of law:-  Vedas  Customs and usages.  the consciousness of the king.  deeds of great men.  In the modern sense of the term, it can be called a pluralist theory of law.    2 Indian Political Thought Manu and Kautilya Manu (Continued) Administration of Laws: ❖ King should administer the law with the help of Brahmins and other learned councillors. ❖ The King should come to the Court in dignified attire, and he should not wear ornaments. ❖ In the absence of a King, learned Brahmin can administer the law. ❖ Women cannot be made an eye witness in the administration of Justice. Theory of Taxation: ❖ Taxation should be adequate for the smooth functioning of the State. ❖ Taxation should be moderate. ❖ Kings should take taxes like bees, as they take their food little by little. ❖ A King who takes tax but does not give protection to people goes to hell. ❖ The King should take one-sixth part of the produce of trees, and other produce from the people in case of fertile land. ❖ Taxation of land was dependent on the quality of land- one-sixth from the fertile land, one-eighth from the less fertile land and one-twelfth from the least fertile land. Manu’s views on Diplomacy: ❖ Manu’s views about ambassador is next only to the King. ❖ He should be honest, skillful, loyal, fearless, and should know the proper time and situation. ❖ He must be in a position to understand the weaknesses of foreign policy. ❖ He must be able to interpret the gestures and actions of foreign kings. ❖ Diplomacy must adopt the four-fold policy which are following- Sama i.e., pacific settlement of dispute through negotiation. Dama i.e., economic diplomacy Danda i.e., army Bheda i.e., espionage  3 ❖ These four-fold policies are considered central to diplomacy. They are also related to the well-being of the State. Kautilya ❖ In ancient Indian tradition, Arthashashtra belongs to the tradition of Dandashashtra. ❖ There is a continuity between Dharmashashtra and Dandashashtra tradition. Hence, Arthashashtra tradition is also not completely devoid of Dharmasastra tradition. It is more realistic in comparison to Dharmashashtra. ❖ Arthashashtra deals with political economy. The task of the King was to give protection to land and people as well as increase the wealth of rashtra. ❖ For Kautilya, land is considered as the most essential commodity and the task of the King was to give protection to land and people as well as to increase the welfare of the people along with the wealth of rashtras. ❖ Kautilya’s approach is more pragmatic compared to Manu. ❖ Kautilya is primarily concerned about how power can be managed and how effective administration of the State can take place. In ancient times, land was the major source of wealth, that is why Kautilya has spent major time in explaining the importance of land as the most precious commodity. Hence, a large part of Arthashastra deals with the preservation of territory, statecraft, maintenance of territory, etc. ❖ Although Arthashashtra was primarily associated with Kautilya. Other scholars have also written about Arthashastra, Kautilya is not the only person writing about the Arthashastra. It is said that later scholars have also written about the Arthashastra. ❖ Kautilya is treated as the greatest Indian scholar on Statecraft and diplomacy. Kautilya is known for his fearless account of actual practices in politics. ❖ Today, Kautilya is considered as an inspiration for the scholars of the realist school of thought. ❖ Important scholars have produced scholarly works on Kautilya like U. N. Ghoshal.      2 Kautilya Kautilya’s Theory of State The Origin of State in Kautilya is almost similar to Manu. According to Kautilya, the state originated when people were tired of Matsyanyaya i.e., big fishes eating smaller ones. People selected Manu to be their King. The term of settlement was that one-sixth of the grains produced and one-tenth of gold and merchandise in return to the security the king will provide Definition of State From Rigveda to Shukraniti, no one defined the term State. Kautilya was the first person to define the term state. His definition of State comes quite near to the modern-day definition of State. No territory deserves the name of State unless it is full of people i.e., controlled by absolute authority. Saptanga Theory of State It is an organic theory of State discussing various organs of State. King is central to Saptanga Theory yet king requires assistance to run the administration successfully. Thus, the State comprises different parts and not simply a king. Figure: Seven limbs of State  3 1. King King is the son of the Gods and divine punishment falls on a person who treats the king with disrespect. King grants favour like Indra and punishes likeYama. Kautilya discusses about 3 types of Kings: (a) Rajan (b) Dwirajya i.e., territory controlled by 2 kings. (c) Vairajya i.e., territory controlled by a foreign king. Yogakshema is the objective of the King i.e., welfare of all. King plays an important role in providing facilities to people and also king is responsible for maintenance of the minor, aged and destitutes. Thus, the Indian state was never a police state, it was always a welfare state. Subjects can revolt against King if a King does not fulfil his duties. It means authority of the King is based on the consent of the governed. According to Kautilya, happiness of the King lies in the happiness of the subjects. Kautilya suggested the King to get rid of an unworthy son and Kautilya also suggested a son to get rid of an unworthy King. So, Kautilya for the position of King supported merit. This was one of the reasons that Chandragupta Maurya, who was a commoner, was made Samrat of India by Kautilya. Nature of the Authority of King It is not absolute. There are various restraints on the King. King is educated in such a manner that he knows the proper use of authority. Ministers keep a moral check upon the King and remind the King of his mistakes. People can revolt against the King. 2. Amatya According to Kautilya, one wheel alone cannot turn the cart in motion. No ruler how competent he is, can run the administration alone. Kautilya calls Amatya as the second most important element of sovereignty. According to Kautilya, the number of Amatyas  4 should be more than two because it is difficult to have control over one Amatya; two Amatyas can join hands together against the King. Hence, at least there should be three Amatyas. Amatyas are important but the King cannot trust them completely. They are a potential threat to the King. King should keep a regular check on the integrity of the Amatyas. Characteristics of Amatyas: ❖ He should be a native man, wise, bold, and skillful. ❖ He should not be fickle minded. ❖ He must follow the King. ❖ He must try to remove the defects of the King. ❖ He should be able to install the successor of the King in case of death of the King. ❖ He should be able to protect the successor. According to Romilla Thapar, a well developed ministerial system and administration was the strength of the Mauryan Empire. 3. Durga It is the symbol of strength. It reflects offensive as well as defensive power of state. Durga must be strategically located. Kautliya discusses about the water fortification, desert fortification, and mountainous fortification. 4. Janapadas Janpad is a rural area. It is divided into various divisions and each division was further divided into villages. 5. Kosha The Treasury is important to maintain the kingdom. Without a treasury, it is impossible to keep the army loyal and to achieve a welfare state. It is inherited by the King and it should be sufficient to face challenges.  5 6. Danda It talks about hereditary army. Army should comprise of Kshatriyas, other varnas can also be considered depending on needs. Army must be well trained, loyal and full of strength. 7. Mitra They are very important. Mitra should be one who is not only ready to help but who is capable of helping. Mitra is an important part of Kautilya’s theory. Having Mitra is an acknowledgement of one’s power. Mitra is an important element for diplomatic purposes as well. Thus, for Kautilya, all the elements of Sovereignty constitute the strength of the State. King is the centre and the wise king can convert weak elements into elements of strength. A wicked King brings destruction not only to himself but also to elements of sovereignty as well as the Kingdom. Kautilya talks about merit and integrity in administration. His theory of legitimacy appears to be quite modern. He says that the objective of the King is to ensure the welfare of his people. Thus, his views are also quite similar to the views of Aristotle who also believes that normal functions of the State is to achieve welfare of the people. Aristotle calls those states which do not perform these functions as perverted States. In Kautilya the powers of the King are given not for his own benefits but for the benefit of people. King is not above the law. Thus, Kautilya also establishes a Constitutional Monarchy. Criticism ❖ Women have not been given a central position in Administration by Kautilya. ❖ Kautilya attaches a lot of importance to hereditary Amatyas and army men. ❖ Sometimes it appears that Kautilya is not modern and prefers hereditary monarchy. Hence, his ideas are far from the Republican form of Government.      