NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICAL SCIENCES,

KOLKATA, INDIA.

POLITICAL SCIENCE
CLASS MODULE NOTES.
1st year.
2/20/2009

Visit www.nujs.edu.
 POLITICAL SCIENCE
MODULE - I
1. Definition and scope:

Study began in ancient Greece. ‘Politic’ from ‘polis’ – ‘city state’. Father – Aristotle.
Political issues studied with philosophical science.
Independent discipline in advanced western countries – recently. Youngest among social
sciences. Dynamic, ever-changing. Diff viewpoints regarding def and scope.
A) State centric approach: classical, Aristotelian approach – since man is political animal,
state only institution which controls & regulates human life. Therefore, acc to them, state
central theme. Advocates – Bluntschli, Garner, John Seeley, Gettell. Bluntschli – “pol sc
is a sc of the state.” Garner – “pol sc begins & ends with the state.”
Criticism – i) exclusive attention to state leaving other imp political issues;
ii) implies that politics exists only when state exists, not otherwise. Too narrow &
restricted.
B) State independent approach: limitations of above approach led modern thinkers to
initiate this approach.
i) Politics concerned with conflict & disagreement – acc to J. D. B. Miller, political
situation arises out of a conflict of opinions and interests. Alan Ball – politics involves issues
of disagreement only.
Criticism: 1) pol sc may at certain times study issues of conflict and disagreement, but not
concerned with conflict alone. So approach is partial and narrow.
2) All conflicts society not political. E.g. - conflict of opinion b/w family members, club,
school, etc. such cases can’t be considered subject matter of pol sc.
ii) Politics concerned with power and influence – acc to Bertrand Russell, power-
capacity of person to make another act in a way in which the former wishes as power-holder.
Direct use of force. Advocates – Harold Lasswell, Mortan Kaplan. Lasswell’s def – “study
of shaping & sharing of power and influence.” Robert Dahl – “influence is a relation among
actors in which 1 actor induces the other to act in some way he/she wouldn’t have acted
otherwise.” Use of force indirect. Many kinds of influence in society – parents over children,
teachers over students. Such cases not political, so cannot be considered subj matter of pol sc.
Therefore approach not fully acceptable. Also restricts scope of pol sc to v small fragment of
society, since studies only activities of those who hold influence of power over others.
iii) Acc to David Easton, “politics is the authoritative allocation of values”. Acc to this
approach, politics studies the methods whereby those who r in the seat of authority distribute
or allocate resources among diff social groups. This is done in order to bring about an equal
distribution of state resources among various sections of the society.
Criticism: restricts scope of pol sc to a single issue i.e. authoritative allocation of resources.

Synthesis of these 2 broad approaches:

Considered state-centric and state-independent approaches. Both may be rejected as
partial and one-sided. On 1 hand, state-centric concentrates only on state, fails to take note of
numerous other issues which influence political life of individual. On other hand state-indep
approach ignores state completely – unacceptable. Therefore 1 must seek compromise b/w 2
opposite approaches to present an obj balanced & impartial viewpt regarding the def & scope
of pol sc.
Pol sc is therefore that branch of social sc which deals with various subjs like the
state, its elements (territory, population, govt, sovereignty), theories of state, origin, nature,
organisation and its relation to govt-al system, issues of political power, authority, influences,
conflicts and disagreement, behaviour of various groups & authoritative allocation of values
and resources.
Finally, pol sc concerns itself with intl relations which at present has gained the status
of an autonomous discipline. This is particularly imp b’cos in the present age of
globalization, regional co-operation & integration; all states must have a healthy atmosphere
of interdependence & co-operation in various spheres.
The UNESCO conference of September 1948 for the 1st time divided the scope of pol
sc into 4 distinct categories –
(a) Political theory & its evolution;
(b) Study of political institutions, constitutions, national, regional, local govts, public
administration and comparative govt;
(c) Political parties & associations, people’s participation, public opinion;
(d) Intl relations, international organisations, politics.

2. Nature:
 Aristotle, celebrated ancient Gk philosopher – famous remark – man is a social
animal. He who lives outside the polis is either a beast or a God. Meaning – politics is part
of human existence. State – natural institution, human faculty of speech helping man to
communicate with his fellow beings in the state. Thus associational part of human behaviour
makes him a social agent. Without the state, (Aristotle said) no human being can develop his
best personality.
This description of obj of politics by Aristotle makes it a philosophy rather than a
science. So if we want to decide whether it is a science or not, we must define what a
‘science’ is.
Sir Karl Popper (famous philosopher of sc) defines sc as the essence of systematized
knowledge which follows application of correct methodology. Thus we are drawn into
discussion of ‘method of sc’ which Huxley indicates.
By ‘method of sc’ Huxley laid great emphasis on inductive method or empirical
method or method based on obs, exp, and inference on basis of experience. Thus we know
that ‘man is mortal’ b’cos everywhere it is the common experience. This is thus the method
from particular to general.
Huxley then applies the deductive method by which he follows the reverse process,
i.e., from general to particular. He starts with the principle that ‘all men are mortal’, uses it
to separate and differentiate cases, to find out that truth is universal and the deductive
principle has been universally found to be correct.
Thus it appears that the scientific method is combination of the inductive method
and deductive method. The former helps the scientist in the theoretical field while the latter
helps him in the applied field. So we can redefine science as a set of rules which are
theoretically valid and are also practically applicable with success.
On a strict application of Huxley’s arguments, it is clear that Pol sc can’t prima facie
be called a sc in the sense in which physics or maths may be called ‘sciences’.
There r roughly 2 schools of thought. 1. Pol sc is simply an art & should be studied as
‘art for art’s sake’. 2. Without pol sc we can’t get basic political knowledge. Acc to some
scholars of this school, pol sc is regarded as a ‘policy science’ – a science which enables the
scientific study of public policy as laid down by Kautilya in Arthashastra. In fact the school
also finds out a link b/w Kautilya, Machiavelli, Hobbes & Morgenthau1, which xplns
politics as ‘real politik’, i.e., pol sc as the sc of state craft.

