SHUBHRA RANJAN IAS STUDY PVT LTD

Your strategic partner in IAS preparation

ONLINE POLITICAL SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS TEST SERIES 2017
Model Answers TEST- 01 PAPER 1 SECTION A
Date: 10th July 2017

1
a) Comment: “Everything in Locke’s system revolves around the
individual. Everything is disposed so as to ensure the sovereignty of
individual.” (Vaughan)

Individualism is moral instance, political philosophy or social outlook which

emphasise on the moral worth of the individual. It recognises the right of individual to
freedom & self realisation
Classical Liberalism, existentialism & Anarchism take individual as the unit of
analysis.
John Locke considered as individualist on following grounds:
 He gave the theory of natural right. According to him, Right to Life Liberty &
Property are inalienable rights.
 He has given absolute right to Property.
 He creates limited state.
 The authority of the state is based on the consent of the governed.
 He gives right to revolt in case the government breaks the trust
 His theory of separation of power is for protection of liberty
 Locke theory of toleration further affirms individual’s right to conscience
Thus on the basis of the above grounds it is appropriate to call Locke as an
individualist. Locke qualifies to be individualist in both normative & methodological
sense. Hence Vaughan is correct when he says that everything in the Locke’s
system revolves around the individual. It is also said that Locke is individualist out an
out.

b) Relevance of historical approach to the study of political theory and its

limitations.

“Great Political Theories are secreted in the interstices of political & Social crisis-
(Sabine)”
Historical Apprach:
 https://telegram.me/UPSC_PDF

Historical Approach is the traditional approach to the study of political science.

Scholars like Machiavelli, Laski, Sabine & Dunning are considered as exponents of
historical approach. One of the strongest advocates of historical approach is Sabine.
According to Sabine, Historical Approach is the most common sense based
approach to understand political ideas. In the words of Sabine, each political theory
has its origin under certain situations & it is essential to reconstruct the situation in
which the theory has come into existence. Historical Approach fulfils all the three
criteria of sound approach. Factual, Causal and Evaluative.
Though Historical approach is a useful approach yet there are certain limitations.
 History Writing is not free from politics. Political Scholars have used history for
furthering their ideological inclinations.
 History is vast & it is difficult to collect the relevant data
 Many political ideas like philosopher king or communism have not been a
historical fact yet important for the students of political science.
In recent times, there is renewed interest in the historical approach in the form of
contextual approach for the interpretation of texts.
To conclude it can be said that historical approach will always relevant. Political
Theory rooted in specific situation does not mean lacks significance for future.

1 (c) Comment: “Knowledge is power.” (Foucault)

Throughout Foucault’s writings from Madness & Civilization, Discipline & Punish to
History of Sexuality presupposes a proximity of power and knowledge.
Knowledge is Power (savoir-pouvoir) is a concept coined by French Philosopher
Michel Foucault. According to Foucault, Power is based on Knowledge and makes
the use of knowledge. “Power reproduces knowledge. According to this
understanding, Knowledge is never neutral. It determines the power relations. For
Focault, the mechanisms of power determines scientific theories, knowledge and
ultimately the truth itself. Thus truth is not a discovery rather production. He gives the
concept of “discourse.” Discourses do not tell the truth. It is rather a way of telling the
truth.
In his essay “Power / knowledge” he describes knowledge as conjunction of power
relations and information sharing. In his another essay “Prison Talk”, Focault
suggests that it is not possible for power to be exercised without knowledge. “It is
impossible for knowledge not to engender power.” This is an important theoretical
advance in the discussion of knowledge. It says that knowledge is not dispassionate,
but an integral part of struggle over power. In producing knowledge, one is making a
claim for power. Instead of knowledge being a pure search after truth, it is a
processing of information being labelled as truth. It becomes truth only by ratification
by those who are in authority.
His work on knowledge and power also analyses the historical processes at work in
the construction of what our society as a whole knows about the past. Knowledge

https://telegram.me/UpscPdfDrive
 https://telegram.me/UPSC_PDF

does not simply emerge from scholarly studies but is produced and maintained in
circulation in societies through the work of number of different institutions and
practices.
Thus he shifts our attention from seeing knowledge as objective and dispassionate
towards a view which sees knowledge always working in the interests of particular
groups. Though Foucault gives an innovative view of knowledge and theories, yet
according to the critics his analysis is one sided. Noam Chomsky calls Foucault as
someone who “Wildly exaggerates” the influence of power in scientific discourse.
Foucault’s theory has later influenced Derrida who told of “deconstruction” and
“double reading” which served as important pillars in post modern ideology.

d) Write a short note on the Theory of Natural Rights.