2 Kautilya (Part 2) Kautilya’s views on Diplomacy  Kautilya was the first person to visualise on all India state. According to him, no state can exist in isolation. State remains in existence in relations with each other.  According to Kautilya, States compete for power. Kautilya feels that no state is satisfied with what it has hence, each state wants to extend its resources. No state can be stable until it manages its foreign relations properly. Relations among states are like laws of the jungle where only the strength of the lion prevails. Thus, Kautilya adheres to the power view of International politics. It means power is the ultimate reality of International politics. Kautilya advocates offensive foreign policy. Offensive Foreign Policy  It is not sufficient that the State is capable of self defence, it is equally important that the State should be in a position to inflict injury. Like Machiavelli, Kautilya also discusses about the policy of acquisition of territory so that acquired territory can be ruled and the State's territory can be expanded.  According to Kautilya, only expansion of territory is not enough, the territory is to be kept peacefully. His foreign policy reflects the continuity of Indian tradition. Like Manu, Kautilya also talks about four-fold theory i.e., sama, dama, danda, bheda.  There is nothing original in Kautilya. Infact, Kautilya systematised the existing ideas. Kautilya is more realist than Manu. He allows the King to use all kinds of means to achieve its aims. Stephen P. Cohen traces the realistic posture of India’s Foreign Policy in present time with Kautilya’s Arthashastra. Infact, Indian Foreign Policy has taken a lot of ideas from Kautilya’s Arthashastra for example, India’s Necklace of Diamond strategy under which India has been establishing strategic partnership with China’s neighbours is greatly influenced by the Kautilya’s Mandala’s theory in which Kaultiya  3 advocates that smaller nations should collaborate with each other and join hands to stop bigger powers into its own territory. Kautilya’s Mandala Theory  Purpose of Mandala Theory is to create a balance in the system so that aspirations of an expansionist power can be curbed.  According to Kautilya, neighbour’s neighbour should always be your friend because the immediate neighbour of a Nation is its natural enemy.  Mandala literally means circles. So, Mandala Theory has been used by Kautilya while explaining foreign relations of a country. Kautilya gives a lot of advice to the King for expansion of territory as well as for protection of territory. According to Kautilya, a King aspiring for expansion should make an equal number of friends who can help in fulfilling his ambitions.  Kautilya says that weaker states for their protection should collaborate with other weaker states to protect themselves from powerful neighbours. According to Kautilya, weaker nations should establish friendly connections with equal status nations to protect themselves. Kautilya in his mandala theory talks about a circle of states in which the most important one is vijigishu. Vijigishu is the most important king in his Mandala theory along with other kings who are having similar goals. Strength of a nation decides the position of Vijigishu. Kautilya also talks about ari. Ari is the immediate neighbour. According to Kautilya, the immediate neighbour is a natural enemy.  Mitra is Ari's neighbour. For example, China’s neighbours in contemporary times are India’s friends. These are the most important actors of his Mandala theory.  Other important components of Mandala Theory include:  Ari-Mitra: Friend of ari, shares border with mitra  4  Mitra-Mitra: Friend or an ally of friend  Ari Mitra-Mitra: Friend of enemy’s friend  Parshnigraha: Enemy in the rear of the Vijigishu  Aakranda: Friend in the rear behind Parshnigraha  Parshnigraha-asara: Friend of Parshnigraha behind Aakranda  Aakranda-asara: Friend of Aakranda behind Parshnigrahasara  Madhyama: Indifferent kingdom  Udasina: Neutral Kingdom.  The Madhyama or an indifferent king could turn out to be an ally or an enemy and intervene in favour of the victorious king by supporting him or decide to be neutral (udasina) or an enemy (ari). The policy of vijigishu should be to turn as many of the kings as possible into allies or take neutral position. Relevance of Mandala Theory in Contemporary times:  Similar arrangements like Mandala Theory can be seen in India’s foreign policy in recent years.  China’s expansionist policies have destabilised the peace and stability of the whole region which has made India to collaborate with like-minded countries like Japan and other China’s neighbours for containment of China. Comparison between Kautilya and Machiavelli The tradition of comparison between them began with G. V. Botazzi. He compares Kautilya with Thucydides, who is known as the forerunner of Machiavelli. Hence, scholars started comparing Kautilya with Machiavelli. A. V. Keeth also finds a parallel between the thoughts of Kautilya and Machiavelli. Nehru in his Discovery of India calls Kautilya as Indian Machiavelli. Stephen P. Cohen also compares Kautilya with Machiavelli.  5 Reasons for Similarities: 1. The Prince as well as Arthashastra deals with statecraft. 2. Both books are like directions to aspiring Princes. 3. Both books are concerned with the resolution of problems of the motherland. 4. Both deal with internal as well as external policies of state. 5. Both consider acquisition of land necessary for the good health of citizens. 6. Both gave the preliminary idea of Balance of Power. 7. Both believe in the selfishness of the human race. 8. Supremacy of national interest is found in both the thinkers. 9. Both have a utilitarian approach to religion. 10. Kautilya allows Vijigishu to use spies in disguise of sadhus to frighten the enemy and defeat him morally. Similarities between the two should not be stretched too far. The two scholars belong to different time and space. They belong to two different traditions. The differences between Kautilya and Machiavelli is with respect to their approach related to ethics and religion. Kautilya’s Vijigishu is not above morality. He is always tied to Rajdharma whereas Machiavelli’s Prince is above morality. He is a creator of morality. He is free to take any actions if ends justify the means. In Machiavelli, there is strict separation between religion and state. He imitates western tradition of Secularism. In Kautilya, it is the State's responsibility to maintain Dharma in society. Kautilyan State performs religious functions also. Some Scholars compare Kautilya with Aristotle also on following grounds: 1. Aristotle was the teacher of Alexander and Kautilya was the teacher of Chandragupta Maurya. 2. Both of them were contemporaries. 3. Both of them considered state as necessary for virtuous life.  6 Though there are a lot of similarities between Kautilya and Machiavelli, there are substantial differences also. One can say that it is not justified to say that Kautilya is Indian Machiavelli. He is prior to Machiavelli and there are substantial differences between the two also. Contribution of Kautilya  He has helped Chandragupta Maurya in establishing his empire. Chandragupta Maurya adopted Kautilya’s teachings into practice. He entered into alliance with enemy kings of Nanda to end the empire of Nandas. Bindusara also continued with the Kautilyan tradition. The Mauryan empire could secure a long period of stability and security by adhering to the principles of Kautilya.  Arthashastra has theoretical significance also. It leads to the development of the theory of International Politics also. It gave the concept of Balance of Power. It has a special place in the discipline of Public Administration.   2 Gandhi Gandhian concept of Non-violence  The Gandhian concept of Non-violence is the most important running thread throughout Gandhian philosophy. It is associated with- (a) Gandhi’s views on Nature- According to Gandhi, man is a part of Mother Nature and man should remain in close cooperation with Mother Nature. Man should not try to dominate Mother Nature. Man is part of a whole called Mother Nature and part should not try to dominate the whole. So, the Gandhian concept of non- violence is applicable for the preservation of nature as well. (b) Gandhian concept of Ends and Means- This concept also involves Gandhian idea of non-violence. For Gandhi, purity of means is more important than the end itself.  The Gandhian concept of non-violence can be used as a tool of analysis to understand violence in many parts of the world. This tool can be utilised for ending violence and bringing peace.  The Gandhian concept of non-violence broadly involves his concept about man and his concept about society. Gandhian concept of Man According to Gandhi, the element of reason differentiates between Man and Animal. Animals cannot differentiate between what is right and what is wrong. They are only interested in satiating their needs at any cost whereas the purpose of Man’s life is different. Purpose of Man’s life is to move towards ultimate good, that is, welfare of all and the highest purpose of Man’s life brings Man near to God. According to Gandhi, Man can realise his true self and true objectives by following the principles of Non-violence.  