1
Political realism – 6 principles (20th century guy) – bk he wrote – Politics Among Nations – struggle for power
and peace.
 Those who oppose politics as a sc – following limitations –
1. Subject matter of pol sc vast, varied, complex; sc formulates principles which are
universally correct, clear cut, precise. In politics – interaction of human beings makes its
laws variable and complex. They become relative and not absolute statements.
2. pol sc can’t be called pure sc becos its laws can’t be empirically tested in a lab. Thus
physical sciences like chem. and natural sciences like bio or botany can be tested and
predictions can be made possible in these cases. These predictions possible in natural
sciences, not always possible in case of social sciences.
3. pol sc deals with both tangible and intangible objects.2 In sc, only tangible objects
analysed, concrete conclusions formed.
4. Value-oriented character of politics makes it more philosophical, robs it of scientificity.
Thus in politics what should and shouldn’t be along with what is. In sc – deal with only
what is.
Obviously word ‘sc’ used in wide or relative sense rather than strict sense.
Strict sense – pol sc can’t be called sc due to above limitations. Liberal sense – politics more
like natural sc than physical sc. In natural sc, elasticity and relativity of predictions3 - due
uncertain factor – nature. Similarly, in pol sc, margin of relativity largely due to influence of
2 variables – human beings and society. If within certain limitations we can call bot or geo as
natural sciences, we may similarly call pol sc as ‘sc’. Value orientation in politics isn’t
peculiar to pol sc only – found in most social sciences; when humans, their society and social
env act, react and interact.
Concl: one may agree with Stephen L. Wasby – “science involves finding
patterns of occurrences, explanation of events, prediction of events and experimentation.” By
all these criteria, pol sc remains a weak sc. May be regarded as progressive, evolving,
dynamic ‘sc in the making’ in lenient sense of term but can never be called exact or pure sc
in strict sense. Following Germans, it may be called Wissenschaft meaning ‘sc’. By this,
Germans mean any field of systematic or systematised knowledge. However, this is very
broad def of sc. Thus in narrow sense of term ‘sc’ politics can never be equated with
hardcore sc subjs. To avoid confusion, one can say that Pol sc or politics is one of the very
imp social sciences.
2
In Vietnam War – Americans depended on no. of soldiers, tanks, artillery, etc but never took into a/c
Vietnamese morale. They were morally superior to Americans, Ams no match for them.
3

Like arrival of tides and monsoons

3. Relation of Pol sc with other social sciences:
4. Approaches to Study of Pol Sc:
Approaches to pol analysis constitute variety of orientations to looking at world of politics.
Approaches useful in ordering apparently disorganised & fragmented political phenomena.
These ordering enterprises take place on basis of set of assumptions about salience of certain
factors. Using particular set of concepts, an approach seeks to provide a framework of
explanation and prediction. Broadly speaking, traditional, behavioural, post-behavioural and
Marxist approaches.
• Traditional approach
• Behaviouralism – occupied a very imp place in modern political sc, particularly
methodological side. Emerged after WW II, though roots lay in older works of Graham
Wallace in his famous work entitled Human Nature in Politics (1908), as well as in
works of Arthur Bentley in his famous work...(1908), Charles Merriam and Heinz
Eulau. Robert Dahl defines it as a ‘protest movement within Political Science’. A
common points shared by behaviouralists was strong dissatisfaction with traditional
political science. By this, Dahl hints at limitations of historical, philosophical,
descriptive, institutional approaches of traditional political thinkers. This may be called
negative side of behaviouralism involving criticism of traditional political analysis.
Positive side – Dahl – behaviouralism implies a ‘belief’ that political analysis must be
mainly empirical. Must come closer to methods, outlooks, findings of modern
psychology, socio, anthropologist, eco. Thus Dahl thinks – “behaviouralism aims at
stating all the phenomena of govt, in terms of observed and observable behaviour of
individual beings.”
Acc to David Easton, intellectual foundations of behaviouralism – 8 major
tenets –
(i) Regularities – behaviouralists think that there are certain uniformities in
political behaviour which can be expressed in theory-like statements so as to
provide for explanation and prediction of political phenomena. Even assuming
wide diversity in human behaviour, there are some findings which are valid
from the empirical point of view.
(ii) Verifications – the behaviouralists think that only the empirical method can
lead to explanation and verification of human behaviour governing political
 phenomena. It requires that the validity of such theory-like statements must be
testable in principle by reference to relevant behaviour.
(iii) Techniques – unlike traditionalists, behaviouralists attach great importance to
adoption of correct techniques for political phenomena. Easton thinks that
political science can be really scientific if proper techniques are chosen.4
(iv) Quantification – it is a very modern tool used by statistical experts. They try
to integrate and differentiate data concerning political phenomena. Term
quantification means measurement. So while traditionalists thought that
political phenomena can’t be measured, behaviouralists think that like other
pure sciences, political science can use methods of quantification and
sampling of data regarding political events.
(v) Values – clear distinction between ethical evaluation and empirical
explanation, concerned with values and facts respectively. Insisted on
objective scientific enquiry, i.e. study of political science has to be value-free
or value neutral. However, post/neo-behaviouralists restored place of values in
analysis of political science. Thus Easton, who later on became a neo-
behaviouralist, agrees that the political system has to make authoritative
allocation of values.
(vi) Systematisation – means theory building and theory implementing.
Behaviouralists charge that traditionalists didn’t make any proper scientific
analysis of political data which would lead in building proper system. So they
couldn’t be successful for systematisation of political data. Behaviouralists
believed that systemization was done only by them.
(vii) Pure Science – by this term, behaviouralists mean that only scientific method,
i.e., empirical method be used for data collection, verification and
systematisation. Thus principles of political science as pure science could be
applied to different the fields of politics. Easton believes that political science
as pure science also has great potential to serve as applied policy science. This
means that understanding and explanation of political behaviour is essential to
utilise political knowledge in solution of urgent practical problems of society.

4
It also refers to means of acquiring or interpreting data which should be examined self-consciously, refined
and validated for purpose of observing, recording and analysing behaviour.
 (viii) Integration – signifies integration of political science with other social
sciences in order to evolve a comprehensive view of human affairs, to
strengthen its validity and generality of its own results.

Achievements: according to modern political thinkers, behaviouralism brought about

