Jogesh Chandra Chaudhuri Law College

Students’ Union
30, Prince Anwar Shah Road, Kolkata, 70003
Email: jcclcsu.kolkata@gmail.com Phone: 9831948661 / 9831464712

• By the Students • Of the Students • For the Students

1ST SEMESTER POLITICAL SCIENCE NOTES

INITIATED BY
NEIL BASU
(GENERAL SECRETARY)

ARRANGED BY
UTSA PODDER
(SECRETARY OF ACADEMIC AFFAIRS)

CIRCULATED BY
DEBASISH MONDAL (CR)- SACHINDRA MOHAN
SEC A MONDAL (CR) – SEC B
KHUSHI MUNDRA (CR) – SEC SRIJITA MUKHERJEE (CR)-
A SEC B
DIPANKAR BHAKTO (CR) - MD DANISH FAROOQUI
SEC A (CR)- SEC B
SOURESH MONDAL (UR) - SEC SHUVAM KANJILAL (UR) –
A SEC A

#STUDENTS’ WELFARE, RELATION & AID FUND SECRETARIAT

#LEGAL AID & AWARNESS SECRETARIAT
#ACADEMIC AFFAIRS SECRETARIAT
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

POLITICAL SCIENCE I
Chapter 1. The Discipline of Political Science
Q. Define Political Science.

(a) According to Paul Janet, "Political Science is the part of social science which treats of the foundations
of the State and the principles of Government."

(b) Bluntschli believes that "Political Science is a science, which is concerned with the State, endeavors to
understand and comprehend the State in its essential nature, various forms, manifestations and
developments."

(c) Garris, famous German author is of the opinion that "Political Science deals with the origin,
development, purpose, and all political problems of the State."

(d) Gettell says, "It is, thus, a study in the past, present and future, of political organisations and political
theories."

(e) According to Lord Acon, "Political Science is concerned with the State and with conditions essential
for its development."

(f) Dr. Garner believes that "Political Science begins and ends with the State."

(g) According to Leacock, "Political Science deals with Government."

(h) Seeley says, "Political Science investigates the phenomena of Government as Political Economy deals
with Wealth, Biology with life. Algebra with numbers and Geometry with space and magnitude."

Harold Laswell, a leading Political Scientist of the U.S.A. defines "Political Science, as an empirical
discipline, (as) the study of the shaping and sharing of power" and a political act (as) one performed in
power perspectives."

Robert A. Dahl defines political system as follows: "A political system is any persistent pattern of human
relationships that involve, to a significant extent, however, rule or authority."

Q. Discuss the nature and scope of political science.

Nature of Political Science:

Political Science is a study about the State. It makes an enquiry into the origin of the State and political
authority. In this sense, it is a historical investigation about the origin of the State. Political Science also
studies the structure and functioning of the State, governments, inter-State organisations, etc.

Page 1 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

In this sense, it is an analytical study of what the “State” is. Garner has rightly said that “Political Science
begins with the State and ends with the State”. But Political Science does not confine its area to the past
and present States only. It also attempts to formulate principles of good government or in other words, it
suggests what the State ought to be. It is therefore, a study of past, present and future of the State.
However, the study of Political Science is wider than the activities of the State.

Upson writes “More limited than politics is the concept of the state…. The point that politics is broader
than the state can be easily demonstrated. Wherever the State exists, there is also politics. But the reverse
is not true-that wherever politics exists, so does the State. We can rightly speak of international politics
but we know that there is not as yet a super national state.

We can talk of politics within churches or municipal corporations or trade unions, although none of these
is a state”. Catlin maintains that politics should include all those things which Aristotle included in it such
as the “organisation of the family, control over slaves, analysis of revolutions, and pure
democracynational, civic and international politics, religious congregations and labour unions and
organisations of employees” which are carried on under the auspices of society. He concludes by saying
that politics is the study of political aspects of organised human society.

Scope of pol. Science

The scope of Political Science implies its area of study or subject matter. It is a very comprehensive and
expanding social science. An attempt was made by the International Political Science

Association in Paris in 1948 to delineate its scope. It classified the same into four zones, namely, Political
Theory, Political Institution, Political Dynamics and International Relations. We may attempt to describe
its scope as follows.

1. Political Theory: It deals with the definition and meaning of fundamental concepts of Political Science
like state, government, law, liberty, equality, justice, sovereignty, separation of powers, methods of
representation, forms of government, grounds of political obligation and various ideologies.

A clear understanding of these basic terms and concepts is essential for the study of Political Science. A
student of Political Science must start his lessons with political theory.

2. Political Philosophy: It is concerned with the theoretical and speculative consideration of the
fundamental principles used by Political Science. Eminent political philosophers like Plato, Aristotle,
Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hegel, Mill, Marx, and Gandhi have expressed their views on
nature, functions and ends of the state and government.

On the basis of their ideas, political theory defines political concepts. An important function of political
philosophy has been to project values and ideals which political institutions strive hard to attain.

3. Political Institutions: It is also concerned with the study of formal political institutions such as the
state and the instrument through which it acts the government. Hence, the scope of Political Science

Page 2 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

extends to the study of the organisation and working of formal institutions like the legislature, the
executive and the judiciary, and in these days, of the electorate and even the administration.

The study of constitutions and political institutions of various countries (comparative politics) enables the
political scientists to evolve sound and workable principles for the conduct of government.

4. Political Dynamics: The term refers to the forces and processes at work in government and
politics. They influence and explain political action. They include the study of political parties, pressure
groups, interest groups, lobbies, public opinion, propaganda and political semantics (meaning of words)
which influence and manipulate political behaviour and attitudes of individuals and groups.

More recently, there has been a trend to extend the scope of Political Science into new areas of empirical
investigation into political behaviour. Drawing upon the resources of other social sciences, Political
Science has developed not only new techniques of analysis but new concepts like political culture, political
socialisation and political communication to explain political phenomena.

5. Public Administration: Public Administration is a major branch of Political Science and is emerging
as an independent discipline in recent times. It deals with the organization, control and coordination of
administrative machinery, personnel administration, financial administration, public relations,
management, administrative law and adjudication etc. It also covers the study of local self-governing
institutions like corporations, municipalities and Panchayati Raj institutions.

6. International Relations and International Law: International Law is a body of general principles
and specific rules which regulate the relationship among states and international institutions. The study
of international relations is a growing area of Political Science.

It covers such important subjects as diplomacy, international politics, foreign policies and international
organizations. In view of world peace, cooperation and even 'world government,' the need for strong
international laws and sound international relations can hardly be exaggerated.

7. Relation between the State and the Individual: The perennial and central problem, with which
Political Science is concerned, is to establish proper relationship between the state and individuals. The
state guarantees certain rights and freedoms to individuals and regulates their conduct and action
through the legal system.

The proper adjustment between the authority and power of the state and liberty of the individuals is a
knotty problem. Political Science deals with the proper sphere of state action, the limits of political control
and the area of individual freedom.

Thus, the scope of Political Science has been expanding in recent times. The social life of man has a direct
or indirect influence on his political life. Political Science enters any sphere of life which has political
implications.

Page 3 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

Modern Political Science in the era of post- behaviouralism deals with both empirical facts and value
preferences. It is a combination of both science and philosophy. Hence it is a dynamic social science and
its scope is ever expanding.

Q. Is political science a science?

There is a great deal of controversy among scholars about whether Political Science is a Science or an Art.
Aristotle considered it as the 'master science'. Other modern writers like Godwin, Hobbes, Vico, Hume,
Frederick Pollock, John Seely, and Lord Bryce consider it a science.

On the other hand, scholar like Mosca, Burke, Buckle, Comte, Maitland question its claim as a science since
it has failed to act up to the standard of science.

Instead of asking this question, it is better to ask: to what extent Political Science can claim to be a science?
It will be useful to remember that no science, whether 'natural' or 'social', can be absolutely scientific at
all times and under all circumstances.

As far as Political Science is concerned two propositions can be stated. One, it is futile to hope that Political
Science can entirely become scientific. Second, it is much more scientific today than it was in the past.

Not a Science: The following arguments are advanced against the claim of Political Science as a science.

1.Lack of Consensus on Nature of Political Science: There is no agreement among political scientists as to
its methods, principles and conclusions.

2.No Certainty and Universality in the Laws of Political Science: It lacks uniform principles or laws that
are universally valid. The generalisations of the natural sciences are frequently described as laws. But the
generalisations put forward by social sciences including Political Science are endlessly disputed as they do
not possess the same degree of certainty or universality. At best, they are 'tendencies', not 'laws'.

3.No Predictability: The political behaviour of man is unpredictable and hence it is difficult to arrive at
exact and definite views and conclusions. Generalisations in social sciences lack the quality of
predictability which is regarded as a major characteristic of the 'laws' of natural sciences. The latter make
forecasts about future developments possible.

4. No Law of Cause and Effect: There are many laws in natural science - a particular cause will lead to a
particular effect. But this does not happen in Political Science. There is no certainty that the factors which
caused the French Revolution of 1789 will lead to a similar revolution in another country.

5.Not Possible to Conduct Experiments in any Laboratory: It is impossible to apply to Political Science
rigorous scientific methods of investigation. General statements are difficult to establish because of the
problem of their verifiability. "Political phenomena are characterized by uncertainty, variableness and a
lack of order and continuity."

Page 4 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

Laboratory experiments are not possible in Political Science as in the case of Physics or Chemistry. Social
phenomena based on human behaviour are constantly undergoing change and are more difficult to
control. Political Science is primarily a science of observation, and not of experiment.

6.No Neutrality and Objectivity: Objectivity which characterizes the study of physical sciences is lacking
in political studies. Political scientists cannot take a totally impartial, value neutral attitude in dealing with
political issues and affairs. The subjective bias of the political observer colours his judgment of political
problems and his findings may be one-sided.

Political Science is a Science

These arguments clearly show that Political Science cannot be an exact science like Physics, Chemistry and
Mathematics. But it is a social science like Sociology, Psychology and Economics. Science may be broadly
defined as 'a body of systematized knowledge'. Political Science can legitimately claim to be a science in
so far as it shares with the natural sciences the use of the scientific method.

The essential features of this method are; (a) It takes nothing for granted; (b) It insists that all
generalisations made be based on observed facts; (c) It will not accept any generalisation as final and
irrevocable; (d) Besides a scientist, so far as humanly possible, is not swayed by his personal preferences
or subjective bias in the formulation of his findings. He should be objective.

Since the principles of Political Science have been formulated after systematic study of political
phenomena, it has the valid claim of being called a science. Of course, it is generally admitted that the
principles of social sciences including Political Science are neither universally valid nor are always exact
and precise.

That is why Lord Bryce compared Political Science to a relatively underdeveloped and inexact natural
science like meteorology. Sir Frederick Pollock maintained that "there is a Political Science in the same
sense that there is a science of morals."

Since the behavioural revolution in Political Science, advanced tools and techniques of research, concepts
and models borrowed from other sciences have enriched political studies and have imparted it greater
scientific character.

However, while the claim of Political Science to be treated as a science has to be accepted, it has to be
done with the reservation that, like all social sciences, it is an inexact science.

Q. Relationship between political science and political philosophy and difference between them.

Relationship between Political Science and Philosophy.

(1) Initially, Political Science was called Political Philosophy.

(2) Study of philosophy of State i.e. Political Thought is a part of the study of Political Science.

Page 5 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

(3) Philosophy provides to Political Science knowledge of ideal human behaviour, political values, good
and bad in political theory, right and wrong laws, policies and governmental decisions and theory of
ideal social-political institutions.

(4) Philosophy also studies ideal political behaviour, good political values, ideal political institutions and
ideal political conduct. Ideal political reforms and political ideologies Individualism liberalism socialism,
communism and others. It is a part of the study of Political Science. Each political ideology is a particular
and distinct philosophy of state.

Thus Political Science and Philosophy are related but two different and distinct disciplines of study. Each
uses the knowledge of other.

Difference in the Nature and Scope of Philosophy and Political Science:

Philosophy is much broader subject of study than Political Science. It involves the study of ideal, values
and the good of human behaviour in its all dimension — Social, Economic, Political, Cultural, Religions,
Educational and others. It specifies what is good and what should be done in each aspect of human
behaviour and relations. It prescribes universal values for all human beings. It is a normative science of
human behaviour and values.

Compared to it, Political Science studies both political facts and values but gives primary importance to
the study of facts (i.e. what is there and what is actually observed and observable). It also studies political
values of each society and state of the world, but such a study enjoys only a limited importance in the
study of Political Science. In contemporary times Political Science is being built as a science of politics and
not as a philosophy of state.

Conclusion: In ancient times Political Science was defined as Political Philosophy. Political Science is the
science of Politics -State, Government, Nation, all political institutions and political relations i.e. power
relations in society. While studying the concepts of state, government, political institutions, constitutions,
law, rights, freedom and political reforms, Political Science makes a normative study of all these concepts.

Chapter 2: Approaches to the study of political science.

Q. What are the traditional approaches in the study of political science?

The traditional approaches to Political Science was widely prevalent till the outbreak of the Second World
War. These approaches were mainly related to the traditional view of politics which emphasized the study
of the state and government. Therefore, traditional approaches are primarily concerned with the study of
Page 6 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

the organization and activities of the state and principles and the ideas which underlie political
organizations and activities. These approaches were normative and idealistic. The political thinkers
advocating these approaches, therefore, raised questions like ‘what should be an ideal state?’ According
to them the study of Political Science should be confined to the formal structures of the government, laws,
rules and regulations. Thus, the advocates of the traditional approaches emphasize various norms - what
‘ought to be’ or ‘should be’ rather than ‘what is’.

Characteristics of Traditional approaches:

1. Traditional approaches are largely normative and stresses on the values of politics

2. Emphasis is on the study of different political structures.

3. Traditional approaches made very little attempt to relate theory and research

4. These approaches believe that since facts and values are closely interlinked, studies in Political Science
can never be scientific.

Various forms of Traditional Approaches:

The traditional approaches can be sub-divided into the following-

1.Philosophical

2.Historical

3.Institutional

4. Legal approaches.

Philosophical Approach: This approach is regarded as the oldest approach to the study of Political Science.
The emergence of this approach can be traced back to the times of the Greek philosophers like Plato and
Aristotle. Leo Strauss was one of the main advocates of the philosophical approach. He believes that “the
philosophy is the quest for wisdom and political philosophy is the attempt truly to know about the nature
of political things and the right or good political order.” This approach firmly believes that the values
cannot be separated from the study of politics. Therefore, its main concern is to judge what is good or bad
in any political society. It is mainly an ethical and normative study of politics and, thus, idealistic. It deals
with the problems of the nature and functions of the state, citizenship, rights and duties etc. The advocates
of this approach firmly believe that political philosophy is closely linked with the political ideologies.
Therefore, they are of the opinion that a political scientist must have the knowledge of good life and good
society. Political philosophy helps in setting up of a good political order.