3 Concept of Society According to Gandhi, society is made up of various parts which are interconnected and interdependent. Man is a part of society and the purpose of society is to create the conditions under which growth of Man would be possible. The Gandhian idea of non- violence is a social concept to create order in society and to ensure development of individuals. It is a moral concept for creating a good society and an ideal state i.e Ram Rajya.  Note: Ram Rajya, according to Gandhi, is a situation when there is complete order in society and everybody is free from wants and miseries. Aspects of Ahimsa Ahimsa broadly involves two aspects- Negative aspects and Positive aspects.  Positive Aspect of Ahimsa- It is related to a sense of “we” feeling and cooperation with each other. According to Gandhi, one can reach near to God by sacrificing oneself for the sake of others.  Negative Aspect of Ahimsa- It involves not using violence against anyone either directly, indirectly or even in thoughts. According to Gandhi, use of violence against human beings is violence against God because God resides in every individual. Gandhi says that one should not hate the sinner rather one should hate the sin. General Explanation of Ahimsa  According to Gandhi, Principle of Ahimsa involves self sacrifice for the sake of larger society. By following principles of Ahimsa, one comes near to God. The Gandhian concept of Ahimsa makes human beings near to God.  According to Gandhi, the concept of Ahimsa should be practised not only for human beings but also for nature and animals. Ahimsa should also be practised even at the level of one’s thinking. Gandhi says that Ahimsa is an instrument of a strong person. It is an instrument to realise God. Ahimsa is a weapon of a morally and spiritually strong person.  4  Ahimsa is also a source of morality. If Ahimsa is practised in one’s life then man comes near to God. According to Gandhi, Ahimsa is a rule of his life. Gandhi says that the concept of non-violence or Ahimsa is not related to reason only but it is also related to one’s conscience. Relevance of the Gandhian Concept of Non-Violence  With increasing violence across the world, it becomes important for human beings to practise non-violence. Problems of terrorism, ethnic conflicts, etc can be tackled with the help of Gandhian philosophy of Non-violence.  Phenomena of Climate Change can be tackled by practising Gandhian philosophy of Non-violence. According to Gandhi, there is enough in this world for everyone’s need but not enough for anyone’s greed. Human beings are a part of mother nature but in reality human beings are trying to dominate mother nature which is causing a crisis like situation for mankind. Therefore, it is imperative for mankind to practise non- violence for ensuring sustainable development, and preventing climate change. Gandhian Theory Continuity of Ends and Means  The Gandhian concept of Ends and Means has been a part of the Indian way of life since time immemorial. It has been a part of Indian tradition. As per Indian philosophy, reaching one’s goals through wrong means will never give good results.  Essential continuity of Ends and Means can also be logically derived from Gandhian Principle of Non-violence. According to Gandhi, in order to achieve ideal state or ram rajya, non-violence must be practised. Gandhi believed that an ideal state can never be achieved by following unethical and violent means.  The Gandhian concept of continuity of Ends and Means comes closer to the idealist tradition of the west which was represented by Plato and Aristotle. Both of them said that politics and ethics cannot be separated. The purpose of politics is to secure a good life. Therefore, it can be said that Gandhian thinking comes remarkably close to the idealist tradition of the west.  5  Gandhian thinking was different from the realist tradition of the west which was represented by Machiavelli. This tradition says that end justifies the means and this tradition advocates violence to achieve one’s goals but Gandhi was of the view that achieving goals through wrong means will have disastrous consequences for both individual and society.  According to Gandhi, Man’s life is intertwined with Ethics. Unethical behaviour will always have disastrous consequences, that is why, Gandhi advocates that Ethics should be practised in every walk of life.  Unfair means will only lead to conflict and violence in society. Gandhi believes that wrong means will never result in good ends. Infact, Gandhi has compared means with seeds and ends with fruits.  According to Gandhi, politics devoid of religion is like a death trap, that is why, even the Second Administration Reform Commission has advocated for reinfusion of Ethics into Politics. Contemporary Relevance  By Following Gandhian principles, unethical practices prevalent in politics and public services can be removed. Gandhian principles focus upon the creation of a moral man deeply connected to the larger interest of society.   2 Gandhi (Part-2) Gandhian Concept of Swaraj  The Gandhian idea of Swaraj was different from the traditional definition of Swaraj which confined itself to freeing India from British rule. The Gandhian concept of Swaraj is not merely a transfer of power to Indians. For Gandhi, Swaraj involved both external and internal freedom. It means Swaraj involves not only freedom from foreign rule but also self-purification.  Swaraj involves freedom from wants and miseries. It also involves Self-rule as well as freedom from exploitation.  According to V. Krishna Iyer, Gandhian Swaraj means wiping tears from every broken men’s and women’s eyes.  The Gandhian idea of Swaraj is a very comprehensive concept that involves empowerment of individuals also. According to Gandhi, Swaraj is the power of people to determine their own destiny.  According to Gandhi, in order to attain Swaraj, masses should be educated so that they can regulate and control authority.  Swaraj is a vedic word which means self-rule and self-restraint. Swaraj is the capacity of individuals to shape their external world. The concept of Swaraj involves achieving reforms from within which means an ability to regulate one’s own self as well.  According to Gandhi, Swaraj can be attained by following the principles of Non- violence. Non-violence is the means through which Swaraj will eventually prevail and individuals start giving primacy to rights over duties.  According to Gandhi, when people perform their duties, they will automatically get their rights. So, Swaraj focuses upon the performance of one’s obligations towards larger society.  3  According to Gandhi, Swaraj is something which is the basic need of society. Swaraj means consent of the governed in their rules. It is another important aspect of Swaraj. Gandhi says that Swaraj is not merely participating in the democratic process but the concept of Swaraj also involves winning over one’s vices. Swaraj happens when people are able to develop capacity to regulate their impulses on the basis of reason which eventually strengthens not only individuals but it also strengthens larger society.  Swaraj also involves ending social evils like untouchability, communalism, ethnic conflicts, etc.  Application of Swaraj can be seen in different walks of life and at different levels. For example- (a) At the political level, Swaraj involves democratic decentralisation, i.e., 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Act. (b) At Social level, Swaraj involves ending conflicts in society like communalism, ethnic conflicts, etc.  The Gandhian concept of Swaraj resonates in the list of Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State, Article 326 which provides Universal Adult Suffrage.  The Gandhian concept of Swaraj also has international meaning which can be seen through theories like Interdependence and Complex Interdependence. Today, the world has become like a Global village, and interdependence can be seen at different levels. Concept of Gram Swaraj  According to Gandhi, decentralised democracy is needed for achieving Swaraj wherein power should be given into the hands of common man. Gandhi has criticised the centralised structure of society. Moreover, Gandhi wanted that villages should be empowered in the real sense of the term. Gandhi wanted to make villages self-sufficient. Gandhi has advocated Ocean circle of Power to explain his decentralised system. So,  4 according to Gandhi, like one wave empowers another wave in the ocean, likewise, one layer of the system will empower another layer and this process will continue.  According to Gandhi, villages should be the most important part of our democracy and annual elections should take place to elect a panchayat which will be responsible for managing the affairs of the villages. Each village will be connected with another village in line with the Oceanic circle of power.  In contemporary times, India’s former President APJ Abdul Kalam has talked about PURA model for empowering villages i.e., providing urban amenities in rural areas by ensuring the following: a) Knowledge connectivity b) Physical connectivity, etc.  Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam’s idea is worth implementing to change the face of Indian villages and to ensure the objective of Gram Swaraj.  