‘revolution’ in 2 respects – theory building and techniques of research. Thus it has
modernised thinking and application of social and political principles.
Theory building – classical political thinkers unable to use sophisticated
techniques. With beh.ism, analysis5 in political science became modernised and
sophisticated. If content analysis takes qualitative form, then application of sampling
method could be said to be remarkable contri of statistical method. Interview and
observation techniques helped modern behavioural fields in soc sciences. Game
theory useful in international revolutions, pol sc and intl relations. Lazarsfeld used 3
variables – residence, socio-economic status and religion in his electoral studies.
David Truman – in social and clinical psychology, interview method made
counselling and psychotherapy highly beneficial to cases of psychological and social
maladjustment.
Therefore, beh.ists built up set of hypotheses and applied them to small face-
to-face groups.
Criticism: by mid 1960s, beh.ism gained dominant position in methodology of pol sc.
Leo Strauss (critic) – rise of beh.ism was symptomatic of a crisis in political theory
b’cos of its failure to come to grips with normative issues.
Sheldon Wolin – preoccupation of pol sc with scientific methods signified abdication
of true vocation of pol theory.
Within sphere of philosophy of sc, publication of Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions prompted the view that significance of scientific method lies in
its capacity of problem-solving and crisis mgmt, not in methodological sophistication.
Traditionalists – pol sc must be value-laden, value factor can’t be ignored in social
sciences like pol sc. Main diff b/w trad.ists and beh.ists – beh.ists didn’t admit role of
values in political analysis. Another pt of argument regarding relativist character of
pol sc b’cos of which it could never make absolute and universal statements as in
pure sciences.
Heinz Eulau – Behavioural Persuasion in Politics
5
Content and case analysis
 Graham Wallace – Human Nature in Politics
Arthur Bentley – The Process of Government
• Post-behaviouralism – due to limitations of beh.ism, by end of 1960s, some leading
American beh.ists like David Easton worked out modified version of beh.al theory –
came to be known as post-beh.ism or neo-beh.ism. Represented shift in focus from strict
methodological issues to greater concern with public responsibilities of the discipline and
with political probs.
Tenets:
i. In pol sc research, substance must come before technique. May be good to have
sophisticated tools of investigation but more imp point was purpose to which
these tools were being applied.
ii. Modern pol sc must insist on modernity and social change, not social presentation
or maintaining the status quo, as the behaviouralists seemed to be doing.
iii. Pol sc must always be aware of what the neo-behaviouralists called brute realities
of politics. The heart of beh.al enquiry being abstraction, it was no longer possible
for political scientists to close their eyes to the realities of the situation. Post-
behaviouralists asked if it wasn’t the responsibility of political scientists to reach
out to the real needs of humankind, of what use was society?
iv. Neo-beh.ists don’t strictly adhere to scientificism and value-free approaches of
beh.al pol scientists. Emphasized that if knowledge was to be used for proper
goals, values had to be restored to central position. Thus they admit that values
hav indeed an imp place in pol sc.
v. Post-beh.ists admit that pol scientists hav to play the role of intellectuals and
perform major tasks in society. Acc to them, pol scientists r social scientists
facing reality.
vi. If intellectuals understood soc probs and felt themselves involved in them, they
cudn’t keep themselves away from action. Therefore they ask for action sc in
place of contemplated sc & plead that a sense of commitment and action must
permeate and colour entire research in pol sc. i.e. acc to neo-beh.ists, pol scientists
must be aware of the role of politics for meeting emergency needs or act as a sc
for crisis mgmt.
vii. Once recognised that intellectuals had positive role to play in society and this was
to try and determine proper goals for society and make society move in the
 direction of these goals, inevitable concl drawn that all professions must hav a
very imp role to play. Further makes politicisation of professions a very imp
consequence.
Post-beh.ism shudn’t be confused with traditionalism, though both r highly critical of
beh.ism. Diff b/w 2 approaches lies in fact that whereas traditionalism denied validity of
behavioural approach, reiterated faith in classical tradition of pol sc, post-beh.ists
accepted some achievements of beh.al era, also deny some of them, but seek to push pol
sc further towards new horizons. David Easton – post-beh.ism was future-oriented,
seeking to propel pol sc in new directions and add rather than deny its past heritage. It
was a genuine revolution, not a reaction: a becoming, not a preservation; a reform, not a
counter-reformation. It was both a movt and an intellectual tendency. Therefore one may
conld that post-beh.ism acts as a bridge b/w the traditional school and behavioural school.

MODULE – II A
Theories of state
1. Theory of divine origin:

One of the well-known old/classical theories. Based on 2 premises –

(i) King is agent of God on earth. Therefore, to obey king is to obey God, disobedience would
lead to heresy. Thus authority of king had divine sanctions & obedience to king was
obligatory. Thus God is source of all powers of king.
(ii) King was agent of God on earth. Therefore was account able to God and not responsible to
people. Thus king was above all laws.
Natural consequence of this theory – dictatorial form of govt where people were permanently
subjugated before king’s authority – political awareness of people blunted forever.
In course of time, divine origin theory of state was converted into divine right of rulers.
Criticisms: (i) undermined responsibility of ruler towards ruled – led to autocracy/ dictatorship.
(ii) also regarded as illogical. God embodiment of virtue and goodness. Same qualities sought in king
– but he had normal weakness of humans.
(iii) As expln of origin of state, this theory has no place in modern political theory; because its
arguments are based on faith, not reason.
(iv) Acc to J N Figgis, reason for decline of this theory lies in fact that today there’s generally an
acceptance of proof and reason which denies role of faith.
(v) This theory lies directly opposed to democratic form of govt, where govt.al form of authority
isn’t imp – consent and sanction of people v imp. Instead it propagates dictatorial regimes
where king isn’t answerable to people, only to God.
Significance: 1st time showed religion played significant role in evolution of state. Because only way
to compel them to obey ruler was to show that he’s direct representative of God – since people
weren’t completely civilised.

2. Theory of force:
Explains origin of state in terms of analysis of human nature. Acc to this theory, basic instinct of
humans crave power.6 This led to constant conflict b/w humans (in history). Thus primitive society
presents picture of warring clans – engaged in constant disputes among one another. Stronger clans
attacked, captured, enslaved weaker clans. Absorbed them in own clans. Led to formation of tribal
society. Authority of tribal chieftain considerable – within territory. Marked emergence of political
authority.
Nation state emerged as most modern pol instn at much later stage of pol development. Hence acc to
Jenks, historically speaking, there is not the slightest difficulty in proving that all political
communities of the modern times owe their existence to successful warfare. Some other exponents –
Peacock and Oppenheimer.
Once nation state comes into existence, continuation of use of force. For internal and external
security, therefore acc to Bosanquet, the state is necessarily force. Thus theory of force xplns origin
of state in terms of force and force alone.
Marxist expln of state: state is an agent/organ of class rule. Therefore state is an institution which
exerts force in order to see that capitalists can permanently subjugate proletariat. State helped by
police, army, bureaucracy, etc. Therefore speaks of class-less society – no class distinction, no state.7
Criticisms: (i) this theory always project that humans’ are constantly craving for power. Overlooks
fact that we r social beings and want to live in harmony with fellow-beings.
(ii) explns origin of state in terms of force alone. Other factors – religion, pol awareness, economic
consciousness, etc. also apply.
(iii) Anti-democratic
(iv) acc to some scholars, use of force in modern times is obsolete.