Historical Approach: According to the advocates of this approach, political theory can be only understood
when the historical factors like the age, place and the situation in which it is evolved are taken into
consideration. As the name of this approach is related to history, it emphasizes on the study of history of

Page 7 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

every political reality to analyze any situation. Political thinkers like Machiavelli, Sabine and Dunning
believe that politics and history are intricately related and the study of politics always should have a
historical perspective. Sabine is of the view that Political Science should include all those subjects which
have been discussed in the writings of different political thinkers from the time of Plato. This approach
strongly upholds the belief that the thinking or the ideology of every political thinker is shaped by the
surrounding environment. Moreover, history not only speaks about the past but also links it with the
present events. History provides the chronological order of every political event and thereby helps in
future estimation of events also. Hence, without studying the past political events, institutions and
political environment it would be wrong to analyze the present political scenario/ events.

Institutional Approach: This is a very old and important approach to the study of Political Science. This
approach mainly deals with the formal aspects of government and politics emphasizes the study of the
political institutions and structures. Thus, the institutional approach is concerned with the study of the
formal structures like legislature, executive, judiciary, political parties, interest groups etc. The advocates
of this approach includes both ancient and modern political thinkers. Among the ancient thinkers Aristotle
is an important contributor to this approach while the modern thinkers include James Bryce, Bentley,
Walter Bagehot, Harold Laski, etc.

Legal Approach: This approach regards the state as the fundamental organization for the creation and
enforcement of laws. Therefore, this approach is concerned with the legal process, legal bodies or
institutions, justice and independence of judiciary. The advocates of this approach are Cicero, Jean Bodin,
Thomas Hobbes, Jeremy Bentham, John Austin, Dicey and Sir Henry Maine.

Criticism of Traditional approach.

The various traditional approaches to the study of politics and political system have been criticized for
being normative. These approaches were idealistic also, as their concern went beyond how and why
political events happen to what ought to happen. In a similar vein, the traditional approaches had been
criticized for taking library sources as the ultimate for its research. Critics maintained that the actual
laboratory of the political scientist is the outside world of public life, it is there that they must be opened
at first hand

Q. Discuss Behavioral approach and its criticism.

Salient Features of Behaviouralism:

David Easton has pointed out certain salient features of behaviouralism which are regarded as its
intellectual foundations. These are:

Regularities: This approach believes that there are certain uniformities in political behaviour which can be
expressed in generalizations or theories in order to explain and predict political phenomena. In a particular
situation the

Page 8 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

Political behaviour of individuals may be more or less similar. Such regularities of behaviour may help the
researcher to analyze a political situation as well as to predict the future political phenomena. Study of
such regularities makes Political Science more scientific with some predictive value.

Verification: The behaviouralists do not want to accept everything as granted. Therefore, they emphasize
testing and verifying everything. According to them, what cannot be verified is not scientific.

Techniques: The behaviouralists put emphasis on the use of those research tools and methods which
generate valid, reliable and comparative data. A researcher must make use of sophisticated tools like
sample surveys, mathematical models, simulation etc.

Quantification: After collecting data, the researcher should measure and quantify those data.

Values: The behaviouralists have put heavy emphasis on separation of facts from values. They believe that
to do objective research one has to be value free. It means that the researcher should not have any
preconceived notion or a biased view.

Systematization: According to the behaviouralists research in Political Science must be systematic. Theory
and research should go together.

Pure Science: Another characteristic of behaviouralism has been its aim to make Political Science a “pure
science”. It believes that the study of Political Science should be verified by evidence.

Integration: According to the behaviouralists, Political Science should not be separated from various other
social sciences like history, sociology and economics etc. This approach believes that political events are
shaped by various other factors in the society and therefore, it would be wrong to separate Political
Science from other disciplines.

Thus, with the emergence of behaviouralism a new thinking and new method of study were evolved in the
field of Political Science. Therefore, we can list the merits of behavioural approach as follows:

It attempts to make Political Science scientific and brings it closer to the day to day life of the individuals.

Behaviouralism has first talked about bringing human behaviour into the arena of Political Science and
thereby makes the study more relevant to the society.

This approach helps in predicting future political events.

The behavioural approach has been appreciated by different political thinkers for its merits as mentioned
above. However, the Behavioural approach has been faced with various criticisms for its ‘mad craze’ for
scienticism also. The main criticisms leveled against this approach are mentioned below:

This has been criticized for its dependence on techniques and methods ignoring the subject matter.

Page 9 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

The advocates of this approach were wrong when they said that human beings behave in similar ways in
similar circumstances.

Besides, it is a difficult task to study human behaviour and to get a definite result.

Most of the political phenomena are unquantifiable. Therefore it is always difficult to use scientific method
in the study of Political Science.

Moreover, the researcher being a human being is not always value neutral as believed by the
behaviouralists.

Chapter 3. State
Q. What do you mean by the term state or Define state. Discuss the essential elements of state

The term state may means condition of health or economic condition. The term is sometimes loosely used
by people to mean states of India, or "the United States of America". Sometimes it means 'nation' or
'society' or 'government' or 'country'. These uses of the term are not correct at all from the scientific point,
of view. It has in fact, a specific meaning which is completely different from its various uses noted above.

Page 10 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

Different scholars have defined state diffidently according to their individual view point. Some of the
important definitions of the state are mentioned below.

Woodrow Wilson defines "state as a group of people organized for law within a definite ternary." Burgess
defines state as "a particular portion of mankind viewed as organized unity."

Bluntschil says that; "the state is a combination or association of men in the form of Government and
governed, on a definite territory, united together into a moral organized masculine personality, more
shortly person of definite territory."

Prof. Laski defines state as "a territorial society divided into Government and subjects claiming with its
allotted physical area of supremacy over all other institutions.

J.W. Garner gives a very comprehensive definition of the state. He holds the view that the state as a
concept of political science and public law, is a community of persons, more or less numerous,
permanently occupying a definite portion of territory, independent, or nearly so, of external control and
possessing an organized government to which the great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience."
It-is considered to be the best definition of the state. It ran be summed up as "the state is a collection of
human beings occupying a definite territory under an organized government and is subject to no outside
control."

The above mentioned definitions of a state reveal four characteristics or elements. They are- (a)
population, (b) territory, (c) organization or government and (d) sovereignty. A state cannot be formed at
all in the absence to any one of these characteristics.

Elements of State

(1) Population: The most basic characteristic of the state is population. As a human organization the
state cannot be formed without some people. A desert in which human beings do not live cannot be
regarded as a state. However, there is no limit prescribed as to the size of population.

For an ideal state, it should be 5,000 and, Aristotle thinks that it should be 10,000 minimum and 100,000
maximum. In modern times, the maximum and minimum size of population has not been prescribed. It
means that there is no hard and fast rule about the size of the population of the state. In fact, population
varies from few thousands as in case of Monacol, Guatemala and Leech Tenstein to the millions as in China
and India. Although the modern tendency is in favour of large population of state, it is unwise to have, a
very large population when its resources are scarce.

(2) Territory: The second characteristic of the state is territory or a fixed geographical area on the
earth. In the absence of a fixed territory, a state cannot be constituted. As for example, the nomadic tribes
like Gipsies and others cannot form a state of their own owing to the absence of a fixed territory, to reside
in.

Similarly, the Jews did not from a state till, they definitely settled down in Israel in 1948. Like population,
there is no limit set for the territory of a state. It may vary from a few square miles as in the case of
Page 11 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

Monacol and few million square miles as in the Soviet Union and the United States. In the modern world
today, small states as well as big states exist. From the administrative, point of view small states are always
better than big states but from the point of view of defence, they are not good all.

(3) Government: The state must possess an organized Government. It is the machinery through
which the state must exercise its supreme power. It constitutes the brain of the state. A state cannot be
thought of without some sort of Government. The state performs its various functions through the
Government. J.W. Gamer says, Government is the agency or machinery through which common policies
are determined and by which common affairs are regulated and common interests are promoted."

(4) Sovereignty: The fourth and the most important element, or characteristic of the state is
sovereignty. Sovereignty means supreme power or ultimate authority against which there can be no
appeal. Externally, the state claims final and absolute authority. It is independent of any foreign control.
Internally, the state is supreme over all of its citizens and associations within its jurisdiction. All the
individual within the state must submit to its will obediently.

Q. Distinguish between state and govt. State and association, State and society.

Difference between state and govt.

1. The Stale has four elements like population, territory. Government and sovereignty. Government
is a narrow concept and it is an element of the State. It is rightly said the State is an organic concept in
which the government is a part. Willoughby writes. "By the term government is designated the
organization of the State machinery through which is designated the organization of the State machinery
through which its purposes are formulated and executed'". Government is an agent of the State. That is
why in a democracy, it is considered as servant and the State as master. Government is compared with
the brain of the living organism; what the brain is to the man. The government is to the State.

2. The State is more or less permanent and continues from time immemorial. But the government is
temporary. It changes frequently. A government may come and go, but the State continues for ever. Death
of a ruler or the overthrow of a government in general elections does not mean the change of the State.

If the Janata Government replaces the Congress Government, it involves no fundamental changes in the
structure of the State of India.

3. The State is generally composed of all citizens but all of them are not members of the government.
The government consists of only a few selected citizens. The organ of the government consists of only a
few selected citizens. The organs of the government are executive, legislature and judiciary. The few
selected persons will run these three organs of the government. Thus, the State is a much broader
organization than the government. Membership of the State is compulsory but not that of the
government.

Page 12 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

4. The State possesses sovereignty. Its authority is absolute and unlimited. Its power cannot be taken
away by any other institution. Government possesses no sovereignty, no original authority, but only
derivative powers delegated by the State through its constitution. Powers of government are delegated
and limited.

5. The State is an abstract concept whereas government is a concrete one. Nobody sees the State
and the State never acts. The government is a physical manifestation and it acts for the State. It consists
of a definite group of persons who can be seen and known. It is a tangible organization which can be seen
and questioned.

6. All States are identical in character and nature. Whether big or small, the characteristics of the
State do not undergo changes. But governments are of different types and they may vary from the State
to the. State Various political scientists, have given different classifications of government. Aristotle had
classified government into monarchy, aristocracy and democracy Marriot has classified government into
parliamentary or presidential and unitary or federal. Thus, there is no uniform pattern of government. But
the State is a universal institution having one single form with its four essential characteristics.

7. Lastly the citizens possess rights to go against, government and not against the State. The State
only acts through the government and the government may commit mistakes and not the State. Thus, the
citizens have only rights to go against the government. Moreover, the State consists of a the citizens, the
citizens go against the State, it will mean to go against themselves. This is an impossible proposition. The
State is therefore, and indestructible union of citizens having the chief characteristic of permanence and
continuity. Government is only a part of the State.

Difference between state and association.

1. State is the Sovereign organisation. Associations are Non-sovereign organsiations of people:

State possesses sovereignty. It has supreme power over the people. It can use force for securing
compliance of the people to its laws and policies. All persons and groups living in the territory of a State
accept the sovereignty of the State and obey its laws.

Any one refusing to do so is punished by the State, e. On the other hand, an association has no power to
get its orders obeyed by force. It cannot use force against its members. If any member disobeys the rules
of association, it can, at the most terminate the membership of the defaulting member.

2. The State has wider objectives and Association narrower: The State has wider objectives while
an association has a narrow and limited objective. The State maintains peace and order and along with it
tries to promote economic, moral, cultural and social welfare of the people. State acts for the promotion
of welfare of all its people. The scope of its functions is very vast.

As against it, every association is organised to serve a limited set of objectives. Some associations have
just one objective. Further each association is concerned only with the promotion of the interests of its
members. .

Page 13 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

3. Citizenship of the State is Compulsory but membership of each Association is Voluntary: The
membership of the State is compulsory… Each person becomes the citizen of his State right at the time of
his birth and remains so all his life. If he ceases to be the citizen of a State, he has to become a citizen of
another State. On the other hand, the membership of an association is voluntary. No one can be forced
to become a member of an association. Anyone can withdraw from the membership of an association at
any time.

4. The State can impose Taxes, and not an Association. The State requires finances to run
administration: It collects revenue by imposing taxes upon the people. No person can refuse to pay the
taxes imposed by the State. If any person fails to do so, the State can use force to collect the taxes. An
association also requires finances to fulfil its objectives, but it cannot impose any tax for this purpose. An
association can collect only membership fee or voluntary contributions. No association can use force for
collecting its funds or subscriptions.

5. One person can become a member of only one State but of several Associations: An individual
can be, at one time a citizen of only one state. Normally he acquires this citizenship/membership by birth.
. He cannot simultaneously become a citizen of any other State. If he desires to get a citizenship of another
State, he has to leave the citizenship of his Parent State. However, any person can become a member of
as many associations as he may deem fit.

At a time he can be a member of an entertainment club, a religious association, a trade union and a
political party. He is not required to leave the membership of one association for becoming a member
other associations.

6. State is essentially a sovereign territorial entity; an Association may or may not be territorial:
Territory is an essential element of every State. Each State has a definite and fixed territory, While State
is the sovereign institution of all the people, an association is a voluntarily organised non-sovereign
organisation which always remains and works under the laws of the State. Territory is not essential for an
association. Associations are mostly non-territorial.

7. Only one State but many Associations can be there in one Territory: Within a definite territory
only one State can live. When the territory of a state gets divided in two parts, two separate States come
into existence. Two States in a single territory are inconceivable. Against this, several associations
simultaneously exist in one territory at any given time. In fact, there are a large number of associations
continuously working within the territory of each State.

8. The State is the national community of its people while Associations can be local, regional,
national or international: The State has a national status. Each nation has a State. Associations can be
local or national or regional and even international in organisation. Entertainment clubs are almost always
local. The United Nations and International Red Cross Society are international associations.

9. The State is permanent and Associations are temporary: The State is permanent whereas
associations always come and go. The chief element of the State is its permanence. The objectives which
a State seeks to fulfil are never-ending objectives. Associations are formed for the fulfilment of particular

Page 14 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

objectives. These stay as long as these continue to fulfil their objectives. These get dissolved after securing
their objectives. Associations are often temporary. These can even get dissolved before accomplishing
their objectives.

10. The State as sovereign state is Superior to all Associations: The State is superior to all associations
due to its sovereignty. Associations always function under the State. The State can regulate and control
the functioning of every association existing in its territory. Every association always exists and works on
the basis of the laws of the State.

Thus, there are several well-recognised differences between the State and an Association. State is the
sovereign community of all the people who live in the territory of the state. An association is a
nonsovereign organisation of only some people. It is specially organised for serving a particular need or
some needs. Associations always work under the laws of their respective States.

Difference between State and Society

(1) Society is wider in scope than State: Society is a very broad and comprehensive organisation of
human beings. It is formed by all types of relations (social, economic, cultural, political, moral, religious,
and others) that emerge and develop among the people who are members of the society.. As against this,
State is only a political institution or organisation. It is concerned primarily with the exercise of power in
society. State constitutes the sovereign power-system of the Society.

(2) Society is prior to State: Society is rooted in human nature. As social animals people naturally
enter into social relationships and form society. The birth of society took place in the earliest period of
history. State also has a very long history behind it and yet, everyone agrees, it came after the birth of
society. The need for protecting the social relationships is the need for law and order led to the birth of
the State. State had its birth after the evolution of society into a territorially settled society of people.