Gandhi’s element of Gram Swaraj included the following aspects:  Village Industries: It emphasised on the revival of traditional cottage industries in the villages to increase the employability of the villagers.  Swadeshi: Gandhi was a strong proponent of locally produced goods and resources, to reduce the dependence on imported goods.  Panchayati Raj: This was Gandhi’s proposed scheme of democratic decentralisation that provided villages with the autonomy of decision making.  Education and Basic Necessities: He laid emphasis on the importance of Education and a provision for basic needs like food, shelter, clothing and healthcare.  Sustainable Environment: He emphasised on the need to ensure sustainable agricultural practices that are suitable for the needs of the future generation.  5 Gandhi’s views on Economy  According to Gandhi, Economy should be based upon- a) Equality of individuals. b) It should not be exploitative in character. c) It should focus upon employment generation. d) It should produce low-cost consumer goods. e) The focus should not be on mass production rather the focus should be on the production by masses.  According to Gandhi, Economy should be structured in such a manner that it should promote equality and social justice.  According to Gandhi, the economy should be based on the needs of individuals rather than wants of individuals.  Labour intensive technologies are to be promoted.  According to Gandhi, in a country like India having a huge population, mad craze for machines is not good. Rather, the country should focus upon the production by masses and generation of mass employment.  Gandhi criticised both Capitalism and Communism. For Gandhi, liberty of individual, dignity of individual, fulfilling life, etc. are more important than economic progress only whereas both capitalism and communism promoted merely economic growth. According to Gandhi, liberation of man is more important than anything else.  The Gandhian idea of economy mixes principles of Morality and Ethics with Economy. Gandhi says that Ethical standards should never be compromised while ensuring Economic Growth. Gandhi says that Economy in the true sense of the term should stand for ensuring social justice and promotion of collective good.  6  The purpose of the Economy should be ensuring Swaraj and wiping tears from every broken men and women’s life. Human beings should be given ultimate consideration in the Gandhian scheme of things, for example, every man should have the right to food, shelter, clothing, and everyone should be able to find work.  Gandhi says that human labour should be utilised first and then machines should be employed. The success of India lies in using its manpower and equal distribution of resources rather than using mechanical production for mass production of goods.  Hence, in Gandhi’s Economic Model, human beings were given the central position. He opposed the Capitalist Economic system that focussed on the exploitation of humans for the sake of profits. He was equally against Communism as he gave priority to the progress of the individual rather than the economic system. Therefore, Social Justice, that involves the welfare of the poorest of the poor was the central theme of Gandhi’s Economic model.   2 Gandhi (Part-3) Gandhi’s views on Religion and Politics ❖ According to Gandhi, Modern world has tried to separate Religion and Politics. The tradition of separation of Politics and Religion is part of realist tradition and Machiavelli was forerunner of this tradition. ❖ In western world, religion and politics have been completely separated whereas Gandhi called for infusion of religion into politics. Gandhi found both religion and politics as inseparable. According to Gandhi, politics without religion is like a death trap. Gandhi’s concept of Religion ❖ According to Gandhi, there is remarkable unity among all religions of the world, that is, be good and do good. Gandhi believed that there are as many religions in the world as there are human minds and each human mind has a different conception of God but there is common unity among all religions at fundamental level. ❖ According to Gandhi, religion and ethics are different. According to Gandhi, fundamental ethical principles among all religions are common but religions may differ with each other with respect to beliefs and practices. Religion makes people pursue the path of truth and religion is a way through which people come nearer to God. According to Gandhi, religion is the fundamental aspect of human life. ❖ Gandhi says that problem arises when one religion claims superiority over another religion which leads to conflict and also becomes an obstacle in the path of realisation of truth. There is no problem in having different religious symbols but when these symbols are used for proving superiority between or amongst people, then it causes problems and it must be discarded. Gandhi’s concept of Politics ❖ According to Gandhi, Politics and religion cannot be separated. Gandhi did not believe in the unlimited power of the State which has done greatest harm to mankind. But Gandhi believes that political power can be used for empowerment of people in all spheres of life.  3 ❖ According to Gandhi, political activity is something which is closely associated with all other activities of people. Therefore, politics is an essential part for empowering individuals but at the same time Gandhi criticised the unlimited power of state and associated violence with this unlimited power. Relationship between Religion and Politics ❖ For Gandhi, politics without religion is a death trap because the ultimate objective of human life is self realisation and realisation of truth and if politics does not help in this regard, then it is not something which is worthwhile at all. For Gandhi, self realisation is the ultimate objective and ultimate activity for a human being and if politics is not helping in this quest, then it is absolute dirt which must be discarded. ❖ Gandhi said that without religion there is no politics but at the same time, he was also conscious of religion being used for showing a sense of superiority of one religion which leads to violence and conflict in society. That is why he talked about universal religion of toleration and a religion that binds people together. Gandhi’s views on Modernity/Industrial Civilization ❖ Gandhi has not provided a detailed body of knowledge about Industrial civilization. We have come to know about Gandhi’s views on industrial civilization through his various pamphlets, articles, books, etc. ❖ According to Gandhi, certain aspects of modernity are harmful and also immoral. According to Gandhi, following aspects of modernity/industrial civilisation is harmful for mankind: Excessive consumerism. Hedonistic behaviour of man. Focus of industrial civilisation is on unlimited growth but the irony is in a world having limited resources, unlimited growth is not possible. Exploitation of nature which will lead to crisis-like situations in future. Industrial civilization focuses on mass production by machines rather than production by masses. Conflict due to power politics at international level.  4 ❖ Suggestions given by Gandhi to minimise negative impact of Industrial Civilisation: Minimisation of wants Living in harmony with nature. Eradication of evils like prostitution, theft, etc. ❖ According to Gandhi, hedonism reduces man to the level of beast. It has led to colonialism also. It makes man behave like an animal, that is why Gandhi calls Industrial civilisation as Satanic civilisation. ❖ Gandhi has provided a solution to this excessive consumerism and industrialisation through his ideal state which will be based upon the concept of Ramrajya, democratic decentralisation or Gram Swaraj, etc. Gandhi’s Concept of Sarvodaya ❖ Gandhi was critical of both Capitalist and Socialist Economies. He held that despite the industrialization in America, it is marred with poverty and degradation. Similarly, in the case of Socialist Russia, he criticised the use of violent means to bring out reforms. In his Hind Swaraj, Gandhi held that under Socialism, there is no individual freedom and it is based on only one aim which is the material progress of man. ❖ Gandhi held that the position of individuals in the modern times has been merely reduced to being a cog in the machine. He held that man has lost his individuality. According to him, a life where a man loses his soul for the gain of the entire world is futile. ❖ He advocated that every person should become a full blooded and fully developed member of the society. ❖ Gandhi proposed the concept of Sarvodaya as an alternative to the concept of Capitalism and Socialism. Sarvodaya is based on the three basic principles, which are: The good of the individual is contained in the good of all. Every work has the same value. He held that the work of a lawyer has the same value as that of Barbar, as each of these occupations involves the right of earning livelihood from their work.  5 Life of a labourer is the life worth living. Gandhi’s views on Trusteeship ❖ Genesis of Gandhi’s theory of trusteeship goes back to French scholar Saint Simone, who held that dynastic inheritance is a threat to merit and social justice. He held that after the death of a person his property should be taken by the state to create common facilities