3. Social contract theory:

State of nature – anarchy – before state. People wanted to break away from state of nature, entered
into contract to abandon state of nature, voluntarily agreed to form civil society/state.
This theory developed with writings of Thomas Hobbes, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and John Locke.
Hobbes: state of nature – solitary, nasty, brutish, poor, short. As a result, constant conflict among
people. Life span short. Situation of chaos and anarchy prevailed. People unhappy and insecure,
therefore wanted to break away from and abandon it. Therefore made contract and voluntarily agreed
to give up rights to common authority – Leviathan. By this, individual beings voluntarily surrendered
all rights to particular individual/common authority – became monarch/ruler or in Hobbes’ terms –
Leviathan.
Implications: (i) king is not party to contract. Thus he is above contract.
(ii) Therefore he isn’t responsible/answerable to people.
(iii) He may choose to rule in any way he wishes to, people have to blindly obey. This means, people
don’t have right to revolt against Leviathan, completely under his subjugation. Therefore, absolutist
monarchy.
Evaluation: criticism –
(i) Portrayed selfish nature of individual beings – constantly fighting with one another – not true.
(ii) Hobbes’ premise that indivs r guided by their activities by sole motive of self-interest doesn’t
tally with concl that contract is irrevocable.
(iii) Contract usually bilateral. Here, contract is one-sided because ruler isn’t party to it.
(iv) Hobbes’ legal view of rights, as H J Laski observes, is insufficient to political philosophy;
because it fails to distinguish b/w rights recognised by the state and rights which require
recognition as indispensable condition for development of human personality. Very
conception of rights emanates from moral personality of human beings. Legal sanction for
them only provided by state.
(v) Hobbes paved way for absolutism which led to creation of authoritarian state – directly
opposed to popular sovereignty.
Significance –
6
More & more of it.
7
E.g.- Tiananmen square incident in Sina
 (i) clear analysis of concept of legal sovereignty;
(ii) laid foundation for analytical jurisprudence – later taken up by Bentham and Austin.

Locke:0020gives next stage of devpmt of state. Starts with state of nature – but people here weren’t
unhappy/insecure, but living peacefully. In course of time, confronted with few probs. 1stly, no
definite system of law. 2nd, as a result, no judicial authority to settle disputes b/w people. Therefore no
ultimate authority to maintain law and order as well as security. Bcos of these probs, emerged
situation where people no longer lived in peace and harmony – wanted to abandon state of nature and
form a civil society or state thru contract.
Hobbes spoke of one contract, Locke speaks of 2 – social contract and pol contract. By soc contract,
people surrendered only part of their rights to civil society or state. By pol contr, people on own
initiative decided to set up king/monarch who would hav ultimate duty of serving (welfare of)
people.8
Locke’s famous work – Two Treatises of Government
Implications: (i) king is party to contract.
(ii) Therefore, responsible, accountable, answerable to people – in sense that he shud look after well-
being of people.
(iii) If king behaved in irresponsible manner & failed to perform duties towards people, he would be
overthrown. Therefore Locke supported right to revolt.
(iv) Locke intro’d concept of limited monarchy as form of govt, where powers of monarch not
absolute & limited by consent and sanction of people. Therefore ruler in power as long as people
want him to be there.
Evaluation: Significance –
(i) intro’d doctrine of consent, which acc to Laski occupies a v. imp position in English politics.
Govt acc to Locke must fulfil requirements of people. Therefore, accepted democratic ideals.
(ii) Locke supported natural right of property. Thus 1 of earliest thinkers of economic
individualism.
Criticism –
(i) Basic defect as Willoughby observes – he didn’t sufficiently distinguish b/w community as
simply social aggregate and as political body, & that sov.ty in its true legal sense resides in
latter and not former.
(ii) Acc to Ernest Barker, Locke had no clear view of nature of sov.ty. Contradictory – spoke of
supreme power of people, also attributed supreme power to legislature.

Rousseau: final stage of soc contract by this French philosopher. Begins with state of nature. Didn’t
speak of conflict – more or less harmony. In course of time, people face 2 probs. 1st – overpopulation.
Bcos of this, some amt of chaos. Life became disorganised. 2nd – emergence of pvt property. Divided
people into 2 distinct economic classes – propertied class and property-less. With emergence of these
classes – constant clashes, conflicts.
Therefore, people wanted to abandon state of nature & form civil society/ state thru contract, but acc
to Rousseau, people didn’t surrender rights to any king or monarch but surrendered to General Will.
Implications: (i) General Will is an abstract concept and considered to serve general/common
interests of society and not pvt interests of any particular section of population.
(ii) No individual supreme power in society. Therefore against instn of monarchy.
(iii) Rousseau completely denies representative/indirect form of democracy, accepts direct
democracy.
(iv) Imp advocate and initiator of concept of popular sov.ty.
Rousseau’s ideas found in his bk – The Social Contract. His ideas of
liberty, equality, fraternity, justice inspired 18th and 19th cent movts for
democratic rights, particularly French revolution of 1789. Another famous bk –
On Equality. His concept of General Will has been exploited to serve the

8
Limited form of monarchy – earliest proponents of Parliamentary form of govt.
purpose of a totalitarian state. Strange to find adherence to both democratic and
totalitarian rights in Rousseau.
Evaluation:
(i) Rousseau had a passion for democracy. Emphasis on popular sov.ty served purpose of
democratic upsurge against arbit rule. Endowed people with ultimate power. Moreover, his
distinction b/w state and govt & effort to erect govt based on consent & sanction of people
are in agreement with democratic creed. But this initial democratic promise ultimately
eclipsed. In R’s view, General Will is always right. Hence state which is custodian of G W is
always right. Thus he assigned moral primacy to will of state. In any conflict b/w will of state
and will of individual, R’s theory always decides for the former.
(ii) G W when translated in practical terms (acc to some scholars) is will of the majority.
Minority must accept this majority will as G W or else they will be coerced.
(iii) R didn’t make distinction b/w society and state and thus made possible total control of human
life by state. For these reasons, R’s G W is regarded as Hobbes’ Leviathan with its head
chopped off.
(iv) R supported direct or primary form of democracy which speaks about direct legislation by the
people. Not in conformity with size of modern nation state. Today they are mostly large, thus
not possible for direct democ to operate there. Today legislation also complex, requiring
technical knowledge & intellectual discipline. Therefore specialised people need to be
employed.
Therefore most modern nation states hav adopted indirect/representative democracy.

Criticism of soc contr theory:

(i) Sir Henry Maine – there was no evidence of soc contr theory historically, and the fact that
contract was beginning of society.
(ii) Tom Paine – conception of contract criticised, b’cos it was externally binding & in
consequence a dead wt on wheel of progress. Bcos very notion of contract binds succeeding
generations to a particular set of ideas and notions.
(iii) Acc to some scholars, this th is highly mechanical. Bcos state isn’t an artificial instn,
emerging out of a mechanical contract. Rather, pol instns are natural instns which evolve and
r not made by an artificial agent. Aristotle had a similar notion in Politics.
(iv) Th quite illogically postulates existence of natural liberty & rights in state of nature. Rights
are partly product of developed social consciousness and partly of laws. In state of nature, acc
to contractarians, pol awareness was non-existent. Moreover, there was no pol authority
armed with laws to guarantee enforcement of rights. Hence liberty and rights cudn’t prevail
in state of nature.
(v) Soc contr th, by reducing reln b/w state and indiv to some sort of partnership agreement
encourages a sort of anarchy.
Signif:
(i) Acc to Willoughby, contractarians laid down early foundations of democracy.
(ii) Th acted as antidote to divine origin th.
(iii) Led to devpmt of modern th of sov.ty. laid foundation fo analytical school of jurisp – found in
writings of Hobbes, later taken up and developed by Austin and Bentham.
(iv) Concept of pol sov.ty discovered in Lockean writings.
(v) Rousseau – exponent/champion of concept of popular sov.ty.
(vi) Theory of separation of power – bulwark of political liberty – indirectly present in Lockean
writings. Later taken up and developed by famous French philosopher Montesquieu in his
famous Spirit of Laws.