(3) State is a politically organised unity of the people; Society is a natural unity of people bound
together in social relationships: Society includes both organised and un-organised groups of people, their
activities and relationships. It consists of the vast network of all human relationships in society. . State is
a politically organised community of people living on a definite portion of territory and characterised by
the exercise of sovereignty over the people. State is the organised political community of the people of a
society.

(4) Government is the agency of the State; Society has no formal organised agent: State acts
through its government. Government is the agent of the State. It exercises the sovereignty of the State. .
Society has no agent or agency. It is a self-regulating system of relationships. It functions naturally on the
basis of its customs, traditions, usages and naturally evolved moral codes of conduct. Society lacks a
formal organisation.

(5) Sovereignty belongs to State and not to Society: Sovereignty is the most essential property and
the hallmark of the State. State alone exercises supreme power over all its citizens and their institutions.

Page 15 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

It is the law and order-maintaining institution of Society. Its laws bind all the members of the Society.
Society is a system of social relations.

(6) Territory belongs to State and not to the Society: State is a territorial entity. Definite territory is
an essential element of the State. Society has no territory. Even vagabonds bound by social ties constitute
a society, non-residents Indian who have got the citizenships of other States continue to members of
Indian society.

(7) Society is concerned with both internal and external human behaviour, State is concerned with
external aspects of human behaviour: State is concerned with external human behaviour. Its laws lay
down rules which regulate the external behaviour of the people and their groups, institutions, and
organisations. State uses its coercive power on each such person/group/institution which commits any
breach of law.

In contrast, the society is concerned with all aspects of human behaviour and relations in society. Social
customs and traditions, and rules of morality cover all types of social relations at all levels—individual,
family, community, neighbourhood, regional and national.

(8) Sociology studies Society and Political Science studies State: From our point of view society i.e.
social relations constitute the object of study in Sociology whereas State and political relations are the
objects of study in of Political Science. Since all political relations and institutions are parts of the social
system/society, Sociology is also interested in these.

Likewise, Political Science even while studying State and political relations also needs some knowledge of
all social relations. Both Political Science and Sociology are closely related social sciences. Thus, there are
clear-cut and identifiable differences between State and Society. But both are deeply inter-related.

State always works for securing laws, order and security in the Society. Its power regulates all social
relations likewise social relations always have a deep and big impact upon political relations. Caste groups,
communities, religious groups, family, customs, traditions, ways of social life, ethnic relations, and the like
are all important factors of Politics. Hence, both State and Society are closely related and yet quite
different from each other.

Chapter 4. Origin of the State

Q. Explain the social contract theory regarding the origin of state. What are the defects of this theory.

One of the most important theories of the relation between individual and society is the social contact
theory. This theory holds that the society is an artificial phenomenon. People lived independently of one
another without any reciprocal relation. At that time they thought that they are self-sufficient to run their
life. But in due course they come into contact with one another to form a society for their personal
advantage. So, the emergence of society is a mechanical process of individuals coming together. The

Page 16 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

advocates of the social contact theory are: Thomas Hobbes, Rousseau and John Locke. We will now discuss
their respective philosophers’ viewpoints one by one.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679): Hobbes in his book Leviathan writes that man is selfish, quarrelsome, and
aggressive. He is egoistic in nature. As a result, he thinks to be perfect whatever he performs. So, his selfish
nature is the root cause of the conflict among them. Hobbes writes that- the life of man is solitary, poor,
nasty, brutish, and short. It indicates that nature is a state of war. Because people want to run their life
independently without coming into contact with other fellows. That is why, in order to safeguard their
life, they come into a contact with one another. As a result the concept of society comes into light.

John Locke (1632-1704): John Locke holds that the state of nature is against the state of war which is
upheld by Hobbes. Rather, it is a state of peace and good will. It is not held that man is independent of
nature. The state of nature is governed by the law of nature, which is not challenged by man. So, people
are subordinate to the law of nature. That is why, it is not the like Hobbes’ view of contact. Like Locke,
Hobhouse (1588-1679) also states that everyone is free and born equal in society. So, people came into
contact to form a society which removes the crude state of nature, and formed a civil society. After the
formation of the civil society people entered into another contact and formed a government to make and
enforce laws for the welfare of all.

J.J. ROUSSEAU (1712-1778): Rousseau holds that the state of nature was mutual good-will and happiness.
But in due course the growth of population and the desire to acquire property on the part of the people
became the principal cause of conflict and collision among people. Therefore, in order to free themselves
from such conflict and collision people came into contact to defend their property and security. The
contact was made not just to protect property and security only. The contact was also formed for
cooperation, co-ordination and mutual harmony among the people so that people could come into
contact easily. So, the main purpose of the contact was to generate a general will so that mutual harmony
or social unity would emerge. In this way the concept of society came into existence.

Adam Smith, a famous economist, holds the view that people came into contact in order to regulate the
mutual economy. So, his view is that society is an artificial procedure made by man.

Criticism of the Social Contact theory: Although the advocates view differently in order to explain the
theory, still it can be asserted that this theory is not satisfactory. This theory is based neither on historical
fact nor on logical truth. The view that man can live apart from society (man precedes society) cannot be
accepted, because man is a social being. Again the thought of the state of nature prior to the socialization
process in the context of society cannot be easily accepted. We cannot by evidence show that society
came into existence in order to protect property and to defend their security.

Secondly, the presupposition that the state of nature was selfish and brutal before the contract came into
existence cannot be accepted without reservation. Because man is neither absolutely selfish nor
absolutely unselfish. We cannot ignore the fact that man has both egoistic and altruistic nature.

Thirdly, this theory is not based on logical truth. Because the social contract presupposes the political
consciousness. But we cannot imagine the political consciousness in the state of nature. Therefore, the

Page 17 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

concept of contract cannot be presupposed before society came into existence. That is why the social
contract theory is not satisfactory.

Lastly, the social contract theory is nothing but an attempt of the thinkers to justify the relation between
individual and society. Although the reasons of contract presupposed by this theory cannot be accepted,
yet the supposition of contract for the emergence of society provides clues to the social thinkers to
critically discuss this theory.

Q. Discuss the theory of Divine origin and point out its limitation.

The theory of Divine Origin, though one of the earliest, has a simple explanation to offer. It is a theory of
political authority and not a theory of the origin of the State.

The State, its advocates maintain, was created by God and governed by His deputy or Vice-regent. It was
His will that men should live in the world in a state of political society and He sent His deputy to rule over
them.

The ruler was a divinely appointed agent and he was responsible for his actions to God alone. As the ruler
was the deputy of God, obedience to him was held to be a religious duty and resistance a sin. The
advocates of the Divine Origin Theory, in this way, placed the ruler above the people as well as law.

Nothing on earth could limit his will and restrict his power. His word was law and his actions were always
just and benevolent. To complain against the authority of the ruler and to characterise his actions as unjust
was a sin for which there was divine punishment.

The theory of the Divine Origin of the State is as old as Political Science itself. There is sufficient evidence
to prove now that early States were based on this conception and all political authority was connected
with certain unseen powers. The earliest ruler was a combination of priest and king or the magic man and
king.

State: The authority and reverence which a ruler commanded depended upon his position as a priest or a
magic man. Religion and politics were so inextricably mixed up in the primitive society that not a hazy line
of demarcation could be drawn between the two.

Even today, the State of Pakistan does not seem to draw a distinction between religion and politics. Sir
Mohammad Zafarullah Khan, the then Pakistan Foreign Minister, while speaking on the Objective
Resolution in the Pakistan Constituent Assembly in 1949, said: “Those who sought to draw a distinction
between the spheres of religion and politics as being mutually exclusive put too narrow a construction
upon the functions of religion.”

The abrogated Constitutions declared Pakistan an Islamic Republic to be governed with the Islamic
principles. President Zia-ul-Haq significantly modified the 1973 Constitution to bring it in conformity to
the injunctions of Islam.
Page 18 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

In addition to Islamic Arab States, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic Republic State of Bangladesh
and the Islamic State of Afghanistan are the most recent examples of theocratic States.

The theory that the State and its authority have a Divine Origin and sanction finds unequivocal support in
the scriptures of almost all religions in the world. In the Mahabharata, it is recounted that the people
approached God and requested him to grant them a ruler who should save them from the anarchy and
chaos prevailing in the state of nature. “Without a Chief, O Lord”, they prayed, “We are perishing. Give us
a Chief whom we shall worship in concert and who will protect us.”

The theory of Divine Origin, however, received a new impetus with the advent of Christianity. “Render
unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” said Jesus Christ, and Paul amplified this in his Epistle to the
Romans, which has been quoted by writers time and again in support of the theory of Divine Origin.

We are, thus, told, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God:
the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore, resisted the power, resisted the ordinance
of God: and they that resist shall receive themselves damnation.”

The theory of Divine Origin so enunciated, believed in and accepted, thus, implied:—

1. That God deliberately created the State and this specific act of His grace was to save mankind
from destruction.

2. That God sent his Deputy or Vice-regent to rule over mankind. The ruler was a divinely appointed
agent and he was responsible for his actions to God alone whose Deputy the ruler was. All were ordained
to submit to his authority and disobedience to his command was a sin for which there was divine
punishment.

The Divine Right of Kings: There were direct and precise instructions to the faithful. Although the Roman
Empire was a pagan empire, Paul had ordered Christians to accept its authority as derived from God and
thereby admitted that the State, whatever the personal morality of the monarch, was divinely ordained.

During the Middle Ages in Europe the theory of the Divine Origin of the State was transformed into the
doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings. The temporal authority, having emerged victorious over the spiritual
authority, claimed that it was a divine favour to the Vice-regents of divine authority. Even today the Queen
of Great Britain is a Queen “by the Grace of God”.

The Stuarts in England found refuge in the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings and its leading exponent
was James I. Sir Robert Filmer was its enthusiastic supporter. Bousset advocated it in France and supported
the despotism of Louis XIV. It was claimed that Kings ruled by divine right and the subjects had no recourse
against them.

“Kings”, wrote James I, “are breathing images of God upon earth” and disobedience to their commands
was disobedience to God. “As it is atheism and blasphemy to dispute what God can do, so it is presumption
and high contempt in a subject to dispute what a King can do, or to say that a King cannot do this or that.”

Page 19 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

Even rebellion in the cause of religion was deemed a sacrilege because, “the State of monarchy is the
Supremes thing upon earth; for Kings are not only God’s lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God’s
throne, but even by God himself they are called Gods.”

As men are children of God, so are men children of the King and they owe him an equal obedience, Without
a King there could be no civil society, as the people were a mere “heedless multitude” incapable of making
laws. All law proceeded from the King as the divinely instituted law-giver of his people.

The only choice for the people was submission to the authority of the King or complete anarchy. The King
could not be held answerable for his actions to human judgment. He was responsible to God alone. “A
bad King will be judged by God but he must not be judged by his subjects or by any human agency for
enforcing the law, such as the estates or the courts.” The law resided ultimately “in the breast of the King.”

The main points in the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings may, thus, be summed up:—

1. Monarchy is divinely ordained and the King draws his authority from God;

2. Monarchy is hereditary and it is the divine right of a King that it should pass from father to son;

3. The King is answerable to God alone; and

4. Resistance to the lawful authority of a King is a sin.

The theory of the Divine Right of Kings, originally used in the Middle Ages to serve as a bulwark against
the claims of the Church Fathers, was later used by Kings and their supporters to defend their existence
against the political consciousness of the people when the people claimed that ultimately power and
sovereign authority rested with them.

Evaluation of the Theory/ Criticism

That the State is divinely created does not find any place in the present political thought. The State is
essentially a human institution, and it comes into existence when a number of people occupying a definite
territory organise themselves politically for achieving common ends. The laws of the State are made by
men and enforced by them.

The State, therefore, originated in the bare needs of the life of man and continues in existence for the
satisfaction of those needs and aspirations for a good life. To accept it as the creation of God is to defy
nature itself and to exalt the State to a position above criticism and change.

The Divine Origin theory is dangerous as it justifies the arbitrary exercise of royal authority by holding that
authority has a religious sanction and origin, and Kings are the vicars of God. When the ruler is made
responsible for his actions to God alone and law is held to reside ultimately “in the breast of the King”, it
is tantamount to preaching absolutism and making the King a despot.

Page 20 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

Even if it be conceded that the King is the vice regent or deputy of God, then, how can the existence of a
bad King be justified? History abounds in examples of bad and vicious Kings. God personifies virtue, grace
and benevolence and so should be His deputy.

It is, accordingly, bad logic to accept the dogma of James I that “Kings are breathing images of God upon
earth.” Even in the scriptures the theory does not find unequivocal support. The Bible tells us, “Render
unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.” This saying of Christ
does not justify the Divine Origin of the State.

Finally, the theory does not consider any other form of government except monarchy and that, too,
absolute monarchy. Such a form of government is antagonistic to the democratic ideal which accepts
consent as the basis of the State.

The Divine Origin theory is dismissed as an explanation of the origin of the State. At the same time, the
theory has a certain value. We cannot ignore the part which religion played in the development of the
State. The early rulers combined unto themselves the authority and functions of a king and a priest. Law
had a religious sanction and “divine” or religious law appealed to primitive man more than human law.

Obedience to the State was deemed a religious duty and religious worship was supported by government.
Belief in a common religion was, thus, a great combining factor which welded the people in the pursuit of
common ends. “It taught men to obey” when they were “not yet ready to govern themselves.”

Finally, the theory of Divine Origin adds a moral tone to the functions of the State. “To regard the State as
the work of God is to give it a high moral status, to make it something which the citizen may revere and
support, something which he may regard as the perfection of human life.”-

The Divine Origin Theory and with that the Divine Right of Kings was discredited in the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries in the West and was replaced by the Social Contract Theory and Rousseau’s concept
of popular sovereignty. Thus, the ‘Voice of God’ gave place to ‘the voice of the people.’

Q. Discuss the theory of force with its limitation.

The Statement of the Theory: The theory of Force is another fallacious theory, but historically important,
which is offered as an explanation of the origin and meaning of the State.

There is an old saying that ‘war begets the king,’ and true to this maxim, the theory of Force emphasizes
the origin of the State in the subordination of the weak to the strong.

The advocates of the theory argue that man, apart from being a social animal, is bellicose by nature. There
is also a lust for power in him. Both these desires prompt him to exhibit his strength and in the early stages

Page 21 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

of the development of mankind a person physically stronger than the rest captured and enslaved the
weak.

He collected in this way a band of followers, fought with others, and subjugated the weak. Having
increased the number of his followers, over whom he exercised undisputed authority, he became a tribal
chief.

A clan fought against a clan and a tribe against a tribe. The powerful conquered the weak and this process
of conquest and domination continued till the victorious tribe secured control over a definite territory of
a considerable size under the sway of its tribal chief, who proclaimed himself the King.