like schools, hospitals, etc. ❖ Similarly, Gandhi held that capitalists should act as the trustees to the property. The reason being that since the capitalist has created property from the society itself, hence they should give property back to the society and therefore it is their moral responsibility to take care of the property and not own it. ❖ He propounded the concept to ensure that those who are rich do not use the property for meeting their selfish interests. Similarly, since the basic needs of all are met, there are no poor people. Gandhi held everything belonged to God and was from God. Hence, any individual having more than his proportionate share becomes the trustee of that portion. ❖ He even suggested that the trustee in office should have the right to nominate his successor. ❖ The idea underlying the concept of trusteeship is: All humans are born equal and have a right to equal opportunity implying that basic needs of all must be fully satisfied. Since, all humans are not endowed with equal intellectual and physical capacity, hence, some have greater capacity to produce than others. These persons should consider themselves as trustees for any produce beyond their basic needs. Rejection of violence as a mode of the distribution of produce   2 Gandhi, B R Ambedkar Concept of Rights and Duties ❖ Relationships between Rights and duties have been a matter of debate for a very long time. Large number of political scholars have talked about rights, duties and their relationships. ❖ Idealist scholars like Plato and Hegel have completely neglected the concept of rights and they have focused upon the duty aspect only. According to Hegel, the State is the march of God on Earth. Hegelian tradition believes that the State should not be disobeyed by anyone under any circumstance. Plato talks about the duties of the individuals. He subordinates Individuals completely with respect to society. ❖ Another tradition of Negative Liberals have talked about Rights only, infact, negative liberals have given primacy to rights over duties. Their concept of absolute right is a part of the theory of possessive individualism, i.e., Whatever I own is the product of my hard work and society has got nothing to do with it. ❖ Gandhian thought belongs to Indian tradition wherein the focus has been on the performance of duties and not on rights. Gandhian views were influenced by the Vedantic philosophy and Gita, which emphasised upon performance of duties rather than rights. For Gandhi, duties are rights in embryonic form. In Indian tradition, an individual is not independent of the needs of the larger society. Individuals are a part of the larger society. According to Gandhi, rights and duties are part of the same coin. They always come together. For example, every man has certain obligations towards society whereas as an individual, man has got certain rights also. For Gandhi, duties are rights in embryonic form. It means when an individual will perform his duties, the individual will also get his rights. Comparison between Gandhi and Marx Note: Comparison means Similarities and Differences  3 ❖ Similarities between Gandhi and Marx: Gandhi calls Industrial civilization a Satanic civilization. Gandhi has spoken at length about the ill effects of industrial civilization. Marx has also talked about ill-effects of industrial civilization and called it exploitative. Both Gandhi and Marx have talked about the exploitative nature of the modern state. Infact, Gandhi has called State as an instrument of organised violence and Marx has called State an instrument of capitalist class which exploits people. Both Marx and Gandhi advocated resistance against exploitation. ❖ Differences between Gandhi and Marx: Differences are more fundamental whereas similarities are superficial. Gandhi has given central position to religion in man’s life and also in politics whereas Marx called Religion as the opiate of Masses. Marx gave a call for violent revolution whereas Gandhi believed in Non-violence. For Gandhi, spirituality is everything whereas for Marx, matter is everything. Gandhi believed in cooperation among different groups whereas Marx believed in conflict between different classes. Gandhi’s Theory of State ❖ Gandhi’s theory of State is based on the principle of concept of Oceanic Circle of Power, Non-violence, and Swaraj. ❖ According to Gandhi, the State represents organised violence. State is immoral, and State is a soulless machine. State is not based on the principle of non-violence. ❖ According to Gandhi, the modern idea of State is against the principle of Swaraj which means rule of a person on oneself whereas modern notion of State is based on the principle of hierarchy, exploitation and authority which is something existing outside the State. ❖ Gandhi believed in the creation of Ramrajya, an ideal state and exploitation free state where complete equality will prevail. Hence, there will be no need for the State. ❖ Gandhi’s concept of Ramrajya i.e., ideal state will be based upon democratic decentralisation principle and it will be based upon the ancient Indian Institution of Panchayati Raj in which villages will be the primary unit.  4 ❖ But Gandhi did not continue with his idea of Ramrajya forever, infact, later on Gandhi accepted that State is a necessary evil which is required. So, Gandhi went on to believe in the idea of a Constitutional State also. Relevance of Gandhi in contemporary times ❖ Minimization of wants. Hedonism is not good for the future of human civilization. Since, in a world having finite resources, infinite growth is not possible. Hence, mindless consumerism is not a good idea. ❖ To arrest the climate change phenomenon. ❖ To stop ethnic conflicts, terrorism, etc. ❖ Hence, today Gandhian philosophy has become much more relevant than it was in the past. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Theoretical Perspective of Ambedkar ❖ He preferred Constitutional methods and believed in democratic socialism. ❖ He wanted to achieve the goals of socialism through democratic means. Goals of Socialism- Equality is the primary concern of Socialism. Answer Structure- Previous Year Questions Q.1 Comment: The main political ideas contained in the Manusmriti. (2003/ 20 marks). Answer Structure: Introduction: Manusmriti is based on Vedas and belongs to the tradition of Dharmasastra. It is addressed to the Rajas and discusses the issue of Dharma at length. Body: The main political ideas contained in Manusmriti include: 1. State: It mentions state as rashtra, which are of four types- Mitra rashtra, Ary or enemy rashtra, Udasin or neutral rashtra, and Madhyama rashtra. 2. The idea of King: Manusmriti was based on the contractual theory. It suggests that king should aspire to achieve the Yogakshema i.e., the welfare of all people.  5 3. Nature of Authority of king: Unlike the King in the west who had divine power, the king of Manu had only divine personality but not divine powers. Therefore, the King does not have absolute power. 4. Welfare State: The state should perform the following functions, i.e., acquisition of land and wealth, protection of land and people, rewarding the deserving people, etc. 5. Pluralist Theory of Law: Manusmriti mentions the various courses of law which includes the Vedas, Customs and Usages, consciousness of King, and deeds of great men. Hence, it can be considered as a pluralist theory of law. 6. Administration of Laws: Laws are administered by the king with the help of Brahmins and learned councillors. 7. Position of Ambassadors: Manu views ambassadors to be next to only the King. 8. Four-Fold policy: Manu suggests that diplomacy should adopt the four fold policy of Sama (settlement of disputes through negotiation), Dama (Economic diplomacy), Danda (Army), and Bheda (Espionage). Conclusion: Manu is regarded as the father of the human race and the founder of society and moral order. The ideas of Manusmriti laid the foundation of Indian political thought and are relevant even in contemporary times. Q.2. Write a note on Buddhist tradition in Indian Political thought. (2012/ 20 marks). Answer Structure: Introduction: The Buddhist tradition in Indian Political thought is based on the teachings of Gautama Buddha. It is idealist in nature as against the tradition of Dharmashastra and Dandashashtra which show realist tendencies. Body: Important features of Buddhist tradition are: ❖ Foreign Policy: It is based on the principle of Panchsheel or the philosophy of Ahimsa or Non-violence. ❖ Egalitarian in Nature: Unlike the Hindu tradition, which is hierarchical, Buddhist tradition is egalitarian and does not believe in caste system.  6 ❖ Gender Equality: It gives equal place to both men and women. ❖ Individualistic in Nature: It gives importance to individuals and hence is referred to as Shramanic tradition by Appadorai. ❖ Republican Political Order: Unlike monarchical state, it was based on republican and democratic nature of state. Conclusion: According to western scholars like Mathew J. Moore, western thinkers have a lot to learn from Buddhist political thought.   2 B R Ambedkar Theoretical Perspective of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar  Ambedkar was primarily a liberal thinker, who preferred Constitutional means for redressal of grievances. Later on, Ambedkar became inclined towards socialism, particularly democratic socialism; it means he wanted to achieve the goals of socialism but only through the democratic means.  