4. Evolutionary/historical theory:
Acc to this theory, origin of state can’t be explnd by 1 element. Rather, this th xplnd that state
emerged out of interaction and combination of no of elements. Therefore state is a product of steady
process of evolutionary devpmt where 5 historical factors played v imp role. These r –
i. Kinship – acc to McIver, kinship creates society and society at length creates state.
Sociologists provided proof of fact that kinship played v imp role in evolution of state.
Literally it means blood relationship. Primary unit of human society was family. In it,
members were united by blood relnship. From family thread of blood relnship expanded
leading to clans – formed tribes – then came nation, consolidated into nation state – final
stage of devpmt. Also historians supporting view regarding ties of blood.
ii. Religion – earlier stages of human history – people ignorant, semi-civilised, unaware of
natural phenomena. Believed – unseen divine force to these phenomena. Taking advantage of
their superstition, grp of people emerged as social superiors claiming they held power to
prevent these natural phenomena. Primitive people out of superstition submitted before these
social superiors and gradually started to obey them. In course of time, these social superiors
estd their pol authority over society. This way, religion played imp role in formation of state,
since religious fears united primitive people by common bond of respect for social superiors.
iii. Force – used by primitive people to obtain basic necessities of life. Also used by tribal
leaders to maintain order and discipline among members and also to maintain pol authority
over entire tribe. Force also used by tribal members to defend themselves from attacks of
other tribals. So from primitive tribes we can see that force was used as a means of self-
preservation & self-defence.
iv. Economic activities – eco activities of people over long period of time led to emergence of
society. In early simple economic sys, people’s eco activities confined to fulfil own basic
necessities. In course of time, this transformed into more complex eco sys characterised by
splsn of labour, which led to emergence of diff professions. State was reqd at this time bcos
emergence of pvt property divided society for 1st time into 2 grps – propertied and property-
less classes. They constantly engaged in disputes. So new laws and regulations became
necessary to control and regulate economic activites of indivs.
v. Pol consciousness – by this we mean pol awareness reqd to establish a pol orgnsn which wud
control their pol activities and give them proper direction. This pol awareness/ consciousness
wasn’t present in primitive people. Grew with advancement of human civilization.
Significance – regarded as one of the most obj theories of origin of state. More or less accepted by
many political powers. Reason – this th isn’t partial or one-sided. As we know, divine origin th only
explnd origin of st in terms of divinity. Th of force xplnd origin of st in terms of force and force
alone. In contrast, this th has taken into consideration the above-mentioned 5 historical factors. Acc to
some scholars, the state is neither the handiwork of God, nor the result of superior physical force,
nor the creation of revolution or convention, nor a mere expansion of the family. So acc to this th, the
state isn’t an artificial creation, rather it’s a natural instn which emerged out of a natural process of
historical devpmt.

MODULE – III
Sovereignty
1. Evolution of concept of sovereignty – Bodin to pluralists:

2. Definitions of sovereignty:

Origin: Latin – superanus meaning supreme power. Literally – sovereignty – nothing but supreme
power. In political terms – sovty is supreme absolute power of state over all persons and associations
within its territory. When the state exercises supreme power on basis of force, then
authoritarian/dictatorial. If based on consent & sanction of people – democratic form.
Classical defn: sovty is the legal supremacy of the state. This means that the state has got supreme
power to make laws, enforce them & punish those who disobey laws of the state.
Modern defn: it is the ability of the state to command greater power than any other instn. So the state
being ultimately the sov, can command greater power than any other type of instn – social, pol,
economic. Also called power theory of sovty.
Marxist defn: begins with analysis of capitalist society comprised of 2 conflicting grps of people –
bourgeoisie (capitalists) and proletariat (working class). Capitalists dominate working class, since it’s
the monopoly owner of means of production. Such an exploitation which capitalist class carries out, is
done with help of state. Therefore state in capitalist socity becomes an agent of class exploitation or
class rule. At one point of time, the working class rises in revolt against the bourgeoisie which takes
the form of a violent, armed, bloody revolution known as the socialist revolution culminating in
communism.
3 consequences – (i) working class overthrows capitalists and henceforth becomes class-less, state-
less society. (ii) Working class captures power. (iii) Working class establishes dictatorship of
proletariat where it utilises power to bring about welfare of proletariat community.9

3. Traditional characteristics of sovereignty:

i. Absoluteness – sov right of state is absolute and unlimited. Therefore there can be no
association or instn with sov power equal to that of state. Since sovty of state is absolute,
whatever laws r formulated by state shud be followed.
ii. Permanence – a state remains a state as long as it has sov power. The very moment it loses
its sovty, it ceases to exist as a state & is transformed into an assocn/ instn. Change of govt
doesn’t signify loss of sovty. This also proves that sovty is one of the chief elements of the
state.
iii. Universality – sov power of st extends to all persons and assocns/ instns within its territorial
boundary. 1 exception to this – sov power of st doesn’t extend to foreign embassies and
foreign diplomats bcos they’re subject to sov power of their home state only.
iv. Inalienability – sov power of st can’t be transferred to any other st. giving away a part of
state’s authority doesn’t indicate transfer of sovty. Change of govt only implies that
responsibility of protecting and upholding sovty of state is transferred from one govt to
another. Therefore sovty under no condition can be transferred to another state.
v. Indivisibility – within a state there can’t be 2 sov units. State alone is supreme and sov over
all other instns and assocns within its territory. Some pol scholars argue that sovty is divided
in a federation. But this view can’t be accepted bcos even in a federation, central govt
represents st as a whole. It also exercises some amt of sov power over st govts.
vi. Exclusiveness – pluralists argue that sov power is equally divided b/w state and other assocns
and instns. This view is unacceptable to those who criticise pluralists. In case of conflict b/w
2 or more assocns/ isntns, it’s the state which exercises supreme sov power to settle such
conflicts and acts as referee in such cases.