Leacock gives a matter- of-fact explanation of the Force Theory when he says that “historically it means
that government is the outcome of human aggression, that the beginnings of the State are to be sought
in the capture and enslavement of man by man, in the conquest and subjugation of feebler tribes, and
generally speaking in the self-seeking domination acquired by superior physical force.

The progressive growth from tribe to kingdom and from kingdom to empire is but a continuation of the
same process.” The theory, in fine, tells us that the State is primarily the result of forcible subjugation
through long continued warfare among primitive groups and “historically speaking,” as Jenks says, “there
is not the slightest difficulty in proving that all political communities of the modem type owe their
existence to successful warfare.”

Once the State had been established, force, which had hitherto been utilised for subjugating others, was
used as an instrument for maintaining internal order and making it secure from any kind of external
aggression. But this alone was not sufficient.

Force was used as the sinews of war and power and in a bid for superiority, one State fought against
another, eliminating the weaker and only those survived which either could not be conquered, or no
venture was made to conquer them as they were comparatively powerful. The theory of Force, therefore,
traces the origin and development of the State to conquest and “justifies its authority by the proposition
that might is right.”

The theory has, thus, four implications. First, force is not only a historical factor, but is the present essential
feature of the State; secondly, that the States were born of force only; thirdly, that power is their
justification and raison d’etre; and, finally, that the maintenance and extension of power within and
without is the sole aim of the State

Criticism of the Theory:

Force, indeed, has played an important part in the origin and development of the State. Some of the
greatest empires of today have been established through ‘blood and iron.’

We may see even more of this ‘blood and iron’ in the days to come. Force is an essential element of the
State. Internally, the State requires force to ensure obedience to its commands.

Page 22 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

Externally, it is necessary to repel aggression and to preserve the integrity of the State. Without force no
State can exist and sovereignty of the State always rests ultimately on force. Kant said, “Even a population
of devils would find it to their advantage to establish a coercive State by general consent.”

But, all this does not sufficiently explain the origin of the State. Force is, no doubt, one of the factors which
contributed to the evolution of the State. It is, however, not the only one, nor the most important factor,
and the theory of force “errs in magnifying what has been only one factor in the evolution of society into
the sole controlling force.”

Force is, also, not the only basis of the State. Something other than force is necessary in binding the people
together. It is will, not force, which is the real basis of the State. Sheer force can hold nothing together
because “force always disrupts—unless it is made subservient to common will.”

Force we do need in maintaining the State, but its indiscriminate use cannot be permitted. It must be used
as a medicine and not a daily diet as force is the criterion of the State and not its essence. If it becomes
the essence of the State, the State will last so long as force can last. Indiscriminate use of force has always
been the forerunner of revolutions, overthrowing governments which rest on force.

Since the State is a permanent institution, only moral force can be its permanent foundation. T.H. Green
has aptly said that “it is not coercive power as such but coercive power exercised according to law, written
or unwritten, for maintenance of the existing rights from external or internal invasions that makes a
State.” Might with rights is as lasting as human minds on which it depends.

Moreover, the Theory of Force unduly emphasises the principle of the survival of the fittest. It means that
might is right and those who are physically weak should go to the wall. It is dangerous to employ such a
principle in the internal existence of the State. Might without right is antagonistic to individual liberty.

The State is duly bound to protect equally the weak and the strong and create equal opportunities for all.
Externally, if might is the supreme right, and the dispute as to what is right is decided by the arbitrament
of war, there can be no international peace. Every State will be at perpetual war with the rest.

This is a condition of chaos, pure and simple, endangering the peace and security of the world. The
attention and efforts of every State will be directed towards war-preparedness and to win the war, if it
comes. War, which is an alias for murder, glorifies brute force, suppressing the moral forces. This is the
mean self of man and not his real sell.

Q. What is Patriarchal and Matriarchal theory?

It is now universally accepted that the organization of the state began in the primitive family. The state is
an enlargement of the family, the view appears to be highly plausible because according to MacIver the I
family contains all the curbs and controls which continue the essence of I State.

Page 23 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

“Family has got all the essential characteristics of the State; its I members constitute population; its house
represents the territory; the head of the family symbolizes government; its freedom from interference
and sanctity of the household shows its sovereign character.

Many I political thinkers arc of the view that family lies at the foundation of a I modem state. It is the
matrix of the state. It is in the family that the first Lessons in discipline, adjustment and accommodation,
rights and duties, obligations and responsibilities, spirit of fellow feeling, love and sympathy are learnt.

Without this basic training good citizenry cannot be developed which is an essential requisite for the life
under State. There is however a great controversy as to who was the head of the family, the father or the
mother and from where the decent was traced in the primitive society Some believe that a patriarchal
family was the earliest social unit while others contend that a matriarchal family was the primary social
organization.

The Patriarchal Theory: Sir Henry Maine is the chief advocate of the patriarchal theory. He defines it as
theory of the origin of society in separate families, held together by the authority and protection of the
eldest male descendant. The patriarchal theory traces the origin of the state in a patriarchal family.

A patriarchal family is one in which descent is traced through males. Father or patriarch occupies a
dominant position in the family. All the members of the family pay due homage to him. His authority is
recognized by all of them. A patriarchal family, according to this theory, is the most ancient social
organization.

The primitive men were organized in patriarchal families. Such a family began to expand by the process of
marriages and re-marriage. It developed into 'Gen' or a household. A Gen expanded into a 'Clan'. A clan
expanded in to a 'Tribe'. All the members of the tribes were united by a sort of blood relationship.

The tribes united by ties of blood acted together for common purposes particularly in defending
themselves against the aggression of other tribes. This also necessitated the recognition of some common
authority which could maintain discipline among the tribes.

The influential member of the tribe came to be known as the tribal chief. A combination of the various
tribes resulted in a commonwealth and a commonwealth was a full fledged state. Maine traces the origin
of the state in the following words:

"The elementary group is the family connected by the common subjection to the highest male ascendant.
The aggregation of families forms the Gens or the houses. The aggregation of houses makes the tribe. The
aggregation of the tribes constitute the commonwealth.

According to Edward Jenks the patriarchal society which according to this theory was the foundation of
modern slate was characterized by three features, viz., male kinship, permanent marriages and paternal
authority. In other words the descent was traced through the father and not the mother.

Page 24 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

Permanent marriage implied that one man was permanently married to one or more women as patriarchal
society allowed both monogamy and polygamy. The eldest male member of the family had undisputed
control of life and death over all the members of the family

The theory also found its support, first of all, at the hands of Aristotle He held that "just as men and women
unite to form families, so many families unite to form villages and the union of many villages forms the
state which is a self-supporting unit".

The theory is further supported by historical evidence and scriptural account. The ancient Jews were a
nation of twelve tribes which trace their origin to the first father Jacob. In Rome there were three tribes
with I common origin and there was the "Patria Potestas" which recognized the unlimited authority of
father over the members of the family.

MATRIARCHAL THEORY: Morgan, Meclennan and Edward Jenks severely criticized the patriarchal theory.
According to them, patriarchal families were non existent in the primitive ages. A patriarchal family came
into existence only when the system of permanent marriage was established.

Permanent marriages were not found among the primitive people. There was a sort of sex anarchy among
them. Father was generally unknown. Kinship was traced through the mother. Hence, the ancient social
unit was not the patriarchal family, but the matriarchal one.

people in the primitive age were organized in tribes, hordes or bands. Edward Jenks illustrates this process
from his studies of primitive tribes in Australia. The Australian tribes, he says, were organized in some sort
of tribes known as totem group.

The totem groups were not organized on the basis of blood relationship but they were united by a
common symbol like a tree or an animal. People belonging to a totem will not inter-marry within the
totem. They would always marry the woman of another totem group.

Men of one totem group would marry all the women of their generation belonging to another totem
group. Thus the system of marriage would include polygamy as also polyandry. Kinship and paternity in
such cases cannot be determined. Maternity is a fact.

Edward Jenks points out that with the passage of time and beginning of pastoral stage in human
civilization, matriarchal society evolved into patriarchal one. In pastoral age, men recognized the value of
women's labor in tending sheep and cattle and so gradually realized the value of permanently retaining
women at home for the purpose and thus arose the institution of permanent marriage.

With the institution of permanent marriages, the permanent families were founded. It was in the pastoral
age again that the tribes broke up into clans which broke up into gens and finally gens broke up into
individual families. The prevalence of queen in Malabar and the power of princesses among the Marathas
in the past may be cited as evidence in favour of the matriarchal theory.

Page 25 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

Q. What is general will?

The concept of 'General Will' is the crux of Rousseau's political philosophy and his most important
contribution to political thought.

Sabine says, "The general will and the criticism of natural rights comprised everything of importance that
he had to say". According to Matey, it is 'his most distinctive contribution to political thought'.

The theory of 'General Will' is a plea for popular sovereignty, individual freedom and consent as basis of
political authority and sovereignty of state; it was a refutation of the theory of natural rights.

Rousseau accepts the theory of social contract as Hobbes and Locke had done earlier but obtains
conclusions altogether different from them. He tried to conciliate between individual freedom and state
authority- Individual was free in state of nature and could not divest himself of his liberty.

Here Rousseau introduces social contract through which individuals enter into the Commonwealth and
merge their will into the 'General Will' which is the concrete manifestation of sovereignty. By doing so he
enters the Commonwealth and yet remains free.

Common, wealth is a collectivity of the individuals and General Will is the will of the Commonwealth, of
which individual is a part and in the making of which individual will has participated. Thus while subject to
the General Will individual remains free since he obeys none else but himself.

To Rousseau the Commonwealth is an "association" not an "agnation" of individuals, a moral and

collective personality. He goes further to say, "Each of us puts his person and all his powers in common
under the specific direction of the general will, and in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as
the individual part of the whole".

Thus Rousseau argues that in this corporate capacity, the individual still obeys himself alone and remains
as free as before. The freedom of the; individual could not be impaired by joining the Commonwealth or
by obeying the General Will, the will of the Commonwealth, because the Commonwealth could have no
will or interest against the common interests of the individuals.

He further argues that since the General Will is the will of the community and wills always common good,
it is moral and absolute. To him, 'the General Will is always right and tends to the public advantage'.

The individual, thus, should be compelled to obey it, if he has an interest' different from the common
interest as expressed in the General Will. The individual, in being forced to obey the General Will, is being
made free. His immediate will may be selfish while the General Will is moral and wills good of all which
includes individual's good as well.

If individual was free, he would never will against common good and hence when he is forced to follow
common good as manifested in the General Will, he is being forced to be free.

Page 26 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

Thus Rousseau confers absolute powers on the state which embodies the General Will and makes
sovereignty, as Hobbes had done earlier, absolute, omnipotent, indivisible and inalienable. He says that
the community is the sole judge of what is good for the community and individual has no rights against
the community.

There could be no individual rights in defiance of general good. There could be no 'natural rights' against
the society or the commonwealth. He says, "the social contract gives the body politic absolute powers
over all its members" and that 'community is the sole judge of what is important'.

Hence the General Will (1) is will of the Commonwealth; (2) desires common good; (3) is moral; (4) is real
will of the individual; (5) is never in conflict with individual's interests; (6) is absolute because individual
has no rights against it; (7) is inalienable because it is the will of the collectivity and cannot be expressed
by anyone else; (8) and is infallible because it is never against common good.

Thus Rousseau conciliates between liberty and sovereignty and subordinates the individual com-pletely
to the state and General Will. Sovereignty is made absolute, inviolate, inalienable and sacred.

How to find the General Will?

The real paradox of General Will is that of eliciting it. How to find General Will? To Rousseau General Will
is not the totality of individual wills because individual's will has both common and selfish interests. It is
not the will of the majority because majority is a part of the whole and not the whole.

It is the will which "must both come from all and apply to all" and what makes it General is "less the
number of voters than the common interest uniting them". It may be registered by making difference of
individual wills cancelling each other.

The residue is the General Will because only common element in the individual wills would be left after
the selfish clement in each will conflict with and cancel the similar element in other individual wills. It is
thus the will of the people functioning as a corporate body.

Wayper says, "So much vagueness about something as important as finding of General Will is to be
regretted. Rousseau, who has told us so much about the General Will, has not told us enough; indeed, he
has left us in such a position that nobody can be sure what the General Will is on any particular question".

Criticism:

The theory of General Will has been subject to various criticisms some of which are stated below:

(1) This theory is based on the presumption of Social Contract. Society and state are not made by
contract but arc an evolution. Thus the very premises on which the theory of General Will is constructed
are faulty

(2) It is paradoxical to find out the General Will. Rousseau con-ceived a small city-state where all the
adults could participate in making the General Will.

Page 27 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

Today it is not possible to have such city-states or village communities; in fact, it was not possible even
during his own time.

Rousseau is against representative form of government. Genera] Will, he says, is inalienable and cannot
be represented except by the whole body politic. In modern states, representation is the only possible
method of government. In such states, majority represents the community. But Rousseau rejects the
majority's will as General Will and there could be no other method to discover it.

(3) It is held by Rousseau that 'General Will' always wills common good and is therefore moral and
absolute. This is a fallacious presumption.

No will can be made on a priori ground a moral will. The will of the Slate has to justify itself by its
performance and achievement. It is only an individual that can accord it morality if he adjudges its
achievement as moral.

(4) It is again a fallacious assumption that there is no conflict between common good and the good
of the individual. To subordinate the individual on a priori assumption to the society and the state is to
divest him of his personality; it is to install naked absolutism and decay all individual liberties and
freedoms. It denies fundamental rights, which are the crux of democratic theory of state.

(5) Sovereignty is neither absolute nor sacred as Rousseau defines it on the basis of his theory of
General Will. Sovereignty is limited by the purpose that it has to serve. Sovereignty exists because it is
needed for performance of the end of the state. Sovereignty is not an end but a means to that end.

(6) General Will or the will of corporate body politic is a myth. It does not exist. It is fictitious to accord
a personality or will to state, independent of that of the individual.

(7) To say that when individual is forced to obey the laws of the state he is being forced to be free
and to obey his own real will is extremely a paradoxical argument. A thief is punished by law but to say
that he willed his own punishment can only be a flight of imagination.

Q. Write a note on historical or evolutionary theory regarding origin of the state and state its criticism.

Various theories have been put forward to explain the origin of the state. Some philosophers assert that
the state is the result of social contract or an agreement between the people and the sovereign. There are
others who feel that it is the direct result of force.

There is yet another set of philosophers who contend that the state is a magnified image of the family. All
these theories, however, are maimed and fallacious and have little truth in them.

This led Garner to remark that the state is neither a handiwork of God, nor the result of a superior physical
force, nor the creation of a contract, nor a mere expansion of family. It is a slow process of growth and
evolution. The state did not come into existence abruptly.

Page 28 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

It has developed from its crude and simple form to the modern, complex structure slowly. In the words of
Leacock, "the state is a growth, an evolution, the result of a gradual process running through out all the
known history of man and receding into remote and unknown past."

To sum up, the origin of the state cannot be traced to a single factor of a definite period. The historical
theory regards the state as a product of slow historical evolution extending over a long period. Various
factors have contributed to its development. These may be discussed as follows:

1. Social instinct: Aristotle simply stated a fact when he remarked: "Man is by nature a social
animal." The germs of social life are laid in the very nature of man. It is this elemental instinct which
prompted primitive people to live together in groups.