The theory of natural rights belongs to seventeenth and eighteenth century political
thought. The theory treats the rights of man as a ‘self-evident truth’ I.e. they are not
granted by the state, but come from the very nature of man, his own intrinsic being.
This theory was broadly developed on two important bases: the contractual basis
and the teleological basis
Contractual Basis
Theory of Natural Rights is based on the liberal theory of origin of state, as a result of
“Social contract.” According to this theory, certain rights were enjoyed by man in the
state of nature, i.e. before the formation of civil society itself. These comprise the
natural rights of man, which must be respected and protected by the state.
Locke, the most ardent champion of natural rights has held that fundamental natural
rights viz. right to life, liberty and property belongs to man and the formation of state
is for the purpose of continued enjoyment of natural rights by man.
Teleological Basis
Tom Paine in his ‘Rights of man’ enunciated the theory of natural rights on
teleological basis. Paine rejected the doctrine of social contract as it was ‘eternally
binding, and hence a clog on the wheel of progress’. He insisted that every
generation should be free to think and act for himself. But rights to ‘liberty, property,
security and resistance to oppression’, which are proud possession of man in civil
society, drive their sanction from natural rights ‘pre-existing in the individual’.
T H Green has also sought to build his theory of moral rights on the teleological
basis.
The theory of natural rights played an important role in modern history. It served as a
source of inspiration for the American and French revolutions.
However, in spite of the historical significance of natural rights theory, it remains an
ambiguous theory. The doctrine of natural rights was put forward at a historical
junction with a view to securing favourable conditions for a ‘free market society’.
Hence, natural rights were interpreted in such a manner that they could be

https://telegram.me/UpscPdfDrive
 https://telegram.me/UPSC_PDF

instrumental to its establishment. It follows that ‘natural rights’ can be interpreted in

order to uphold the values of a particular class which invokes these rights.
Jermey Banthem as the greatest champion of the theory of legal rights, rejects the
doctrine of natural rights as unreal and unfound. In his ‘Principles of legislation’
Banthem has observed that “Rights are the creatures of law and real laws give birth
to real rights.
Banthem condemns natural rights as an invention of fanatics, which are dogmatic
and unintelligible, devoid of reasoning. About their upholders, Banthem remarks that
they substitute for reasoning of experience the chimeras of their own imaginations.
However, Theory of natural rights has remained a dominant idea and has been
incorporated in form of Fundamental Rights in the constitutions of many nation-
states and by the United Nations through universal Declaration of human Rights.

d) Comment: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of

class struggles.” (Karl Marx)

The Communist Manifesto begins with Marx’s famous generalisation that the History
of all hitherto existing societies is History of class struggle. Marx describes classes in
terms of binary opposites. One exploiter and the other exploited. In capitalist
societies, the bourgeois are the owners of means of production and thus haves. The
Proletariats, a class of labourers, can survive so long they can find work.
Proletariats are in constant state of antagonism with bourgeoisie. The antagonism
increases with the increasing awareness of exploitation resulting into mass
mobilisation, rebellion, proletariat freeing themselves from the exploitation of the
bourgeois resulting into the end of capitalism and victory of the proletariats. It leads
to the establishment of class less society as private property is abolished. As there
are no classes, there is no class struggle and history ends. The victory of proletariats
and the creation of classless society is the utopian “end of history” in Marxism.
Marx describes history in purely economic terms. This made Marx the target of
criticism not only by non-marxists but marxists like Gramsci.
2
a) Comment: “Action, the only activity that goes on directly between men
without the intermediary of things or matter, corresponds to the human
condition of plurality… This plurality is specifically the condition- not
only the conditio sine quo non, but the conditio per quam- of all political
life.” (Hannah Arendt)