4. Austin’s theory of sovereignty:

• English jurist. Theory called monistic, traditional or classical. Found in famous work –
Lectures on Jurisprudence (1832). Austin influenced by writings of Hobbes (social contract)
and Bentham. Austin presented legal interpretation of sov.ty – influenced pol sc and law
profoundly.
• Theory based on his definition of law – the command of a superior to an inferior. Statement
of sov.ty – if a determinate human superior, not in the habit of obedience to a like superior,
received habitual obedience from the bulk of a given society, that determinate superior is
9
It doesn’t make sense! The class still remains!!
 sovereign in that society and the society (including the superior) is a society political and
independent.
• Further remarked – position of other members of society towards that superior is a position of
subjection and dependence. Finally, law is the command of the sovereign.
Implications:
(i) Acc to Laski, the state for Austin is a legal organisation, in which there is a determinate
authority vested with sovereign power. So sov power acc to Austin is clearly identifiable
since he is a determinate authority. Hence he made it clear that the people can’t be sov since
they as such are an indeterminate entity.
(ii) The determinate auth enjoys absolute and unlimited sov power. As such, sov receives
habitual obedience from people in the sense that people develop habit of paying blind
obedience to sov. At same time, sov isn’t in habit of paying obedience to like superior,
simply b’cos there’s nobody superior to sov in society. At this point, Austin influenced by
writings of Hobbes.
(iii) Acc to Austin, law is the comm. of the sov – implies that commands issued by sov become
law for society. He also made it clear that any disobedience of sov’s command is to be
followed by physical punishment. Therefore it was obligatory/ compulsory on part of people
to obey sov’s command, which itself constituted the law.
(iv) Sov.ty in Austins’ theory is indivisible, b’cos it must belong to one determinate auth alone,
can’t be divided b/w 2 bodies.
Criticism:
Criticised by Sir Henry Maine, Sidgwick, pluralist thinkers.
(i) Primarily criticised on ground – goes against democratic govt. he completely rejected idea of
popular sov.ty which constitutes basis of democracy. Acc to his th, people can’t be designated
as sov simply b’cos they’re an indefinite mass, indeterminate entity. There can however be
only be one dterminate identifiable auth vested with absolute unlimited sov power. Acc to Sir
Henry Maine, this opinion of Aust can’t be accepted, b’cos sov power in a democracy is
actually vested in the people, although they may be an indeterminate entity. Added – sov.ty
can’t be absolute/ unlimited b’cos sov power of state is limited/ restricted by public opinion.
(ii) Theory also undemocratic in sense that he supported hierarchical society. Acc to him, sov is
superior, rest of society subordinate. Goes against democratic society which is theoretically
society of equals where evry indiv given equal opportunity to develop him/ herself. Thus
Aust’s th goes against democratic concept of indiv equality.
(iii) Idea of law as comm. of sov also severely criticised by modern pol scholars – argue that
source of law isn’t sov’s comm. Rather, to be found in long-standing customs & traditions.10
(iv) Sociologists also criticise th of law as comm. of sov & argue that law in fact has nothing to
do with the sov. Duguit says, people obey the law not b’cos it’s comm. of sov, but b’cos it’s
necessary for maintenance of peace & security in society. So it’s out of own conscience that
they follow law – not always out of fear of physical punishment, but b’cos they feel it’s
proper to follow the law. Laski says – indiv’s conscience compels them to obey law.
(v) Austin’s th actually based on idea of force. His argument that disobedience of law on part of
people is to be followed by physical punishment, actually reduces relationship b/w govt and
people to a kind of master-servant relnship.
(vi) Most imp objection advanced against Austin’s th is that like Hobbes, he also advocated a
form of dictatorship. Austin supported a form of govt where sov exercised absolute &
unlimited power and people must develop habit of blind submission to sov.
(vii) Pluralist pol scholars like Laski, Duguit, Maitland, McIver and others don’t agree with
Austin that sov.ty is indivisible. B’cos pluralists think that society consists of no of
associations for fulfilment of interests of people. People render obedience not only to state,

10
Sir Henry Maine takes e.g. of Raja Ranjit Singh of Punjab who never issued written comm. to subjects, rather
ruled with help of trad & customs evolved over considerable period of time. Therefore such customs and tradns
take form of law and sov’s comm. can never take such prestige.
 but also to these associations.11 Ultimate auth – constitutional law of land, not state.
Internally, auth of state limited by constitutional law, b’cos state often regarded as child of
consti – highest auth. Externally, state sov.ty limited by intl law. However, not necessary to
follow all such laws.

5. Pluralist theory of sovereignty:

Evolved as criticism of Austin’s classical theory. Laski, Barker, McIver, Duguit, Maitland,
Cole, Lindsay – with help of their writings, pluralist the std itself as a separate doctrine in course of
time.
Pluralists began with premise that indivs are a bundle of interests; i.e., men and women are
creatures of diverse interests, aspirations. To fulfil them, various pol, socio-eco, cultural associations
have emerged in society. These assocns exercise a certain degree of command over indivs. As a
result, indivs obey not only the state, but also to a certain extent, these assocns. Thus state can’t have
absolute control over indivs or their lives. Therefore acc to pluralists, sov.ty is divided b/w state and
other assocns.
State doesn’t enjoy supreme power over indivs/ groups but enjoys certain amt of auth.
Internally, auth of state limited by auth of other assocns b’cos if it tries to exercise full control, it
tends to become dictatorial. Externally, state can’t claim absolute auth b’cos that would lead to
instability, leading to endangerment of peace and auth.
Evaluation:
i. Law can’t be comm. of sov, rather it’s a form of social control, means for controlling
behaviour and activity of indivs, to make them suitable to live in a civilised society.
ii. Th said to be contradictory as pluralists said sov.ty should be divided b/w state and other
instns. At same time, pointed out that in case of dispute b/w 2 or more assocns, state will
exercise its supreme sov power to settle conflict. Scholars like Laski have admitted that state
shud play role of guardian/ referee to settle dispute b/w 2 or moe assocns. That’s why some
pol scholars have commented, pluralists drive away state sov.ty thru front door but they
admit it thru the back door.
iii. Acc to Marxist scholars, pluralists failed to realise character of a class-divided12 society,
where state acts as agent of class exploitation.
iv. Austins’ th exaggerates legal interpretation of sov.ty, since it begins with defn of law.
Pluralist th concentrates only on ethical aspect of sov.ty, so they don’t define it the way
Austin had.
v. Primary significance – attacked glorification of state by Austin’s monistic th.
vi. On 1 hand, Austin’s th encouraged absolutist, dictatorial regime, pluralists encouraged
democratic form of govt.
Famous bk by Laski – A Grammar of Politics – genesis of pluralist th found here.