The state is thus primarily based on the gregarious instinct of man. According to Aristotle, state is even
primary to family. Its origin lies in the basic instinct of sociability of man. State is thus natural outcome of
very social nature of man.

2. Kinship: The social instinct of man was supplemented by kinship or blood relationship. The earliest
human organizations were based on kinship or blood relationship. Blood relationship was the most
important bond of union among the primitive people.

It knit together clans and groups and gave them unity and cohesion. The people who had their origin in a
common ancestor lived together in separate social units. Those who could not establish any blood
relationship were treated as enemies. Even today, we see various castes and sub-castes.

In sociological sense they have their origin in common ancestor and caste is still known by the name of
that original ancestor.

There is a good deal of controversy among political thinkers as to what the form of social organization was
in the primitive ages. Certain philosophers assert that tribes and matriarchal families were the ancient
social organizations. Others contend that the most primary social group was a patriarchal family.

Regardless of this controversy Dr. Leacock remarked, "here it may be matriarchal family, there it may be
patriarchal family, but there is no denying the fact that the family is at basis of the state.

" Seeds of the state are found in rigid family discipline. It is in the family that a relationship between
command and obedience is established. A family represents the figure of a state in miniature. All the for
factors essential for the formation of the state are seen in their diminutive form in the family.

The members of the family constitute the population Home is the territory. The patriarch or the head of
the family forms the government with sovereign power over its members. Hence the justification of
Aristotle's remark "State is the magnified image of the family.

" The original family gradually expanded and developed into a household or a 'gen'. The gens by further
multiplications developed into clans and clans united to form tribes. The bond throughout was kinship

Page 29 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

and persons unconnected by blood relationship could not become members of a tribe unless as a special
case one was admitted by adoption.

In a tribe, the head of the oldest or the strongest clan became the ruler generally called the 'Chief and his
name became the symbol of 'kinship.' In the words of MacIver, 'Kinship created society and society at
length created the state.!

3. Religion: Religion has played a vital role in the process of the building up of the state. Religion gave
unity to the people both in the primitive and middle ages. As Gettle observes, "Kinship and religion were
simply two aspects of the same thing.

Common worship was even more essential than kinship subjecting the primitive man to authority and
discipline and to develop in him a keen sense of social solidarities and cohesion." Those outside were
regarded as stranger and even as enemies. People were thus united together under the authority of the
same religious sovereign.

Religion appeared in the world in different forms at different stages of history. In the very early times, the
prevalent religion of mankind was animism—worship of animals, trees and stones. It was later
supplemented with ancestral worship. People descending from the same ancestors were thus united
together.

Later, religion appeared in the form of Nature worship. The Primitive men could not understand such
natural phenomena as storms, thunder and lightning, or the change of seasons! or the mystery of birth
and death. They had implicit faith in the spirits of the nature and the spirits of the dead. They were afraid
of the forces of nature. They worshipped them out of awe and reverence.

In subsequent ages, magician kings made their appearance. The magicians pretended that they could
propitiate the evil spirit. Thus taking advantage of the fear, ignorance and superstition of the fellowmen,
the magicians established their authority. In course of time, the magician kings gave way to priest kings.

The priest kings remained popular till late in the middle ages. Religion came to be organized as a regular
institution. The Popes dominated the Christian world, the Caliphs established their authority over the
Muslim world, etc.

Whatever the form of religion, there is no denying the fact that religion gave unity to the people and thus
virtually helped in the process of state building.

4. Force: Force also played an important part in the development of the state. In primitive ages,
might was the supreme right. A powerful person would rally round him a number of warriors and attack
a certain territory and would establish his domination over it. History is replete with records showing that
big states were formed by occupation and conquest through force.

The application of force also gave territoriality to modern states. War and migration were important
factors responsible for the establishment of various states. The demand for constant warfare often led to
the rise of permanent headman or chief.
Page 30 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

When a tribe was threatened by danger of war, it was driven by necessity to appoint a leader if there was
none. The continuation of war was conducive to the establishment of permanent leadership.

When a leader established his authority over a certain territory by conquest and over the people with
whom he had no blood relationship, all those who lived in that territory became his subjects. Kinship
remained no longer a bond of unity.

5. Economic: Man has unlimited wants. He cannot satisfy them alone. He has to depend upon others
to satisfy his needs. So there is always give and take in society. Man is both selfish and selfless.

There are always disputes. State is born to regulate the economic relations between man and man.

6. Political consciousness: The sixth factor which contributed to the growth and development of the
state was the slow rise of political consciousness. It implies the recognition of certain ends of political
consciousness. It implies the recognition of certain ends to be attained through political organization.

At first the state came into existence merely as an idea, that is, it appeared in a subjective form, without
being a physical fact. In course of time, the supreme importance of maintaining peace and order within
the community and defending the country against any external aggression was felt. It is here that political
consciousness appears in the real form.

As Kilson put it, "The need for order and security is an ever present factor; man knows instinctively that
he can develop the best of which he is capable only by some form of political organization.

At the beginning, it might well be that the political consciousness was really political unconsciousness but
just as the forces of nature operated long before the discovery of the law of gravitation, political
organization really rested on the community of minds, unconscious, dimly conscious or fully conscious of
certain moral ends present throughout the whole course of development.'

With the growth of civilization and march of time, man has added to his needs. He requires the
cooperation of a large number of persons for the satisfaction of his wants. This, too, is no less an incentive
for leading a regulated life in his state.

We may conclude with Burgess that the state is the gradual and continuous development of human society
out of a grossly imperfect beginning through crude but improving forms of manifestation towards a perfect
and universal organization of mankind.

The historical theory of the origin of the state contains the best elements of the other theories of origin
of the state. It recognizes the merit of the theory of Divine Origin in as much as human nature has a
tendency towards political existence.

It also takes into account the idea of the force theory that force in one form or another has been
responsible for the establishment of states. The Social Contract Theory suggests that consent on the part
of the individual in the form of political consciousness has played an important part in the organization of
the state.

Page 31 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

The Patriarchal and the Matriarchal theories suggest that kinship played a prominent role in the evolution
of the state.

Chapter 5 : Sovereignty
Q. Define Sovereignty and enumerate essential attributes of sovereignty.

(1) “That characteristic of the state by virtue of which it cannot be legally bound except by its own or
limited by any power other than itself. -Jellineck

(2) “Sovereignty is the sovereign political power vested in him whose acts are not subject to any other and
whose will cannot be over-ridden”. -Grotius

(3) “Sovereignty is the supreme power of the State over citizens and subjects unrestrained by law”. -Bodin

(4) Sovereignty is “the common power of the state, it is the will of the nation organised in the state, it is
right to give unconditional orders to all individuals in the territory of state”. -Duguit (Droit
Constitutional Vol. 1, page 113)

Page 32 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

(5) Burgess characterised sovereign is the “Original, absolute, unlimited power over the individual subjects
and over all associations of subjects”.

(6) “Sovereignty is that power which is neither temporary nor delegated, nor subject to particular rules
which it cannot alter, not answerable to any other power over earth”. -Pollock

(7) “Sovereignty is the supreme will of the state”. -Willoughby

(8) “Sovereignty is the daily operative power of framing and giving efficacy to the laws”. -Woodrow Wilson

(9) Sovereignty is “the supreme, irresistible, absolute, uncontrolled authority in which the ‘jurist
summiimperi’ reside”. -Blackstone

(10) The sovereignty is “legally supreme over an individual or group, says Laski, he possesses “supreme
coercive power”.

According to Dr. Garner, following are the characteristics or attributes of Sovereignty:

(1) Permanence: Permanence is the chief characteristics of sovereignty. Sovereignty lasts as long as an
independent state lasts. The death of the king, the overthrow of the government and the addiction of
power does not lead to the destruction of sovereignty.

We should keep in mind the basic fact that the king or the ruler exercises sovereign power on behalf of
the state and, therefore, sovereignty lasts as long as the state lasts. The death of the king or the overthrow
of the government does not affect sovereignty. This is the reason why people in England used to say “The
King is dead, long live the King”.

Dr. Garner has beautifully summed up this idea in the following manner:

“Sovereignty does not cease with the death or temporary dispossession of a particular bearer or the
reorganisations of the state but shifts immediately to a new bearer, as the centre of gravity shifts from
one part of physical body to another when it undergoes external change”.

(2) Exclusiveness: By exclusiveness we mean that there can be two sovereigns, in one independent state
and if the two sovereigns exist in a state, the unity of that state will be destroyed. There cannot exist
another sovereign slate within the existing sovereign state.

(3) All Comprehensiveness: The State is all comprehensive and the sovereign power is universally
applicable. Every individual and every association of individual is subject to the sovereignty of the state.
No association or group of individuals, however, rich or powerful it may be, can resist or disobey the
sovereign authority.

Sovereignty makes no exception and grants no exemption to anyone. It grants exemptions only in the case
of foreign embassies and diplomatic representatives of foreign countries on the reciprocal basis. This does

Page 33 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

not in any way restrict the sovereignty of the state in the legal sense. The state can abolish and withdraw
the diplomatic privileges granted to foreigners.

(4) Inalienability: Inalienability is another characteristic of sovereignty. Sovereignty is inalienable. By

inalienability we mean that the State cannot part with its sovereignty. In other words, we can say that
the sovereign does not remain the sovereign or the sovereign state, if he or the state transfers his or
its sovereignty to any other person or any other state.

Sovereignty is the life and soul of the state and it cannot be alienated without destroying the state itself.
Lieber has very aptly remarked in this connection: “Sovereignty can no more be alienated than a tree can
alienate its right to sprout or a man can transfer his life or personality to another without self-destruction”.

(5) Unity: Unity is the very spirit of Sovereignty. The sovereign state is united just as we are united.

(6) Imperscriptibility: By imprescriptibility, we mean that if the sovereign does not exercise his
sovereignty for a certain period of time, it does not lead to the destruction of sovereignty. It lasts as
long as the state lasts.

(7) Indivisibility: Indivisibility is the life-blood of sovereignty. Sovereignty cannot be divided state,
American statesman Calhoun has declared, “Sovereignty is an entire thing; to divide it is to destroy it.
It is the supreme power in a state and we might just well divide it is to destroy it.

It is the supreme power in a state and we might just well speak of half square or half a triangle as half a
sovereignty”. Gettell, has also very aptly remarked in this regard, “If sovereignty is not absolute, no state
exists. If sovereignty is divided, more than one state exists”.

(8) Absoluteness: Sovereignty is absolute and unlimited. The sovereign is entitled to do whatsoever he
likes. Sovereignty is subject to none.

(9) Originality: By originality we mean that the sovereign wields power by virtue of his own right and not
by virtue of anybody’s mercy.

After closely studying and carefully examining the definitions of sovereignty, given above, we arrive at the
conclusion that sovereignty is the supreme political power of the state. It has two aspects: internal and
external. Sovereignty is an unlimited power and it is not subject to any other authority.

Q. Write down meaning and aspects of sovereignty.

Meaning: The term “Sovereignty” has been derived from the Latin word “Superanus” which means
supreme or paramount. Although the term “Sovereignty” is modern yet the idea of “Sovereignty” goes
back to Aristotle who spoke of the “supreme power of the state”. Throughout the middle Ages the Roman
jurists and the civilians kept this idea in their mind and frequently employed the terms “Summa” potestas
and “Plenitudopotestat s” to designate the supreme power of the state.

Page 34 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

The terms “Sovereign” and “Sovereignty” were first used by the French jurists in the fifteenth century and
later they found their way into English, Italian and German political literature. The use of the term
“Sovereignty” in Political Science dates back to the publication of Bodin’s “The Republic” in 1576.

“The word sovereign”, says J.S. Roucek and others, “entered the vocabulary of political theory from the
feudal order, wherein it designated a relationship between persons. The term sovereign had been
applicable to any feudal overlord with authority over subjects in his own dominions”.

Two Aspects of Sovereignty:

There are two aspects of sovereignty: internal sovereignty and external sovereignty. Internal Sovereignty
means some persons, assembly of group of persons in every independent state have the final legal
authority to command and enforce obedience.

This sovereignty exercises its absolute authority over all individuals or associations of the individuals within
the state. Professor Harold Laski has very aptly remarked in this connection: “It issues orders to all men
and all associations within that area; it receives orders from none of them. It will is subject to no legal
limitation of any kind. What it proposes is right by mere announcement of intention”.

We mean, by External Sovereignty, that the State is subject to no other authority and is independent of
any compulsion on the part of other States. Every independent state reserves the authority to renounce
trade treaties and to enter into military agreements. Each estate is independent of other states.

Every independent State is at liberty to determine its foreign policy and to join any bloc of power it likes.
Any other state does not reserve any right to interfere with the external matter of an independent state.
Thus, by external sovereignty we mean that every state is independent of other states.

In other words, External Sovereignty means national freedom. Professor Laski has very correctly observed
in this regard, “The modern state is a sovereign state. It is, therefore, independent in the face of other
communities.

It may infuse its will towards them with a substance which need not be affected by the will of any external
power”. This statement of Professor Laski makes it very clear that the State possesses both external and
internal sovereignty.

Q. Distinguish between 1. Legal and political sovereignty, 2. De jure and De facto sovereignty. Real and
Titular sovereignty

(1) Nominal arid Real Sovereignty:

In ancient times many states had monarchies and their rulers were monarchs. They wielded absolute
power and their senates and parliaments were quite powerless. At that time they exercised real
sovereignty. Therefore, they are regarded as real sovereigns. For example, Kings were sovereigns and
hence they were all powerful in England before fifteenth century, in U.S.S.R. before eighteenth and

Page 35 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

nineteenth centuries and in France before 1789. The state of affairs changed in England after the Glorious
Revolution in 1688.

Now the King is like a rubber- stamp. The British king has a right to encourage, warn and advise his
Ministers or seek any information about the administration. Except these ordinary powers, all other
powers of the British king are wielded by his Ministers.

Lowell has summed up the position of the British Sovereign in these words: “According to the early history
of the constitution, the ministers were the counsellors of the king. It was for them to advise and for him
to decide. Now the parts are almost reversed. The king is consulted but the ministers decide”.

(2) Legal Sovereignty:

Legal sovereignty is that authority of the state which has the legal power to issue final commands. It is the
authority of the state to whose directions the law of the State attributes final legal force. In every
independent and ordered state there are some laws which must be obeyed by the people and there must
be a power to issue and enforce these laws. The power which has the legal authority to issue and enforce
these laws’ is legal sovereignty.

In England, the King-in-Parliament is sovereign. According to Dicey, “The British Parliament is so

omnipotent legally speaking…. that it can adjudge an infant of full age, it may attain a man of treason after
death; it may legitimize an illegitimate child or if it sees fit, make a man a judge in his own case”.

The authority of the legal sovereign is absolute and law is simply the will of the sovereign. Since the
authority of the sovereign is unrestrained, reserves the legal right to do whatever he desires. It is the legal
sovereign who grants and enforces all the rights enjoyed by the citizens and, therefore, there cannot be
any right against him. The legal sovereign is, thus, always definite and determinate.