The Goal of Socialism is to bring equality and this goal is to be achieved through democratic means. Ambedkar’s views on State  Ambedkar has given the functional theory of State. State is important because it provides internal security as well as security against external aggression. Ambedkar also believed in the duty of citizens to obey the state.  He was against civil disobedience, because it can lead to anarchy. Ambedkar believed in legal and constitutional methods for redressal of grievances.  Ambedkar favoured separate electorates for untouchables arguing that those who are socially segregated should also be politically segregated. Ambedkar’s views on Democracy  Ambedkar was perhaps the only Indian in the 20th century who offered a theory of democracy, a theory that can guide us in the 20th century. According to Ambedkar, democracy is a form of government whereby revolutionary changes in the economic and social life of people are brought about without bringing chaos and bloodshed in society.  Ambedkar significantly made a departure from western notion of democracy. He puts equality at the heart of democracy whereas western notion puts liberty at the heart of democracy.  3  Ambedkar used to say that democracy is not a plant that grows. Ambedkar would often cite the cases of Italy and Germany, where absence of social and economic democracy led to the failure of political democracy.  According to Ambedkar for the successful functioning of democracy, he puts forward certain conditions:  There must not be any glaring inequality in society.  There must not be an oppressed class in society.  There must not be a class that has got all the privilege and a class that has got all the burdens to carry.  Ambedkar also upheld Equality in law and administration. According to him, likes should be treated alike.  According to Ambedkar, Constitutional morality should be given importance in democracy. Constitutional morality can be described as a State marked by self- restraint, respect for plurality, and open culture of criticism. Ambedkar’s views on Women  Ambedkar was a rationalist and a pragmatist thinker. He advocated Equality of Sexes. He was of the view that the true measure of the success of any society can be seen with the kind of rights men have given to its women.  Both male and female should be treated equally in society. He was also instrumental in bringing the Hindu Code Bill. The Hindu Code Bill dealt with giving the absolute right to females over property of the father. Ambedkar’s Views on Caste and Untouchability  Ambedkar was moved by the inhuman treatment of his community at the hand of caste Hindus. Ambedkar was of the view that caste Hindus prevented reforms of Hindu society and hence, conditions of untouchables could not be improved.  4  According to Ambedkar, even Hindus social reformers have not done enough social reforms to improve the conditions of Untouchables. Those social reformers focussed on issues like Child marriage, widow remarriage, abolition of Sati, etc. They did not try to bring reforms for Hindus social system and the issue of untouchability and caste system was not touched upon by Hindus social reformers. Moreover, they did not try to reinterpret Hindu scriptures either in the light of changing time.  Ambedkar believed that earlier Hindu society was not rigid and exogamy was practised by Hindu society.  Ambedkar believed that initially Indian society practised exogamy and Brahmins were the first group who became endogamous, this shows that caste system is not a part of original Hinduism.  According to Ambedkar, the concept of Untouchability is based on the notion of purity and pollution. As per Ambedkar’s theory, there were only three varnas i.e., Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas originally. Shudras were originally Kshatriyas. However, they were those Kshatriyas that did not accept the hegemony of Brahmins. Hence, Brahmins stopped the Upanayana sanskara of this group. Upnanayan sankara is linked to purification. Hence, it was believed that they remained polluted.  Ambedkar saw untouchability as the social institution defended by the ideology of Brahmanism. Ambedkar also said that untouchables were the ones who were living on the outskirts of villages who due to their refusal to give up Buddhism and beef eating came to be condemned as untouchables.  Ambedkar also believed that Hindu society needs radical restructuring and the caste system needs to be discarded. Regeneration of Hindu society will not only be good for untouchables but for the entire nation because Caste represents inequality, oppression, degradation, etc.  5  Ambedkar believed that removal of untouchability will rejuvenate Hindu society wherein respect and rights towards a person will become a way of life and people will start treating each other equally.  Ambedkar’s solution to untouchability:  Vedas and Shastras should be destroyed by using dynamite.  These texts are based on the concept of Superman, which should be destroyed for the annihilation of Caste.    2 B.R. Ambedkar (Part-3) Ambedkar’s solution to Untouchability  Ambedkar in his work, Annihilation of Caste, says that Vedas should be destroyed and then only the Caste system can be destroyed. The presence of the Caste system is undemocratic and against the spirit of modern society.  According to Ambedkar, Vedas are written by primitive men. Vedas are not the result of the works of great scholars.  According to Ambedkar, only a selected few have been permitted to study Vedas, that is why, Vedas lead to ignorance, hence it must be discarded. Gandhi-Ambedkar Debate  According to Gandhi, Caste system was not the original feature of Hinduism rather Varna System was the original feature of Hinduism, which should be re-adopted because Varna system is based on functional specialisation and division of labour which is also the feature of all modern societies.  Ambedkar rejected Gandhian view and said that Varna system is not the current reality of Hindu society. It is the textual view of Hindu society whereas Caste system is the reality of Hindu society. It is the contextual view of Hindu society.  According to Ambedkar, untouchability is a by-product of the Caste system. Hence, the problem of Untouchability cannot be resolved without annihilation of the Caste System.  Ambedkar says that the Caste system is not based on division of labour rather it is based on division of labourers. Caste system is ascriptive in nature where status of a person is decided since his birth. His caste decides his status in society. It is not based on what an individual has achieved in life.  3  Ambedkar also rejected the use of word ‘harijan’ for untouchables rather he preferred to use the term ‘dalit’ because Harijan term can push them into the state of false consciousness.  Ambedkar also criticised Gandhi by calling him a ‘stunt man’. He said that Mahatmas will come and Mahatmas will go but untouchables conditions have not improved.  Ambedkar has criticised Gandhi on many issues. He criticised and rejected Gandhian ideas like Swaraj, Gram Swaraj, Non-violence, promotion of Khadi, trusteeship, etc. Ambedkar advocated a modern society based on modern economy and polity. Ambedkar was more concerned about this worldly things rather than other worldly things as advocated by Gandhi. Ambedkar’s Ideas of State Socialism  Ambedkar’s idea of State Socialism gives an alternative approach for the development of all sections of society. It can provide solutions to the problems inherent in Capitalism and Socialism.  Ambedkar believed that involvement of the State was essential for economic development. He believed that the State should take a proactive role in development so that the poor can be benefitted.  Ambedkar’s State socialism includes the following:  Agriculture would be a State industry.  Key industries would be owned and run by the State.  A life insurance policy would be compulsory for every adult citizen.  Agricultural land should be acquired by the State and would be divided into farms of standard size and then given to residents of villages as tenants without any distinction based on caste.  Industry and agriculture should go together in the current state of development. Agriculture sector is witnessing a low level of productivity and machines have been  4 taking over various works done by the labour force leading to displacement of workers. Ambedkar rightly advocated that State should address such issues i.e., while taking into account the needs of the poor and marginalised, the state has to take initiative in providing basic resource distribution. Therefore, it can be said that State socialism can be one of the alternatives to bring equal distribution of wealth and welfare to the masses.   2 B.R. Ambedkar (Part-4) Ambedkar’s Theory of Dalit Democratic Revolution  Ambedkar championed the cause of Dalits. According to Ambedkar, the conditions of Dalits cannot improve without fighting for their regeneration. Ambedkar said that Indian society is on the verge of collapse, and it will be dangerous to postpone their moral regeneration. Moral regeneration of Indian society will be possible only through the most oppressed section of Indian Society. The basic structure of Indian society is ideological and not economic. The basic nature of Indian society is driven by ideology which advocates exploitation, that is why states can work for the conditions of Dalits.  