6. Classifications of sovereignty:

i. Titular and actual sovereignty – this type of classification usually applicable in Parliamentary
form of govt, b’cos this form of govt often recognises distinction b/w titular and actual sov.
Word titular from title. Therefore, additional thing given to indiv. Thus titular sov doesn’t
exercise actual power, which is exercised by actual sov. E.g. – England – Westminster type –
Parl form of govt. Brit monarch titular sov, cabinet led by PM actual sov. Also applicable in
India – Prez and PM leading cabinet. Therefore, titular sov only in mane and status. From
1990s, Indian Prez – certain powers, so no longer only titular head.
ii. Legal and political sovereignty – this classification applicable in case of modern, indirect or
representative democracy. Here people elect reps to run govt on their behalf. Elected reps

11
However, even pluralist thinkers like Laski have admitted that although sov.ty is divisible, in times of conflict
State has overriding power.
12
capitalist
 constitute legal sov, since they have supreme power to make and enforce laws. If these reps
fail to perform satisfactorily, they can be removed from office in next elections. Thus people
sanction auth of legal sov and are thus actual force behind legal sov; hence they constitute
ultimate pol sov.
iii. De jure and de facto sovereignty – this classification applicable to situation where there’s pol
turmoil, chaos, instability, disturbances. In such situation, legal sov may find it impossible to
remain in country. He may be compelled to flee and take refuge in another friendly country.
In his absence, another person/ group of persons may take over actual charge of govt. in such
a case, legal sov who has fled country becomes de jure sov & people who take over power in
his absence become de facto sov. E.g. – a) Iran revolution – shah of Iran fled to US – de jure
sov, Ayatollah Khomeini – de facto sov. b) Tsar of Russia – de jure, Lenin and Bolsheviks –
de facto. If it receives legitimacy from people, de facto may become de jure sov.
iv. Internal and external sovereignty – internally, state exercises supreme power over people,
limited by consti and public opinion. External sov.ty – state not under foreign domination.
Make own foreign policy decisions & internal laws without interference from foreign states.
Limited only by certain principles of intl law.
v. Popular sovereignty – associated with French philosopher Rousseau. Means – people ultimate
sov. Rousseau initiated direct form of democracy. People would be directly responsible for
election and dismissal of govt. Paved way for direct democracy which depends on people’s
consent and sanction. Mentions 4 democratic checks. They try to stop misuse of power by
govt.
a) Referendum – govt proposes bill and then to people directly.
b) Initiative – people themselves propose to bring about law.
c) Recall – people have power to bring back elected rep to power.
These checks possible in small places practising direct democracy, not in
countries with indirect democracy.
d) Universal adult suffrage – available in all democracies. Irrespective of
class, gender, all adult citizens vote for representative.

MODULE - VI
Great Indian Political Thinkers
I. GANDHI
• Philosophical foundations of Gandhi’s thoughts –
Influenced by diff religions of the world. Particularly diff strands of Hinduism – vaishnavism,
Vedanta, shakta. 2nd – Islam. Buddhism, Jainism, Christianity
(i)Hinduism – gita – main source of inspiration of philo foundation. He thought that gita taught
use of non-violence to safeguard truth and righteousness. From this teaching of the gita, Gandhi
became strong advocate of non-violence. In later years, influence of gita on Gandhi became more
profound. He accepted gita as source of spiritual inspiration and learnt much about truth and non-
violence.
(ii)Upanishads – Gandhi had his faith of non-possession or aparigraha.
(iii)Islam – the word meant peace, safety and salvation. Equated ram and Krishna with Rahim and
Karim. Gandhian secularism was thus based on such identification of the holy personalities which
made him support Hindu-Muslim unity. Evident in non-cooperation and khilafat movts.
(iv) Western secular writers like Thoreau, Ruskin, and Tolstoy influenced Gandhi greatly.
From Thoreau, learnt lesson of civil disobedience and non-payment of taxes as a valid moral form
of protest against political misrule.
 Ruskin made him respect manual labour and Tolstoy convinced him to turn into a firm believer of
ahimsa.
Unlike Machiavelli, who tried to secularise politics in his own way, Gandhi didn’t attempt to
formally separate religion from politics. In fact, Gandhi made a partially successful attempt to
provide a synthesis of religion and politics. All his social and political doctrines were based on
the spiritual and religious views of life.
Gandhi’s religious views which coloured his political views were not at all derived from any
particular religion. His religion emanated from the service of the whole humanity and was not
connected with any dogmatic or ritualistic theology.
So bhikhu parekh rightly observed that Gandhi’s religious ideas were greatly influenced by
Humanism.