Only the legal sovereign has the power to declare in legal terms the will of the stale. The authority of the
sovereign is absolute and supreme. This authority may reside either in the monarch or in an absolute
monarchy or it may reside in the body of persons.

(3) Political Sovereignty:

Dicey believes that “behind the sovereign which the lawyer recognises, there is another sovereign to
whom the legal sovereign must bow. Such sovereign to whom the legal sovereign must bow is called
political sovereign. In every Ordered state the legal sovereign has to pay due attention to the political
sovereign.

According to Professor Gilchrist, “The political sovereign means the sum-total of influences in a State
which lie behind the law. In modern representative government we might define it roughly as the power
of the people”. In other words by political sovereign in the representative democracies, we mean the
whole mass of the people or the electorate or the public opinion. But at the same time, it cannot be
emphatically asserted that political sovereignty can definitely be identified with the whole mass of the
people, the electorate or the public opinion. Political sovereignty is a vague and indeterminate term.
Page 36 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

Political sovereignty rests in that class of people under whose influence the mass of the people is or the
people are. Political sovereignty rests in the electorate, in the public opinion and in all other influences in
the state which mould and shape the public opinion.

In the words of Professor R.N. Gilchrist, “Political sovereign manifests itself by voting, by the press, by
speeches, and in many other ways not easy to describe or define. It is, however, not organised and it can
becom6 effective only when organised. But the organisations of political sovereignty lead to legal
sovereignty. The two are aspects of the one sovereignty of the state”. As a matter of fact, legal and political
sovereignty are the two aspects of the one sovereignty of the state. But at the same time both the aspects
stands poles apart.

Legal sovereign is a law-making authority in legal terms, whereas political sovereignty is behind the legal
sovereign. The legal sovereign can express his will in legal terms. But the political sovereign cannot do so.
Legal sovereign is determinate, definite and visible whereas political sovereign is not determinate and
clear.

It is recognised. Legal sovereignty is vested in the electorate, public opinion and other influences of the
state which mould or shape the public opinion. Legal sovereign is recognised by lawyers while political
sovereign is not.

Legal sovereign cannot go against the will of the political sovereign whereas political sovereign, though
not legally powerful, controls over the legal sovereign. The concept of legal sovereign is clear whereas the
concept of political sovereign is vague. Legal sovereign is elected by the political sovereign whereas
political sovereign is the electorate or the people. These are the points of difference between the legal
sovereign and the political sovereign.

(4) Popular Sovereignty:

Popular sovereignty roughly means the power of the masses as contrasted with the Power of the individual
ruler of the class. It implies manhood, suffrage, with each individual having only one vote and the control
of the legislature by the representatives of the people. In popular sovereignty public is regarded as
supreme. In the ancient times many writers on Political Science used popular sovereignty as a weapon to
refute absolutism of the monarchs.

According to Dr. Garner, “Sovereignty of the people, therefore, can mean nothing more than the power
of the majority of the electorate, in a country where a system of approximate universal suffrage prevails,
acting through legally established channels to express their will and make it prevail”.

(5) De Facto and De Jure Sovereignty:

Sometimes a distinction is made between the De Facto (actual) sovereignty and De Jure (legal)
sovereignty. A de jure sovereign is the legal sovereign whereas a de factor sovereign is a sovereign which
is actually obeyed.

Page 37 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

In the words of Lord Bryce, de facto sovereign “is the person or a body of persons who can make his or
their will prevail whether with the law or against the law; he or they, is the de facto ruler, the person to
whom obedience is actually paid”. Thus, it is quite clear, that de jure is the legal sovereignty founded on
law whereas dc facto is the actual sovereignty.

The person or the body of persons who actually exercise power is called the de facto sovereign. The de
facto sovereign may not be a legal sovereign or he may be a usurping king, a dictator, a priest or a prophet,
in either case sovereignty rests upon physical power or spiritual influence rather than legal right.

History abounds in examples of de facto sovereignties. For example, Oliver Cromwell became de facto
sovereign after he had dismissed the Long Parliament. Napoleon became the de facto sovereign after he
had overthrown the Directory. Likewise, Franco became the de facto sovereign after he had dislodged the
legal sovereign in Spain. On October 28, 1922 Mussolini’s Black Shirts marched on Rome. At that time,
Parliament was the legal sovereign. Mussolini became the Prime Minister in the legal manner. He ruled
parliament and ruled the country through parliament.

Parliament remained the legal sovereign but he was the actual or de facto sovereign. Hitler also did the
same in Germany. He too became the de factor sovereign. He controlled the legal sovereign and became
the de facto sovereign. Similarly, Stalin remained the actual sovereign in U.S.S.R. for about three decades.

After the Second World War and before the Egyptian Revolution King Farouk was the legal sovereign.
General Naguib’s ‘coup de’etat’ in Egypt and the abdication of King Farouk is another example of de facto
sovereignty. Nazib was expelled and Nasser succeeded him in de facto sovereign.

After the death of Nasser, Mr. Sadat succeeded him. After the assassination, Hosni Mubarak became the
President of Egypt. Similarly, Ayub became the de facto sovereign after he had staged the military coup in
Pakistan. When Ayub was overthrown Yahya Khan Rose to power with the help of the army and became
the fe facto sovereign.

After his defeat in 1971 at the hands of Indian army he handed power to Bhutto, who was thrown in July,
1977 by Zia-ul-Haq, who first of all became de facto and later on de jure sovereign. Thus, it is quite clear
that the actual or de facto sovereign is the strongest active force in the State and it is capable of making
his will prevail. But sometimes, it happens that de facto and de jure sovereignty ultimately coincide.

In this connection, Dr. Garner has very aptly remarked, “The sovereign who succeeds in maintaining his
power usually becomes in the course of time the legal sovereign, through the acquiescence of the people
or the reorganisation of the State, somewhat as actual possession in private law ripens into legal
ownership through prescription”.

China and Pakistan are the glaring examples. In Soviet Union, the Communist Government became the de
facto government of the successful Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. But in course of time, it became the de
jure government also.

Page 38 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

Q. what is pluralistic theory of sovereignty. Also mention the various criticism of this theory.

Pluralism or the Pluralist theory of sovereignty emerged as a reaction against the Monistic theory of
sovereignty which we have discussed in the previous section. The Pluralist theory emerged in response to
the undue emphasis on the power of the state as advocated by the monists. Some of the leading
exponents of the Pluralist theory include Emile Durkheim, Otto von Gierke, F. W. Maitland, G. D. H. Cole,
Sidney and Beatrice Webb, Miss M. P. Follet and Prof. Harold Laski. The Pluralist theory of sovereignty
rejects the monistic theory of sovereignty and denies that sovereignty is the absolute and indivisible
supreme power of the state.

Principles of Pluralism:

Pluralistic Nature of Society: The Pluralist theory recognises the role of several associations in the society,
formed by men in pursuance of their varied interests. Such associations include the church and other
religious organisations, trade unions, cooperative societies, voluntary associations and the like. At best,
the state is but one of these associations, standing side-by-side with them and not above them. The state
is not distinct from these associations.

Role of the State as Coordinator: Just as an association coordinates the activities of its members, the state
also coordinates the activities of the other associations in the society. The state is a means of resolving
the conflicting claims of these associations. It does so by evolving a common basis of their functioning, not
by imposing its own will on them but by way of harmonising and coordinating their several interests so as
to secure the “common good” or the interest of the society at large.

The Pluralist theory maintains that the claim of the state to superior authority cannot be taken for granted.
The state enjoys a privileged position in the sense that its jurisdiction is compulsory over all individuals
and associations within its fold. It is equipped with coercive powers so that it can punish those who defy
its commands. But the state must justify the exercise of its special powers. As an association of
associations, the state must fulfil its moral obligation of harmonising the interests of all associations
operating in the society, without letting itself be influenced by any “vested interests” while exercising its
authority.

Decentralisation of Authority: The Pluralists hold that the complexity of the economic and political
relations of the modern world cannot be dealt with by a monolithic view of the state. Therefore, the
management and control of society must be shared by various associations in proportion to their
contribution the social good. Accordingly, the pluralists stand for the decentralisation of authority so that
all authority is not concentrated in the hands of the state.

Critical Evaluation of the Pluralist Theory: The pluralist theory of sovereignty is criticised on the ground
that if sovereignty is divided among the various associations existing in the society, this division will lead
to the destruction of sovereignty. As a result, there will be chaos and anarchy in the society. Furthermore,
some groups in the society may be more organised and vocal than other groups. In such situations, the
interests of the dominant groups may prevail over the vulnerable sections of the society. Under such

Page 39 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

circumstances, the responsibility for protecting the common interests rests with the state, which has to
harmonise the conflicting claims of different interest groups.

However, inspite of the criticisms levelled against the Pluralist theory of sovereignty, it must be mentioned
that the pluralist theory was a democratic reaction against state absolutism. It pointed out the limitations
on the authority of the state while acknowledging the role and importance of various groups and
associations in the society.

Q. State the basic principles of Austin’s or Monistic’s theory of sovereignty.

In modern times, the development of sovereignty as a theory coincided roughly with the growth of the
state in terms of power, functions and prestige. In the nineteenth century, the theory of sovereignty as a
legal concept (i.e. sovereignty expressed in terms of law) was perfected by John Austin, an English jurist.
He is regarded as the greatest exponent of the Monistic theory of sovereignty. It is called the Monistic
Theory of Sovereignty because it envisages a single sovereign in the state. The sovereign may be a person
or a body of persons. Furthermore, as sovereignty is considered to be a legal concept, the theory is called
the Legal-Monistic theory of Sovereignty. John Austin, in his famous book, Province of Jurisprudence
Determined (1832), stated his views on sovereignty in the following words: “If a determinate human
superior not in the habit of obedience to a like superior receives habitual obedience from the bulk of a
given society, that determinate superior is sovereign in that society and that society (including the
superior) is a society political and independent.”

On an analysis of the above definition, we could find the following implications:

Firstly, sovereignty must reside in a “determinate person” or in a “determinate body” which acts as the
ultimate source of power in the state.

Secondly, the power of the determinate superior is unlimited and absolute. He can exact obedience from
others but he never renders obedience to any other authority.

Thirdly, the obedience rendered by a people to an authority occasionally will not turn the authority into
sovereign power.

Fourthly, obedience rendered to sovereign authority must be voluntary and as such undisturbed and
uninterrupted. Austin also points out that it is not necessary that all the inhabitants should render
obedience to the superior. It is enough if the “bulk”, i.e., the majority of a society renders habitual
obedience to the determinate superior.

Fifthly, The sovereign is the supreme law maker. Laws are the commands of the sovereign which are
binding upon all within the territorial jurisdiction of the state. Breach or violation of these commands leads
to punishment from the sovereign.

Page 40 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

Sixthly, sovereignty is one indivisible whole and as such incapable of division between two or more parties.
There can be only one sovereign authority in a state.

Critical Evaluation of Austin’s Theory :

The theory of Austin has been strongly criticized by many writers like Sidgwick, Sir Henry Maine and others.
The main point of criticism against Austin’s theory is that the theory is inconsistent with the modern idea
of popular sovereignty. In his fascination for the legal aspect of sovereignty, Austin completely loses sight
of popular sovereignty according to which the ultimate source of all authority is the people.

It is also pointed out that sovereignty may not always be determinate. It is very difficult to locate the
sovereign in a federal state. For example, in the federal state of USA, sovereignty resides neither with the
President nor with the legislature, namely, the Congress. It resides with the people as expressed in the
constitution. The same is the case in India.

Furthermore, Austin has been criticised for defining law as the command of the sovereign. But in many
countries, customary laws are supreme and they are not issued in the form of commands. But such laws
influence the conduct of even despots to a great extent. Sir Henry Maine cites the example of Ranjit Singh
of Punjab who fits the Austinian conception of human superior. But even a despotic ruler like Ranjit Singh
dared not change the customary laws which regulated the conduct of his people.

According to the advocates of the Pluralist theory of sovereignty, the state is an association like various
other associations.

However, in spite of the criticisms leveled against the monistic view of sovereignty as propounded by John
Austin, it must be mentioned that Austin is an exponent of absolute and unlimited sovereignty purely from
the legal or formal point of view. Fundamentally, he does not prescribe for an irresponsible sovereign, but
maintains that the sovereign cannot be formally made responsible to any authority similar to himself: His
authority is legally superior to all individuals and groups within his jurisdiction. Austin has done a distinct
service by clearly distinguishing the legal from the political sovereign.

Page 41 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

Chapter 6: Liberty and Equality

Q. Write down meaning and nature of liberty and equality. Positive and negative liberty .Discuss different
kinds of liberty.

Meaning and Definitions of Liberty:

The word liberty is derived from liber. The root of liberty is another two words libertas and liberte. Liber
means “free”. Many people are accustomed to use freedom. But both the words mean same thing and
they are used interchangeably. In strict sense there is a difference. We call “freedom movement”,
“freedom fighter” etc. but not liberty movement. Liberty is generally used in the case of individual and
freedom refers to greater entity such as freedom of a country.

But this distinction does not always hold good. For example, we call national liberation movement of Africa
or Latin America. Here liberation is used to denote freedom or liberty. In political science, however, the
interchangeable use is the general practice.

The term liberty is associated with two other words—toleration and liberation. Toleration means to allow
other men to do their duties and even if that creates disadvantage to some that should be tolerated. It is
because the liberty of one is restriction to others, and vice versa. Naturally if one does not tolerate others’
actions, the people cannot have liberty. So we can say that liberty cannot be separated from toleration.

Similarly, in recent years we witness the emergence of another word which is a variation of liberty—it is
liberation. Today the words ‘liberation movement’ are very often used. When a nation is under foreign
domination it cannot be called a free nation so also the citizens (it is used in general sense) are not free.

Page 42 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

There is large number of definitions of liberty or freedom. In our day-to-day speech or conversations we
use the term to mean absence of constraints or limitations or obstacles. When we find that an individual
is free to do as he likes it will be assumed that he is free, that is, he has liberty. Prof. Harold Laski’s
definition is well-known and oft-quoted. “By liberty I mean the eager maintenance of that atmosphere in
which men have the opportunity to be their best selves”.

Heywood says that philosophers and political scientists do not use the term in identical sense. The
philosophers use it as a property of the will. It is primarily a matter of mind and psychology. By contrast,
the political scientists use the term in different senses. It is connected with values, development of mind
and inherent qualities of individuals. It also denotes a congenial atmosphere in which men will be able to
flourish their good qualities.

Freedom also means the scope to select the required alternative from a number of alternatives. If this
scope or opportunity is not available to the individual that will mean the absence of freedom. Hence liberty
is an atmosphere where individuals will face a number of choices and they will pick up one or more
according to their requirement. D. D. Raphael views freedom in this sense. He further maintains that
freedom is the absence of restraints. Raphael further says that freedom means to carry out what one has
chosen to do. This sense is generally used in political science.