Ambedkar preferred State led affirmative action. He also tried to raise the consciousness of Dalits because Ambedkar believed that conditions of Dalits would not improve without having subjective awareness about their objective reality. Ambedkar’s method for raising consciousness of Dalit was to agitate, educate, and organise. Ambedkar’s idea of Social precedes Political conception  According to Ambedkar, rights are protected by the social and moral conscience of society. Only when society accepts a particular right given by the State, then it can be successful. For example, a law made by the State will never be successful if it is not accepted by society.  According to Ambedkar, social relationships are an important part of democracy, that is why social reforms must precede political and economic reforms.  In Ambedkar’s words, social democracy means a way of life which accepts liberty, equality, and fraternity as the principles of life.  Ambedkar believed that economic and political issues must be resolved only after achieving the goal of social justice. Political Emancipation should not precede social emancipation because it may lead to the dominance of upper caste Hindus.  3 Ambedkar’s critique of Marxism  Ambedkar was greatly influenced by Marx because of his ideas on Social Justice, which was primarily aimed at ending exploitation of the poor. However, significant departure can also be seen between the viewpoint of Ambedkar and Marx because Ambedkar believed that ideas of Marx are not very relevant in the Indian context. India faces different types of challenges.  Ambedkar significantly differed from Marx in following manner:  Ambedkar differed from Marx’s views on religion. For Karl Marx, religion is the opiate of masses which is used to generate false consciousness and it is also an instrument of exploitation whereas Buddhism for Ambedkar is a religion which is based upon the conception of Samta i.e., equality, Karuna i.e., compassion. Buddhism is a religion which treats people equally. That is why, Ambedkar advocated that untouchables should embrace Buddhism.  Marx’s views on the State were another differing point between Ambedkar and Karl Marx. According to Marx, the State is an instrument of exploitation, and it works at the behest of capitalists whereas for Ambedkar the State occupies a special position in his scheme of things.  Ambedkar says that State is necessary for ensuring the following:  For ensuring social justice.  For ensuring affirmative action.  For ending exploitation in society. Ambedkar’s role as Constitution Maker  Ambedkar is considered as the chief architect of the Indian Constitution. He has also been called as Modern Manu but Ambedkar himself has said that “I did not play an  4 instrumental role in the making of India’s Constitution, in fact, given a chance, I will be the first person to burn the Constitution”.  The Constitution of India does not reflect the vision and ideology of Ambedkar rather it reflects the vision and ideology of other great personalities of Modern India like Nehru, Maulana Azad, Sardar Patel, and Dr. Rajendra Prasad. Many of the prominent ideas which Ambedkar advocated could not find a place in the Constitution of India. Those ideas are:  Ambedkar wanted a separate electorate to be included, which was rejected and instead of a separate electorate, reservation was given to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.  Ambedkar wanted a Presidential form of government, but Parliamentary democracy was incorporated under the Constitution because Indians knew about the working of Parliamentary democracy since Morley Minto Reforms, 1909, that is why, Parliamentary democracy was preferred over the Presidential form of Government.  Nevertheless, many of the ideas of Ambedkar were incorporated under the Constitution of India. For example, the Right to Equality was granted to people under Article 14 to 18. Ambedkar and Constitutionalism  The concept of constitutionalism refers to limited government, rule of law, regulations, and democratic values. It was pivotal during India's freedom movement and significantly shaped by leaders like Nehru and Ambedkar. Ambedkar believed in the evolutionary nature of the Constitution, emphasizing its adaptability to changing times. He critiqued the Government of India Act 1935 for lacking true federal spirit and favored a democratic political world where public opinion acts as a tool to restrict government powers.  5  Ambedkar advocated for a democratic principle, demonstrated in his support for free votes and elected representation over nominations. He opposed bureaucratic control of society, advocating for democratic control of the bureaucracy within a representative democracy.  He viewed democracy as essential for constitutionalism, emphasizing that the people's consent is crucial for the working of the Constitution. Parliamentary democracy, with separation of powers and constitutional morality, was central to Ambedkar's vision for India. He advocated fundamental rights and directive principles as mechanisms to limit government authority.  Hence, Ambedkar's contributions to constitutionalism, including adaptability, democratic control, and the importance of parliamentary democracy, fundamental rights, have left a lasting impact on India's governance and continue to shape India’s constitutional framework. Concluding Remarks  Ambedkar has often been portrayed as a leader who upheld the partisan cause of the untouchables, due to which Arun Shauri in his book, Worshipping False Gods has called Ambedkar anti-national. Shauri argues that Ambedkar emerged as the leader of the community rather than leader of the nation. Ambedkar himself held that between the interests of the Dalits and the interests of the nation, he would give preference to the interests of the Dalits.  But such partisanship was grounded on a body of thought and ideas built on defensible arguments which he very ably and effectively deployed. However, according to Arundhati Roy and Christophe Jeffrelot, it would be wrong to call Ambedkar anti- national.  Ambedkar represented the largest section of Indian society (Bahujan samaj). A person representing the largest section of the nation cannot be regarded as anti-national. On  6 the status of India as a nation, Ambedkar’s approach was as practical as that of Jyotiba Phule. It was difficult for Ambedkar to accept a society divided into castes as a nation. The concept of nation, according to Ambedkar, is based on the trinity of liberty, fraternity, and equality. There can be no nation without this trinity. However, it does not mean that there was no desire in Ambedkar that India should not emerge as a nation. Questions asked 1. Ambedkar’s ideas on constitutionalism. (2020) 2. Discuss Ambedkar’s ideas on annihilation of caste. (2018) 3. Political democracy could not last unless social democracy lay at its base. Comment. (2017) 4. Comment: Ambedkar’s idea of state socialism. (2016) 5. Comment on views of Gandhi and Ambedkar on social justice. (2011) 6. Comment: Ambedkar’s concept of social justice. (2006)    2 M N Roy General Introduction of M N Roy ❖ M N Roy had the unique distinction of having worked with Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky. He started his life as a militant nationalist who believed in the cult of bomb and pistol but soon he realised that this path is not going to yield results and he became a communist. He had a tendency of embracing new ideas and a quest for freedom. That is how, M N Roy drifted away from being a revolutionary terrorist to a Marxist and then to a Radical Humanist. M N Roy was greatly influenced by the ideas of following thinkers: Hobbes: Matter is the ultimate reality. Descartes: He was influenced by his ideas on Science. Locke’s idea of Secularism influenced him. Bentham’s concept of utilitarianism greatly influenced him. Phases in M N Roy’s life ❖ M N Roy passed through three phases in his career. ❖ In the first phase, he was a militant revolutionary. In the second phase, he became a Marxist and in the final phase of his career, he became a Radical Humanist. ❖ It can be said that M N Roy completed his journey from Nationalist to Communism and from Communism to Radical Humanism. Ideational Journey of M N Roy ❖ As a thinker, we see transformation in M N Roy’s views. His political philosophy shows connection with events in his political life. ❖ M N Roy began his career as a revolutionary nationalist. He was a member of Yugantar and he was jailed in Howrah conspiracy case. In this phase, M N Roy was a staunch critic of Gandhi. M N Roy called Gandhi as a leader of the capitalist class and Gandhi is fooling the masses. He has criticised Gandhi for calling off the Non-cooperation Movement. He termed Gandhi’s technique of non-violence as violence on masses. ❖ Later on, M N Roy got influenced by Marxism when he moved to Mexico. He was also acknowledged as an important authority on Communism and Colonial issues. M N Roy was then invited by Lenin to attend Communist International to outline his strategy  3 