• Views on Satyagraha – key to Gandhi's thinking and action. From various sources
found one dominant conviction, namely, “morality is the basis of things, and that truth is the
substance of all morality.” Term meant quest or search for truth, and then hold on to it. Used
the term in the sense of individual and social justice. Thus satyagraha may be described as
firm adherence to justice.
launched several non-violent movts under name of satyagraha, e.g. – champaran, khera,
ahmedabad, later in bardoli. Also led similar movts in S Africa prior to coming to India, and
called them ‘Passive Resistance’. Gradually it appeared to Gandhi that the eng term ‘passive
resistance’ largely derived from the Christian concept of resistance to evils, didn’t express
adequately the nature of his non-violent movt. Therefore he felt the need for a new expression
which would more clearly and explicitly describe the nature of his non-violent movts. Thru his
journal ‘Indian Opinion’ which he edited in S A, Gandhi offered a token price for suggestion of
the best expression. One of the suggested terms ‘sadagraha’ won the prize. Later he modified the
word into ‘satyagraha’.
After Gandhi came to ind in 1915, never used term P R but always used term satyagraha. Gandhi
thought that satyagraha was a term implying positive and active forms of resistance and therefore
should be differentiated from the concept of P R.
Differences – P R may not be completely non-violent, satyagraha does not accept use of any
form of force.
P R may be use of compulsion against a person for whom it is to be resorted to. Satyagraha
believes in infliction of personal self-suffering.
P R aims at embarrassing the opponent into submission, while satyagraha aims at change of
hearts of opponent.
Satyagraha equated with principles of love and charity, P R may be motivated by jealousy.
Satyagraha acc to Gandhi is the weapon of the brave and is therefore positive, whereas P R
regarded as Gandhi as weapon of the weak, and is therefore negative.
P R is a political weapon of expediency but satyagraha is a moral weapon based on superiority of
spiritual force over physical force.
Satyagraha is hence acc to Gandhi dynamic, while P R is static.
Satyagraha emphasises internal strength and offers more determined opposition to injustice and
tyranny rather than P R.
• 4 Basic characteristics of Satyagraha:
Ahimsa/non-violence (largest love and greatest charity) – acc to Gandhi, it is never the intention
of the satyagrahi to embarrass the wrong-doer. The appeal is never to his fear; it must be always
to his heart. The satyagrahi’s object is to convert, not to coerce the wrong-doer. So Gandhi
wanted to attack the measures and systems and not the men. Satyagraha implies not only
persuasion and reason, but also self-suffering. Gandhi said, reason has to be strengthened by
suffering and suffering opens the eye of understanding.
The self-suffering of the satyagrahi is the manifestation of his love and respect for the opponent.
It’s a moral force expected to make the opponent realise the injustice of his action and to
humanise his entire attitude towards the satyagrahi.
 Impersonal motivation behind act of resistance – this means that a satyagrahi must have no
personal motives or personal gains. For this, a satyagrahi has to naturally discipline oneself
vigorously for a long period of time, and also must purify himself/ herself so that a satyagrahi
can’t practise anything immoral.
A satyagrahi must impose 5 vows on himself – (i) Satya (truth), (ii) Ahimsa (non-
violence), (iii) Asteya (theism), (iv) Aparigraha (non-possession), (v) Brahmacharya (celibacy).
Along with these vows, a satyagrahi must exercise self-restraint with regard to food, drinks and
drugs and also purify himself / herself by regular fasting. Acc to Gandhi, satyagraha meant
sadhana and the rules of disciplining the human self associated with it was regarded by him as
tapasya.
Fearlessness or abhaya – involved in every act of satyagraha.
Satyagraha’s creative power – finally, acc to Gandhi, satyagraha as an instrument of social action
is inherently creative. Its creativity is inherent in its basis of ahimsa and moral persuasion. Acc to
Gandhi, every act of satyagraha leads to moral improvement of society in 2 ways – (i) the tapasya
of the satyagrahi leads to moral elevation and thus increases the total social morality; (ii)
transformation of relationships and elimination of injustice, through satyagraha, amounts to all-
round moral improvement in positive direction.
• Gandhi spoke of a nine point charter regarding the rules a satyagrahi should follow:
(i) satyagrahi will harbour no anger
(ii) but he will suffer anger of opponent
(iii) satyagrahi will suffer assault of opponent and will never retaliate (not
because of fear but because he has abhaya)
(iv) he would voluntarily submit to arrest and will not resist confiscation of
own property
(v) if a satyagrahi has any property as a trustee, he will refuse to
surrender, even though in defending he may lose his own life
(vi) Non-retaliation includes swearing and cursing
(vii) Satyagrahi will never insult the opponent
(viii) Satyagrahi or civil resister will never salute Union Jack (Brit flag), nor
will he insult it, or any officials, Indian or Brit.
(ix) In the course of the struggle if anyone insults a brit official or commits
assault upon them, a satyagrahi will protect their life. Obedience to leader was also v
imp for satyagrahi.
• Gandhi repeatedly emphasised that satyagraha will not be started without adequate preparations.
He also emphasised that untrained mass can’t participate in any satyagrahi movt. They shud
therefore be properly trained before they take up or participate in satyagraha movt.
• Gandhi outlined required training for person to be satyagrahi thru his Constructive Programme.
Acc to Gandhi, the C P was the basis of training for the non-violence of the brave. It was
designed as a training ground and recruiting base for the satyagrahis. Every satyagrahi, Gandhi
said, must always be found in any one of the 3 conditions – a) in prison or in an analogous state,
b) engaged in satyagraha, c) under orders at the spinning wheel or at some constructive work for
advancing swaraj.
• Following theses norms of classification, one may divide the various forms of action under
satyagraha broadly into 5 main categories –
i. fasting incld fasting unto death,
ii. open resistence or disobedience,
iii. self-imposed suffering other than fasting,
iv. non-cooperation incld strikes,
v. civil disobedience.
• Types of satyagraha – 4 – depending on no. of participants and area of operation –
i. Indiv satyagraha
 ii. Group satyagraha
iii. Mass satyagraha
iv. Intl satyagraha – e.g. – way other countries behaved with SA govt b’cos of apartheid.

• Views on constructive programme –

Imp aspect of philosophy of nationalism and nat unity. Conceived nationalism as means of
strengthening social aspects of our collective existence at grassroots level.
• transformation of society acc to him would involve 2 main probs namely,
i. the manner in which one set of social instns and relations is to be replaced gradually by
another.
ii. The way in which conflict and contradictions which are likely to develop in the process is
to be resolved.
• Gandhi’s answer to 1st is that C P, that is prog for construction of new instns and values shud be
viewed in given Indian context. His answer to 2nd is that satyagraha might involve simple
persuasion in the beginning of social change and various types of non-violent resistance might
emerge in the end. So C P and satyagraha are 2 v closely related forms of social change.
• The C P which consists of creating a set of highly decentralised socio-economic instns, provides
the infrastructure of the just societies of Gandhi’s conception. After the withdrawal of the non-
cooperation movt, as a result of chauri-chaura incident, Gandhi retired from politics for
sometime. He then devoted to the organisation and implementation of a programme of
constructive work mainly based on khadi, throughout the country. He asked the congressmen to
devote wholeheartedly to C P. In course of time, a no. of instns were set up to promote C P. The
most imp of them were – All Indian Spinners’ Association, All India Village Industries
Association, Harijan Sevak Sangh, Hindusthani Talimi Sangh.
• In December 1941, Gandhi published a book entitled Constructive Programme: its Meaning and
Place, in which he expressed in concrete terms the activities which he wanted to include under
the term ‘C P’. To him C P “is the truthful and non-v way of winning purna swaraj for India. Its
wholesale fulfilment is complete independence.”
• Some of the activities of C P as outlined by Gandhi –
i. Establishment of communal harmony;
ii. Abolition of Untouchability;
iii. Rest and recreation for tired labourers;
iv. Establishment of khadi production centres in each of the 7 lakh villages existing in India
at that time. Gandhi felt that the universal acceptance of khaddar by Indians was
equivalent to acquisition of swaraj. Khadi was the symbol of the unity of India. It
remained a most potent instrument of mass upliftment and mass education.
v. Development of other village industries like soap, paper making, etc, which actually
meant self-reliance for India, without depending on western countries for these products;
vi. Improvement of village sanitation, which was practically non-existent during that time in
India;
vii. Introduction of basic education in every Indian village, and also to look into adult
education. Edu also meant edu in health and hygiene.
viii. Gandhi was one of the most vociferous spokesperson for the feminist cause, as he
spoke of the emancipation of women; he said this shud begin from home, satyagraha
would also bring the women out of darkness.
ix. Development of provincial languages of India incld Hindi and Urdu and abolition of
English;
x. Establishment of economic equality;
 xi. Upliftment of adivasis of India, i.e. the tribal community;
xii. Reorganisation of the Indian peasantry and the working class. Gandhi himself
organised the Ahmedabad labour union and regarded it as a model of the constructive
workers.
xiii. Organisation of students on a non-political basis – laid a code of conduct for the
students;
xiv. Improvement of cattle, wanted decentralisation of power in villages.
• For Gandhi, the C P would provide the people with the required training for satyagraha. He also
felt that C P would help the nation-building process of India.