Liberty is usually defined in two ways: Negative Liberty & Positive Liberty:

(A) Negative Liberty: In its negative sense, Liberty is taken to mean an absence of restraints. It means
the freedom to act is any way. In this form liberty becomes a license. Such a meaning of liberty can never
be accepted in a civil society. In contemporary times, Negative conception of liberty stands rejected.

(B) Positive Liberty: In its positive sense, Liberty is taken to mean freedom under rational and logical
i.e. restraints which are rational and have stood the test of time. It means liberty under the rational and
necessary restraints imposed by law. These restraints are considered essential for ensuring the enjoyment
of liberty by all the people. In a civil society only positive liberty can be available to the people.

Positive Liberty means two important things:

1. Liberty is not the absence of restraints; it is the substitution of irrational restraints by rational ones.
Liberty means absence of only irrational and arbitrary restraints and not all restraints.

2. Liberty means equal and adequate opportunities for all to enjoy their rights.

II. Liberty: Definition:

(1) “Liberty is the freedom of individual to express, without external hindrances, his personality.” -
G.D.H Cole

(2) “Freedom is not the absence of all restraints but rather the substitution of rational ones for the
irrational.” -Mckechnie

Page 43 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

(3) “Liberty is the existences of those conditions of social life without which no one can in general be
at his best self.” “Liberty is the eager maintenance of that atmosphere in which men have the
opportunities to be their best-selves.” –Laski

III. Features/Nature of Liberty:

(i) Liberty does not mean the absence of all restraints

(ii) Liberty admits the presence of rational restraints and the absence of irrational restraints.

(iii)Liberty postulates the existence of such conditions as can enable the people to enjoy their rights and
develop their personalities.

(iv)Liberty is not a license to do anything and everything. It means the freedom to do only those things
which are considered worth-doing or worth-enjoying.

(v) Liberty is possible only in a civil society and not in a state of nature or a ‘state of jungle’. State of anarchy
can never be a state, of Liberty.

(vi)Liberty is for all. Liberty means the presence of adequate opportunities for all as can enable them to
use their rights.

(vii) In society law is an essential condition of liberty. Law maintains conditions which are essential for
the enjoyment of Liberty by all the people of the state.

(viii) Liberty the most fundamental of all the rights. It is the condition and the most essential right of
the people. Liberty enjoys priority next only to the right to life. I. Equality: Meaning:

(1) Equality does not mean absolute equality: In common usage equality is taken to mean full equality
of treatment and reward for all. It is demanded as natural equality. It is said that all men are born natural
and free. However, despite a strong emotional appeal to our hearts, the notion of natural and absolute
equality of all cannot be fully accepted and realised. Men are neither equal in respect of their physical
features nor in respect of their mental abilities. Some are stronger others weaker and some are more
intelligent and capable than others.

Their capacities and abilities are different. As such equality of treatment and rewards cannot be ensured.
Rewards must depend upon the actual abilities and work of various people. Hence equality does not mean
absolute and total equality.

Equality really means equal opportunities for development. In fact, when we talk of equality of all men we
really mean general and fair equality and not absolute equality. We really talk of a fair distribution of
opportunities reward and not equal reward for all.

(2) Equality means absence of all unnatural and unjust inequalities: In society there are present two
types of inequalities:
Page 44 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

(1) Natural inequalities, and

(2) Man-made unnatural inequalities.

The former means natural differences among human beings. These have to be accepted by all. The
manmade inequalities are those which are there because of some social conditions and discriminations.
These are of the nature of socioeconomic inequalities resulting from the operation of social system. The
discriminations practiced and inequalities maintained in the name of caste, colour, creed, religion, sex,
place of birth and the like are all unnatural man- made inequalities. Equality means end of all such
inequalities and discriminations.

Equality: Definitions:

“The Right to Equality proper is a right of equal satisfaction of basic human needs, including the need to
develop and use capacities which are specifically human.” -D.D Raphall

“Equality means that no man shall be so placed in society that he can over-reach his neighbour to the
extent which constitutes a denial of latter’s citizenship.” -Laski

“Equality means equal rights for all the people and the abolition of all special rights and privileges”. Barker

Thus, negatively equality implies abolition of all special privileges and facilities which may be available to
some classes or some persons in society. It also stands for the abolition of all man-made inequalities and
discriminations. Positively Equality stands for equal rights, equitable distribution of resources , equal
opportunities for development and relative equality with due recognition of merit, abilities and capacities
of various persons.

II. Equality: Features:

1. Equality does not stand for absolute equality. It accepts the presence of some natural inequalities.

2. Equality stands for absence of all unnatural man- made inequalities and specially privileged classes in
the society.

3. Equality postulates the grant and guarantee of equal rights and freedoms to all the people.

4. Equality implies the system of equal and adequate opportunities for all the people in society.

5. Equality means equal satisfaction of basic needs of all the persons before the special needs’, and
luxuries of some persons may be met.

6. Equality advocates an equitable and fair distribution of wealth and resources i.e. Minimum possible gap
between the rich and poor.

Page 45 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

7. Equality accepts the principle of protective discrimination for helping the weaker sections of society. In
the Indian political system, right to equality has been given to all and yet there stands incorporated
provisions for granting special protection facilities and reservations to persons belonging to Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes, minorities, women, and children.

Q. Relationship between liberty and equality.

Liberty and Equality are closely related to each other. There is no value of liberty in the absence of equality.
They are the same conditions viewed from different angles. They are the two sides of the same coin.
Though there is a close relationship between liberty and equality, yet there are some political thinkers
who do not find any relationship between liberty and equality. For example, Lord Acton and De Tocqueville
who were the ardent advocates of liberty, found no relationship between the two conditions.

To them liberty and equality were antagonistic and antithetical to each other. Lord Acton maintains that
“The passion for equality made vain the hope for liberty”. Such political thinkers maintain that where
there is liberty, there is no equality and vice versa. These political thinkers are of the opinion that people
were conferred inequality by nature. We find inequality in nature also.

In some parts there are rivers while in others there are mountains and in still other parts there are plains
and fields. No two persons are similar in their ability and capacity. And so there cannot be equality in
society.

The views of Lord Acton and De Tocqueville are not accepted by modern political thinkers. Professor H.J.
Laski has very aptly remarked in this connection: “To persons so ardent for liberty as Tocqueville and Lord
Acton, liberty and equality, are antithetic things. It is a drastic conclusion. But it turns, in the case of both
men, upon a misunderstanding of what equality implies”.

These days, it is generally believed that liberty and equality should go together. If an individual is given
unrestrained liberty to do whatever he likes, he will cause harm to others. There will be chaos in society
if individuals are given unrestrained liberty.

In the nineteenth century, the Individualists wrongly interpreted the term ‘Liberty’. They did not attach
any importance to economic equality and laid stress on Laissez Faire to be adopted by the government.
Adam Smith was the ardent advocate of this view.

The Individualists maintained that there should be a free competition between the capitalists and labour
leaders. They did not want the government to interfere in the economic matters. Formula of Demand and
Supply should be adopted.

All the economic difficulties will be removed by this formula. If there will be excess of commodities and
easy availability of labour, prices will come down. If there is scarcity, prices will rise higher and higher. This
formula was implemented in England and in many other countries of Europe and it resulted in dangerous
consequences.
Page 46 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

The government lost its control over the capitalists. The capitalists exploited the opportunity to the full.
They exploited the labour to the full. As a result of it, the rich grew richer and poor became poorer. The
labour class suffered tragically.

As a result of it, an intense reaction took place against Individualism. This reaction led to the dawn of
Socialism. Socialism condemned and refuted the principles of Individualism. Liberty has no significance in
the absence of economic equality. Professor Laski has very aptly remarked, “Where here are rich and poor,
educated and uneducated, we always find a relation of master and servant”.

C.E.M. Joad has also asserted, “The doctrine of liberty, of “which the importance cannot be overestimated
in politics, worked disastrously when applied in the field of economics”. Hobbes has also asserted, “What
good is freedom to a starving man? He cannot eat freedom or drink it”.

Thus, it is quite clear that economic equality is essential for the existence of political freedom. Otherwise
it will be capitalist Democracy in which the labourers will have the right to vote but they will not be able
to get their purposes served. Therefore, Liberty in the real sense of word is possible only in Socialistic
democracy in which equality and liberty go together.

Similarly, it is also true that in the absence of political liberty, equality cannot be established. Mr. Elton
True-blood has very aptly remarked in this connection. “The paradox is that equality and freedom, which
began by being ideas in conflict and tension, turn out open analysis to be necessary to each other. The
truth is that it is impossible to make a reasonable statement of the meaning of equality except in terms of
freedom. Men are equal only because all men are intrinsically free, as nothing else in all creation is free”.

“Equality, in all its forms, must always be,” says Barker, “subject and instrumental to the free development
of capacity, but if it be pressed to the length of uniformity and if uniformity be made to thwart the free
development of capacity, the subject becomes the master and the world is turned topsy-turvy”.

R.H. Tawney has rightly remarked, “A large measure of equality, so far from being inimical to liberty, is
essential to it”. Pollard also writes, “There is only one solution of the problem of liberty. It lies in equality”.
Thus, Liberty and Equality are complementary to each other. They are not opposed to each other. They
go together.

Liberty and Equality “are to be reconciled by remembering that both (liberty and equality) are subordinate
means to the end of realising the potentialities of individual personality on the widest possible scale. The
development of a rich variety of potentialities requires a large measure of liberty and forbids all attempts
to impose a dead level of social and economic equality”.

“There is an intimate connection between the two “because all individual liberties are related to the basic
equality of all men and because historically the aspiration for liberty became in practice and destruction
of privilege or inequality”.

Both are complementary to each other. “Liberty thus implies equality,” says Herbert A. Dean, “liberty and
equality are not in conflict nor even separate but are different facts of the same ideal … indeed since they

Page 47 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

are identical, there can be no problem how or to what extent they are or can be related; this surely the
nearest, if not the most satisfactory solution ever devised for a perennial problem in political philosophy

Q. Different kinds of liberty.

Types of Liberty:

(1) Natural Liberty: Traditionally the concept of natural liberty has been very popular. Natural liberty
is taken to mean the enjoyment of unrestrained natural freedom. It is justified on the ground that since
man is born free, he is to enjoy freedom as he wills. All restraints negate his freedom.

The social contractual lists (Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau) championed the cause of natural liberty.
Rousseau became famous for his words: “Man is born free, but is in chains everywhere.” It is popularly
believed that man has inherited the right to liberty from nature. Natural reason is the basis of liberty.

However, the concept of natural liberty is now considered to be an imaginary one. There can be no real
freedom in a state of nature or a ‘jungle society’. Unrestrained freedom can create anarchy. It is only in
an orderly society characterised by essential restraints based on laws and rules that real liberty can be
possible. Natural liberty can lead to a living based on the evil principle of ‘might is right’ or the ‘rule of
muscle power.’

(2) Civil Liberty: The liberty which each individual enjoys as a member of the society is called civil
liberty. It is equally available to all the individuals. All enjoy equal freedom and rights in society. Civil liberty
is not unrestrained liberty. It is enjoyed only under some restrictions (Laws and Rules) imposed by the
state and society. Civil Liberty is the very opposite of Natural liberty. Whereas Natural Liberty denounces
the presence of restraints of any kind, Civil Liberty accepts the presence of some rational restraints
imposed by the State and Society.

Further, Civil Liberty has two features:

(i) State guarantees Civil Liberty: Civil liberty means liberty under law. Law creates the conditions
necessary for the enjoyment of liberty. However, it refrains from creating obstacles in the way of
enjoyment of liberty by the people. It protects liberty from such obstacles and actions of other men and
organisations as can limit the equal liberty of all. The Laws of State imposes such reasonable restraints as
are deemed necessary for the enjoyment of liberty by the people.

(ii) Civil liberty also stands for the protection of Rights and Freedom from undue interferences: Civil
liberty involves the concept of limiting the possibilities for violation of the rights of the people by the
government. This is ensured by granting and guaranteeing the fundamental rights of the people. It also
stands for providing constitutional and judicial protection to rights and liberty of the people.

Page 48 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

(3) Political Liberty: Good and adequate opportunities for using political rights by the people are defined
as political liberty. When the people have the freedom of participation in the political process, it is held
that they enjoy political liberty.

Political of liberty involves the freedom to exercise the right to vote, right to contest elections, right to
hold public office, right to criticise and oppose the policies of the government, right to form political
parties, interest groups and pressure groups, and the right to change the government through
constitutional means.

Laski observes “Political liberty means the power to be active in the affairs of the state.” Such a liberty is
possible only in a democracy. The real exercise of political rights by the people is a sure sign of the
presence of political liberty and democracy.

(4) Individual Liberty/ Personal Liberty: Individual liberty means the freedom to pursue one’s desires and
interests as a person, but which do not clash with the interests or desires of others. The freedom of
speech and expression, freedom of residence, freedom of movement, freedom of conscience, freedom
of tastes and pursuits, freedom to choose any profession or trade or occupation, the freedom to enjoy
the fruits of one’s labour, the right to personal property, the freedom to profess or not to profess any
religion, and freedom to accept or not to accept any ideology, all fall under the category of individual
freedom. However, all these freedoms are to be exercised in a way as does not hinder the equal
freedom of others as well as does not violate public order, health and morality.

(5) Economic Liberty: Laski defines economic liberty as freedom from the wants of tomorrow and
availability of adequate opportunities for earning the livelihood. It stands for freedom from poverty,
unemployment and the ability to enjoy at least three basic minimum needs — food, clothing and
shelter. Laski writes, “Economic Liberty means security and opportunity to find reasonable significance
in the earning of one’s daily bread”.

Economic Liberty can be enjoyed only when there is freedom from hunger, starvation, destitution and
unemployment. Positively, it means the availability of the right to work and adequate opportunities for
earning ones livelihood. Without fair economic liberty, political liberty becomes meaningless. When the
people are not free from the fear of hunger, starvation and destitution they can never think of enjoying
their rights and freedoms.

The grant of economic liberty to the people demands the grant of right to work, right to reasonable wages,
adequate opportunities for livelihood, right to rest and leisure, and right to economic security in the old
age.

(6) National Liberty: National liberty is another name for independence of the nation.

It means complete freedom of the people of each state:

(i) To have a constitution of their own,

(ii) To freely organise their own government,

Page 49 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

(iii) To freely adopt their policies and programmes,

(iv) To pursue independence in relations with all countries of the world, and

(v) Freedom from external control.

(7) Religious Liberty: It means the freedom to profess or not to profess any religion. It means the
freedom of faith and worship and non-intervention of State in religious affairs of the people. It also means
equal status of all religions to freely carry out their activities in society. Secularism demands such a
religious freedom.

(8) Moral Liberty: It means the freedom to act according to one’s conscience. It stands for the liberty
to work for securing moral self-perfection. Freedom to pursue moral values is moral freedom.

Thus, when one demands the right to liberty one really demands liberty in all these forms.

Q. Explain different kind of Equality.

Types of Equality:

1. Natural Equality: Despite the fact that men differ in respect of their physical features,
psychological traits, mental abilities and capacities, all humans are to be treated as equal humans. All are
to be considered worthy of enjoying all human rights and freedoms.

