Delhi University

Ramanujan college
Indian political thought
Submitted by -Cheksha gupta

Roll no.-20233813

Topic -Origin of state

Course – BA political science honours

Submitted to – DR Neha
 Introduction
The origin of the state can be traced back
to these instances of European conflicts
and geographical changes in the range of
the 1500s to the 1600s, as they classify the
moments citizens put the needs of the
state over their financial interests and
entrusted the state with greater powers to
govern them.
State formation is the process of the
development of a centralized government
structure in a situation in which one did
not exist. State formation has been a study
of many disciplines of the social sciences
for a number of years, so much so that
Jonathan Haas writes, “One of the favorite
pastimes of social scientists over the
course of the past century has been to
theorize about the evolution of the world’s
great civilizations.”

The study of state formation Is divided

generally into the study of ancient state
formation (those that developed in stateless
societies), medieval or early modern state
formation, and the study of modern state
formation (particularly of the form that
developed in Europe in the 17th century and
spread around the world). State formation
can include state-building and nation-
building.
Evolutionary
theory of origin
of state
Darwin proposed the
evolutionary theory. The
evolution of life from non-life,
according to Darwin’s theory,
emphasizes a purely naturalistic
approach. All life is related and
descended from a common
ancestor, according to the Theory
of Evolution.
1. The evolutionary theory of the
origin of the state is as follows:

2. The family established the first

section in the process of the state’s
evolution.
3. As a result of family multiplication,
new families emerged, as did clans and
tribes.
4. Religion provided the bond of unity
in ancient society.
5. The ancient people created the state
to protect their property.
6. Physical force was used to expand
kingdoms and empires.

Five factors are responsible for

affecting the Evolutionary theory of
 State. Keep these five factors in mind
while studying or doing research about
the topic.

7. Kinship
8. Magic and Religion
9. War and force
10. Property and Rise of Economy
classes
11. Consciousness of Politics
Philosopher’s
thought on
origin of state
State of nature, in political theory, the
real or hypothetical condition of human
beings before or without political
association. The notion of a state of
nature was an essential element of the
social-contract theories of the English
philosophers Thomas Hobbes (1588–
1679) and John Locke (1632–1704) and
the French philosopher Jean-Jacques
Rousseau (1712–78). Visions of the
state of nature differed sharply
between social-contract theorists,
though most associated it with the
absence of state sovereignty.

Thomas Hobbes
English political scholar Thomas Hobbes
examined the beginnings of the state
through common agreement
hypothesis in his book Leviathan
(1651). He contends that before the
establishing of countries, individuals
lived in a condition of nature. As
indicated by Thomas Hobbes, the
condition of nature was both pre-social
and pre-political. Thomas
Hobbes illustrated People were
conceived poor, shrewd, brutal and
narrow minded. In the condition of
nature, the standards of regulation,
equity, and resistance didn’t exist;
extortion and savagery were the
essential standards. In any case, after
some time, to escape from this
hopeless life in the wild, individuals
marked a settlement to lay out their
own common government. Individuals
have given their regular freedoms over
to people or gatherings who keep up
with sway, aside from the right to self-
safeguarding. This deal did exclude a
sovereign. The obligation of the
sovereign was to safeguard the lives
and privileges of individuals. What’s
more, since individuals went into
contracts deliberately, they had no
legitimate right to break them. As
indicated by Hobbes, the power and
authority of the sovereign under this
common agreement was outright,
natural, unified, and limitless. In this
manner, Hobbes accepted that
agreements between individuals lead
to the arrangement of states and
sovereign powers.

John locke
John Locke, an English political logician
and one more advocate of the Social
Contracttheory, made sense of the
development of the state in his book
“Two Compositions on
CivilGovernment” (1690). Before the
rise of the state, Locke accepted that
individuals lived in the condition of
nature. The condition of nature, as
indicated by Locke, was pre-political. Be
that as it may, unlikeHobbes, he
contradicted Hobbes on the idea of
individuals. In the condition of
nature,according to Locke, individuals
lived in harmony unafraid of fighting.
They had the equivalent rightsand
freedoms as every other person.
Individuals were participating and
understanding each other. Regular
regulations were available in the
common habitat. In any case, there was
no regulation court orjudge to decipher
the regulations at that point. Thus,
individuals deciphered regulations in
their own way,which served their own
personal circumstance eventually. This
brought about issues, for example,
disorder in thenatural world.
Individuals went into two agreements
to escape this tough spot: one wasa
common agreement, and the other was
a legislative agreement. These two
arrangements came about in the
development of the detail

Jean Jacques Rousseau

He vehemently criticized Hobbes’s
conception of a state of nature
characterized by social antagonism. The
state of nature, Rousseau argued, could
only mean a primitive state preceding
socialization; it Is thus devoid of social
traits such as pride, envy, or even fear
of others. The state of nature, for
Rousseau, is a morally neutral and
peaceful condition in which (mainly)
solitary individuals act according to
their basic urges (for instance, hunger)
as well as their natural desire for self-
preservation. This latter instinct,
however, is tempered by an equally
natural sense of compassion. In
Rousseau’s account, laid out in his
Discourse on the Origin of Inequality
(1755), individuals leave the state of
nature by becoming increasingly
civilized—that is to say, dependent on
one another.

Conclusion
Study of State has to look into the
nature of State which, as pointed out by
many scholars, is enmeshed into the
political and cultural institutions of
society, caste, class and institutions,
formal as well as informal. It needs to
be seen as in what way the State
shapes them and in what way they are
shaped by the State. Governments that
seek to participate in and benefit from
a world becoming more integrated and
interdependent must reinvent their
structures and processes to become
more professional, digital,
technologically proficient, deregulated,
honest and transparent. 20As the
globalisation process unfolds, a larger
State may seem to be more resilient
and less vulnerable, as has been
observed, to disintegration and
disruption. The State would now have
to analyse the ramifications of the
globalisation onslaught. It would have
to build necessary physical
infrastructure, legal framework and
governance processes that are
favourable to foreign capital and
technology influx.
State at periphery is a misplaced
strategy. What is needed is a correct
mix of State, markets and non-State
actors.