with respect to the issue of colonialism. M N Roy called himself an orthodox Marxist. M N Roy also believed in the inevitability of class struggle. He talked about bringing communist revolution as the responsibility of Communist party of India, which represented the working class. ❖ M N Roy developed differences with Lenin on colonial questions and the techniques of revolution following which M N Roy was expelled from Communist International. ❖ After this incident, M N Roy critically examined the principles of Marxism and joined the Indian National Congress with the aim of radicalising the Congress from within and became sympathetic to Gandhi. ❖ When M N Roy was a staunch Marxist, he was a critic of Gandhi. He considered Gandhi as a weak and a watery nationalist and supporter of the Capitalist class but later on he changed his views with respect to Gandhi and he became an admirer of Gandhi in the later part of his career. ❖ Later on, when he was sidelined in Indian Politics, he gave his theory of Radical Humanism. M N Roy’s Critique of Karl Marx ❖ Marx believes in class consciousness and not the consciousness of any individual. He said that the working class will develop subjective awareness of their objective reality. It means when the working class would become aware of their objective reality, i.e., the exploitation by the capitalist, it is when the changes would happen. ❖ M N Roy held that Marx has completely ignored Individual consciousness. ❖ Marx held that Religion is the opium of the masses. Religion creates false consciousness and people tend to forget about their own reality. M N Roy held that Marx’s supporters treat him as prophets and have ascribed a religious status to his book, Das Kapital. This is in contradiction to Marx’s views on religion. M N Roy’s Views on Education ❖ To achieve democratic spirit and outlook, M N Roy emphasised on Education. Education in democracy makes people conscious of their rights to exist as human beings with dignity. It inculcates rationality in the human mind. Education will make democracy more vibrant. He also advocated Universal Adult Suffrage.  4 ❖ M N Roy did not want the scheme of Education to be managed by the State because it creates a high degree of conformism to the established order. Question: ❖ Comment on the Marxist and the Radical Humanist phases of M N Roy’s thought.      2 M N Roy (Part-2) Humanist Critique of Marxism  According to Roy, Marx’s theory of class struggle has subordinated individual consciousness. Roy argued that various classes of society can live in cooperation and Marx ignored the significance of the Middle class. It is in the middle class which produces revolutionaries. Lenin did recognise this fact but failed to recognise the middle class as a class. Thus, Roy denounced the theory of class struggle.  As a radical humanist, he thought that revolution was to be brought not through struggle or armed violence, but through proper education.  He also denounced the theory of dictatorship of the proletariat as dictatorship of proletariat become dictatorship on proletariat.  In the context of the religion, Roy said that Marx himself criticised the religion as opiate of masses but in due course of time, Marxism itself became a religion, „Das Capital‟ as its bible and „Marx‟ as its prophet.  M. N. Roy is criticised as Indian Bernstein as there is nothing new in Roy’s criticism of Marxism. Most of the criticisms of Marx were already formulated by German philosopher Eduard Bernstein. Origin of Radical Humanism  Scientific or Radical Humanism traces its origin to renaissance which focussed upon:  Spirit of Inquiry  Rationality  Logic  An Individual was considered as a primary unit of society.  Scientific belief was given primacy over superstition.  Radical Humanism rejected Marxism. Radical Humanism is also known as New Humanism because it is different from Liberalism and Vedantic philosophy.  3  Radical Humanism is also known as scientific integral Humanism since M N Roy believed in scientific temperament and wanted to change society through scientific tools.  Radical Humanism as described by M N Roy is a philosophy of freedom. Radical humanism grew out of dissatisfaction with existing major philosophies.  Radical Humanism aims to establish sovereignty of individuals. It is a philosophy of humans. It aims to liberate man from the chains of nation or class. From the radical humanist perspective, neither a liberal democracy nor a communist model can achieve freedom for individuals.  Philosophy of Radical Humanism argues the following:  Parliamentary democracy is inadequate because it does not give the opportunity to the masses for direct participation in governance. Hence, there is no real freedom until there is radical democracy.  Fascism needs to be rejected because it subsumes man under the collective ego of nations.  Communism is also not liberating because it subsumes man under the collective ego of class.  Hence, we need a philosophy which gives real importance to man as an individual and which aims to achieve freedom of man. Freedom of Man Means What?  Real freedom means freedom from all sorts of fears, this includes freedom from religion. According to M N Roy, freedom does not lie in choosing religion, rather freedom lies in man’s capacity to reject religion.  Radical Humanism of M N Roy aims to liberate man even from supernatural fears. How would Man be able to achieve this Freedom?  According to M N Roy, freedom will come with the promotion of scientific rationality. He looked at science as a liberating force. He believed that there should be promotion of scientific education. Hence, believed that intellectual revolution has to proceed over political or economic revolution.  4  Philosophy of Radical Humanism is based upon three things: M N Roy‟s Radical Humanism is also called as New Humanism  Meaning of Humanism: Humanism is a philosophy that gives primacy to human beings. This philosophy emerged during the period of renaissance, but M N Roy‟s philosophy is called Radical Humanism or New Humanism. It provides a radical interpretation of human beings. It treats human beings in a radical sense. It means human being is treated as an individual or a human being and not as a member of caste, class, religion, nationality, etc. Comparison between Gandhi and M N Roy Gandhi Roy  He was successful.  He was a failure in promoting his philosophy.  5  Gave central principle to religion in his  He did not give central position philosophy. to religion in his philosophy; rather he focussed upon matter, that is, this worldly thing.  Gandhi was greatly influenced by Indian  M N Roy was greatly influenced philosophy and Epics- He was influenced by by Western philosophy. the teaching of Bhagwat Gita, Lord Krishna and Lord Buddha as well as Quran.  Gandhi did not advocate changes in the  He changed existing ideas and existing ideas but only focussed on the gave a radical interpretation of refinement of techniques like Ahimsa. the idea of human beings. Concluding Remarks  It can be said that Roy has been considered as the most influential political thinker of modern Indian political thought. His eminent work “Reason, Romanticism and Revolution” is a noteworthy contribution to the history of western thought. He began his theoretical chase as a Marxist, but gradually restated all the propositions of Marx. He gave a moral reaffirmation of Marxism and developed radical humanism. He can be classified as a utopian or romantic thinker. But still humanistic and moralistic in his thinking. He was an ethical revisionist in the history of socialist thought.  Note: Roy made a very serious observation about India’s polity. He remarked that the Indian traditions of leadership lend themselves to authoritarianism. The leader is considered infallible. The presence of a charismatic leadership indicates the fascist tendency in Indian politics. One may agree with Roy that India lacks a democratic tradition and existence of a peculiar social structure and the tendency to hero worship makes for authoritarian tradition. His warning about the Fascist danger in Indian politics has proved to be true time and again.  6 Questions Asked 1. Comment on the Marxist and Radical Humanist phases of M. N. Roy’s thoughts. (2012) 2. Comment on Radical Humanism. (2009) 3. Analyse M. N. Roy’s ideational journey from Marxism to Radical Humanism. (2002) 4. What are the major components of Modern Indian Political Thought? Examine them with reference to Gandhi and M. N. Roy. (2001)   2 Aurobindo Ghosh General Introduction to Aurobindo Ghosh ❖ Aurobindo Ghosh was instrumental in giving religio-mystical approach to nationalism in India. Aurobindo Ghosh provided radical content to Indian Nationalism. He burst onto the scene in the last quarter of the 19th Century, and he went on to become a great exponent of Indian philosophy. ❖ In his brief political career, Aurobindo Ghosh deepened the concept of spiritual nationalism, that is, roots of Nationalism are to be traced through spiritual integration of Indians. Political Ideas of Aurobindo Ghosh ❖ Political Ideas of Aurobindo Ghosh can be divided into two phases: First Phase: He developed the theory of Passive Resistance and gave the Concept of Indian Nationalism. Second Phase: As a great sage of India, he wrote extensively about the ideal of Human