2. Social Equality: It stands for equal rights and opportunities for development for all classes of
people without any discrimination.

Specifically, it stands for:

(i) Absence of special privileges for any class or caste or religions group or an ethnic group;

(ii) Prohibition of discrimination against any one on the basis of caste, colour, creed, religion, sex and
place of birth;

(iii) Free access to public places for all the people, i.e. no social segregation; and

(iv) Equality of opportunity for all people. It however accepts the concept of protective discrimination in
favour of all weaker sections of society.

A modern central theme of social equality is to end gender inequality, to ensure equal status and
opportunities to the women and to ensure equal rights of male and female children to live and develop.

3. Civil Equality: It stands for the grant of equal rights and freedoms to all the people and social
groups. All the people are to be treated equal before Law.

Page 50 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

4. Political Equality: It stands for equal opportunities for participation of all in the political process.
This involves the concept of grant of equal political rights for all the citizens with some uniform
qualifications for everyone.

5. Economic Equality: Economic equality does not mean equal treatment or equal reward or equal
wages for all. It stands for fair and adequate opportunities to all for work and for earning of their
livelihoods. It also means that primary needs of all should be met before the special needs of few are
satisfied. The gap between rich and poor should be minimum. There should be equitable distribution of
wealth and resources in the society.

6. Legal Equality: Finally, Legal Equality stands for equality before law, equal subjection of all to the
same legal code and equal opportunity for all to secure legal protection of their rights and freedom. There
should rule of law and laws must be equally binding foe all. In every society equality must be ensured in
all these forms.

Page 51 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

Chapter 7: Rights
Q. Define rights. Discuss the nature of rights.

There are many definitions of rights and for our purpose some are stated. One such definition is rights are
legal or moral recognition of choices or interests to which particular weight is attached. A person is faced
with a number of alternatives or choices and he is to select one or two of them.

This freedom is the central idea of rights. The individual shall have the full freedom to select the required
number of alternatives. The system of rights therefore denotes “some sort of distribution of freedom”
(Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics).

The second definition is that rights can be called justified and recognised expectation. It is justified in the
sense that when one claims rights there shall be sufficient justification behind the claims and, at the same
time, the claims should be recognised. The claims have been termed by L. T. Hobhouse as expectation. It
is so people expect them for their betterment. Justification and recognition have landed the expectation
(or rights) on a different level. A man’s expectation for ethical right cannot come under the purview of
political science.

Thirdly, T. H. Green defines rights in the light of idealism since he was the doyen of English idealist
philosophy. He defines the concept of rights: “The capacity on the part of the individual of conceiving a
good as the same for himself and others and of being determined to action by that conception is
foundation of rights, and rights are the condition of that capacity being realised. No right is justifiable or
should be a right except on the ground that directly or indirectly it serves this purpose”.

Andrew Heywood (Political Theory) calls rights as entitlements (emphasis added). Rights are entitlements
to act or be treated in a particular way. Modern political thinkers are accustomed to treat rights mainly as
entitlements. It is a type of entitlement in the sense that an individual has rights means that he is entitled
to have something.

“Rights are those conditions of social life without which no man can seek in general, to be himself at his
best.” -Laski

“Rights are powers necessary for the fulfillment of man’s vocation as a moral being.” -T. H. Green

“Rights are nothing more nor less than those social conditions which are necessary or favourable to the
development of personality” -Beni Prasad

As such, Rights are common and recognized claims of the people which are essential for their development
as human beings.

Page 52 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

Features/Nature of Rights:

1. Rights exist only in society. These are the products of social living.

2. Rights are claims of the individuals for their development in society.

3. Rights are recognized by the society as common claims of all the people.

4. Rights are rational and moral claims that the people make on their society.

5. Since rights in here only in society, these cannot be exercised against the society.

6. Rights are to be exercised by the people for their development which really means their
development in society by the promotion of social good. Rights can never be exercised against
social good.

7. Rights are equally available to all the people.

8. The contents of rights keep on changing with the passage of time.

9. Rights are not absolute. These always bear limitations deemed essential for maintaining public
health, security, order and morality.

10. Rights are inseparably related with duties. There is a close relationship between them “No Duties
Ho Rights. No Rights No Duties.” “If I have rights it is my duty to respect the rights others in
society”.

11. Rights need enforcement and only then these can be really used by the people. These are
protected and enforced by the laws of the state. It is the duty of a state to protect the rights of
the people.

Q. Discuss Marxist theory of rights.

Marxist Theory Rights: Marx and Engles have not allotted an exclusive place for the detailed analysis of
rights, but they were quite conscious of the condition of various rights as it prevailed in bourgeois society.
The liberal thinkers paid very little attention to the realisation of economic rights. To them political rights
were of prime importance and if citizens get the opportunity to enjoy all the political rights, absence of
economic rights will not pose any problem on the way of political rights.

Moreover, non-realisation of economic rights may finally result in the growing economic inequalities and
according to liberal this theoreticians it is a good sign of freedom. But Marx and Engels denounced this
approach to rights and they have stated in no uncertain terms that in the absence of economic rights there
is practically no significance of political rights.

Page 53 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

They have, of course, admitted that in a class society this is inevitable because economically powerful class
will create an atmosphere in which the general public will not get any opportunity to have all sorts of
rights.

The rights in bourgeois society are, therefore, partial in character, Partial in the sense that only a very
limited number of persons get the freedom to have rights. The three organs of government are under the
control of the powerful class and they work at its behest. Rights of the majority ate always suppressed the
dominant class.

Marxists have admitted that in a bourgeois society attempts are always made to expand the number of
rights and in reality this is done. But the rise in the number of rights does not come to the benefit of
common people.

The powerful class, through its efficient machinery bole; all the rights for its enjoyment. The deprived
section of the population no benefit. Moreover, the separation between the two classes stands on the
way of exercise of rights by the working class.

A recent analyst has offered the following comment: “Once citizens entered the factory gates their lives
were fully determined by the dictates of the capital. The capitalist labour contract excludes the workers
from formal rights over the control of the work place. This exclusion is not incidental to the capitalist state,
but vital to it since the sphere of industry is specifically defined as being outside politics.

In substantial degree Marx was surely right”. So we find that almost all the rights of any bourgeois society
are meant for the powerful section. These can be called bourgeois rights. Even few bourgeois theoreticians
have admitted it. But some bourgeois thinkers have admitted that so far as the structure of capitalist
society is concerned this situation is unavoidable and cannot be changed.

Q. Explain Different kinds of rights.

Types of Rights

The rights are broadly classified into two categories- Moral Rights and Legal Rights. Moral rights are based
on our ethical awareness and on a sense of morality and justice. As these rights are not normally enforced
by the court of law but by the customary provisions, its breach may not amount to punishment by the
state. But on the other hand, legal rights are recognized by the state and are enforced by the court of law.
Therefore, its violation will lead to punishment. The fundamental rights of our Constitution enumerated
under part III of the constitution are justiciable.

The legal right can be further sub-divided into two categories- Civil Rights and Political Rights. The Civil
Rights are essential to the free development of individual self. Right to life, liberty and property are
included in this category in the absence of which no civilized life is possible. But the rights of the people
to participate in the affairs of the state such as taking part in election, associating with the government of
the state etc. are known as political rights. These rights are enjoyed by the people not in their personal or
Page 54 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

private capacity but in the capacity of being the citizens of that particular state. In recent years one more
right namely economic right has been added to the category of legal rights. Some of the important rights
are given below.

1. Natural Rights: Faith in natural rights is strongly expressed by several scholars. They hold that
people inherit several rights from nature. Before they came to live in society and state, they used to live
in a state of nature. In it, they enjoyed certain natural rights, like the right to life, right to liberty and right
to property. Natural rights are parts of human nature and reason.

However, several other scholars regard the concept of natural rights as imaginary. Rights are the products
of social living. These can be used only in a society. Rights have behind them the recognition of society as
common claims for development, and that is why the state protects these rights.

2. Moral Rights: Moral Rights are those rights which are based on human consciousness. They are
backed by moral force of human mind. These are based on human sense of goodness and justice. These
are not backed by the force of law. Sense of goodness and public opinion are the sanctions behind moral
rights.

If any person violates any moral right, no legal action can be taken against him. The state does not enforce
these rights. Its courts do not recognize these rights. Moral Rights include rules of good conduct, courtesy
and of moral behaviour. These stand for moral perfection of the people

Legal Rights: Legal rights are those rights which are recognized and enforced by the state. Any violation of
any legal right is punished by law. Law courts of the state enforce legal rights. These rights can be enforced
against individuals and also against the government. In this way, legal rights are different from moral
rights. Legal rights are equally available to all the citizens. All citizens enjoy legal rights without any
discrimination. They can go to the courts for getting their legal rights enforced.

(a) Civil Rights : These rights consist of those privileges in the ab-sence of which nobody can attain his best
self. Some of the civil rights are as follows:

(1) Right to Life :A citizen has the right to life and the right to protect his body. It is the fundamental of
human existence.

(2) Right to Liberty :It means that a citizen is entitled to enjoy privileges freely for the development of his
inner self with-out hindrances. Prof Gilchrist opines that "Mere life without movement would be
meaningless and without the exercise of human faculties it would not rise above the level of that ani-
mals". The freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention en-ables a citizen to see redressal in a court of
law.

(3) Right to Property :The institution of property, prior to the advent of Marxism, was viewed as an ally of
civilised life. Locke was the greatest exponent of the institution of private property. It creates a sense
of possession, responsibility and interest to work. The state can restrict this right for the larger interest
of the community.

Page 55 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

(4) Right to Equality :That all are born equal and are to be treated equally is the essence of this right. It is
the first prin-ciple of democracy and it also prescribes for some punish-ment for the offenders who
commit the same offence under the similar circumstances.

(5) Right to Contract :The citizens can enter into contracts with their fellow beings on the basis of equality.

(6) Right to Family :This is another important civil right en-joys by the citizens.

(7) Right to form Union & Association: As human beings are destined to live in groups, this right is enjoyed
by every citizen.

(8) Right to Freedom of Religion and Conscience :This was treated by some as a right and the individuals
were given the option to choose their own religion. The state, however, is entitled to impose
restrictions on this right on the ground of morality, maintenance of law and order and decency

(9) Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression :The free-dom of thought and the freedom of speech and
expression are the cornerstone of democracy. Prof. Laski is of the opin-ion that "To allow a man to say
what he thinks is to give his personality the only ultimate channel of free expression and his citizenship,
the only means of moral adequacy".

(10) Right to Language and culture :The right of every citizen to preserve, protect and develop his own
language and culture is an important civil right.

(11) Right to Freedom of Movement :To move freely throughout the territory of a state, is a civil right
enjoyed by the citi-zen of that state.

(12) Right to Education :The right to education aims at mini-mum intellectual level and training that
form a part of his civil rights.

(13) Right to Freedom of Assembly :The right to freedom of assembly in a peaceful manner without
arms is also an im-portant civil right.

(b) Political Rights : The opportunity granted to the citizens to take part in the administration of the state
is known as political rights. Some of the important political rights are as follows:

(1) Right to Vote :It is an important political right and it is also known as right to franchise. Every adult
citizens has the right to cast his vote freely without fear and it confers the right against discriminatory
treatment in this regard.

(2) Right to be Elected :The right to contest election and the right to be elected are closely connected
with the right to vote. As democracy rests not on the principle of heredity but on the principle of election,
this is an important political right.

(3) Right to hold Public Office :The right to hold public of-fice in accordance with the established
procedure and with-out any discrimination is also an important political right.

Page 56 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

(4) Right to Petition :The democratic government operates ef-ficiently if the citizens enjoy the right
to petition thereby ventilating their grievances. The people can submit petition against one government
to another government.

(5) Right to Discuss Public Policy :The people enjoy the right to discuss public policy either to
appreciate or to criticise it. This keeps the government on the right track.

(6) Right to Residence: A citizen has the right to reside and settle in any part of the state. As voting
rights are connected with residence, so it is an important political right.

(7) Right to Protection while Staying Abroad :When a citi-zen goes to a foreign state or stays abroad
he gets all kinds of protection from his native state.

(8) Right to Public Meeting :To J. S. Mill, "The entire world has no right to silence a fool". A citizen
enjoys freedom to transmit his views in a public meeting without any fear.

(C) Economic Rights : Rights like, right to work, right to rest and leisure etc. are some of the important
economic rights in the ab-sence of which civilised living becomes impossible. In the social-ist states these
rights are paid much weightage.

Q. Rights implies duties. Explain.

We all boast a lot about the fundamental rights that our Constitution grants to us but more often than
not, forget that these rights also imply certain duties. Here is a little reminder for all of us, to judge where
we stand.

In the present age of democracy, there is always a tendency to put all emphasis on the rights and to forget
that rights also imply duties. Every right carries with it a duty. If one has the right to follow one’s own
religion, it is one’s duty to allow others to follow their own. Rights and duties are equally important and
that is why our Constitution has laid down certain duties for the citizens along with rights.

The inclusion of fundamental duties in the Constitution is for the feeling of patriotism and to give solidarity
to the nation. These duties are incorporated with the purpose to help the citizens follow a code of conduct,
which would strengthen the nation, protect its sovereignty and integrity and promote the ideas of
harmony. The late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi mentioned, “If people keep the fundamental duties in
their mind, we would soon witness peaceful and friendly relations.”

Our Constitution lays down that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India:

● To abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals, the national flag and the national anthem.
● To cherish and follow the noble ideas, which inspired the national struggle for independence.

Page 57 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee
 भगवते 'याय देशाय च

● To uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.

● To defend the country and render national services when called upon to do so.
● To promote the harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood among all the people of India
transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities, to renounce practices
derogatory to the dignity of women.
● To value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture.
● To protect and improve national environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and have
compassion for living creatures.
● To develop scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform.
● To safeguard public property and to abjure violence.
● To strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity, so that the nation
constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement.

The above duties contained in the part IV-A of the Constitution, as cited above, merely define what the
state expects from citizens in return for the rights embodied in the part III of the Constitution. However,
some critics doubt whether the inclusion of these duties would serve any useful purpose or not, because:

Some of the duties have not been clearly worded. Words like ’scientific temper’ and humanism can be
variously interpreted.

There is no coercive machinery for enforcement of these duties.

Hence, they say that the chapter on duties will remain a pious hope till some more amendments and
additions to part IV-A are made. But it is not justified because:

Nothing can be got without paying the price. If we want certain rights, we will have to perform certain
duties also. Every right implies a duty. These duties make us not only good citizens but also responsible
citizens.

Fundamental duties have put the fundamental rights in the right perspective. They have balanced one
thing with the other.

Fundamental duties have been added to make the citizens patriotic and make them realise the
importance of protecting the sovereignty and integrity of their country.

Fundamental duties have been incorporated in the Constitution of India to promote the ideas of
harmony in the land of diversities and to strengthen the nation.

Page 58 of 59
Compiled by E – Academics Committee