Hannah Arndt is one of the seminal political thinkers known for power of originality of
ideas. She has tried to deal with the crisis of our times & has provided new
perspective to look at issues.

https://telegram.me/UpscPdfDrive
 https://telegram.me/UPSC_PDF

She has derived new terminology &philosophical categories. In above statement we

get a fresh perspective on importance of participation in political life. In her book, “On
Human Condition” she has said that the highest realization of human condition/ vita
active takes place when we perform action which means participation in politics in
words of Hannah Arendt – Polis or Sight of Appearance.
According to her, action differentiates (differentia specifica) man from other species.
It is only the action that goes on directly between men
Action has two components:
 Freedom & Plurality: Freedom in Hannah is ability to do something new, she
gives concept of natality & believes that every birth is new beginning. She
emphasises on Plurality because on this “world Men & not Man live.”
Plurality have two concepts:
 Equality: Since all are humans so all are equals.
 Distinctiveness: It refers about uniqueness of each human being.
Action makes sense only when performed in front of others. As artists needs
audience, action needs Plurality. Hence she defines power as acting in concert with
others. It is source of legitimation of political institutions. She also shows linkage
between speech & action and thus has been considered as an advocate of
participative and deliberately democracy.
In the words of Hannah Arendt, Action, as distinguishes from fabrication, is never
possible in isolation, to be isolated is to be deprived of the capacity to act.

2 b) Power is essentially a contested concept. Do you agree? Summarise the

major debates on Power.

Frederick Watkins has observed: “The proper scope of Political Science is not the
study of the state or any other specific institutional complex, but the investigation of
all associations insofar as they can be shown to exemplify the problem of power.”
Steven Lukes suggests that power is an essentially contested concept like other
concepts. He explains three facets of power
 As decision Making: For example: Thomas Hobbes emphases on power of
the the state
 Agenda Setting : P. Bachrach and M. Baratz in their Essay” The Two Faces of
Power” describes power as agenda setting besides decision making. There
are certain groups who have capacity to influence the decision making but
choose not to be explicit.
 Power is a Thought Control Process: As evident in work of Gramsci who gives
the concept of Hegemony or Michael Foucault who links power and thought
system through the idea of “ Discourse of Power”

https://telegram.me/UpscPdfDrive
 https://telegram.me/UPSC_PDF

Major Debates on Power can be discussed as following

 Liberal Perspective: According to liberals, State power comes from the
consent of the governed. Liberal Capitalist scholars like Max Weber mention
about the legitimate power possessed by the state through the concept of
authority.
 Marxist Perspective (Class Perspective): According to this theory, Political
power is the product of economic power. According to Karl Marx, the class
which controls the means of production also controls political power.
Within Marxism, Gramsci has given the concept of Hegemony. Gramsci
suggests that to understand operation of power, we have to look at the Civil
Society and not just the state to understand the process by which dominant
class “ Manufactures consent”.
 Elitist Perspective: Elitist Scholars suggest that the society can be divided into
Elites and masses. In every society, power is the possession of elites. Pareto
has given the concept of “circulation of elites”. Mosca has given the concept
of the ruling class. Michels has given “the iron law of oligarchy” and C. Wright
Mills discusses the concept of Power Elite.
 Pluralist Perspective: Robert Dahl has given the concept of Polyarchy.
According to Polyarchy, power is distributed among various associations or
groups throughout the society in democratic countries rather than possessed
by Elite or a class. However he later introduce the term of “Deformed
Polyarchy” which shows that corporate classes enjoy more power than other
groups.
 Feminist perspective: Feminism focuses on the theory of Power in terms of
intersection of gender, race & class and highlights the role of patriarchy in
maintaining the oppression of women. Scholars like Susan Moller Okin in her
book “Gender, Justice & Family” and Kate Millet in her book “Sexual Politics”
explains the role of Patriarchy.
 Arendtian Notion: Hannah Arendt has focussed on political power. She terms
power as “acting in concert”. The capacity to act for a public-political purpose
is what Arendt calls power. Power is a sui generis phenomenon and rests
entirely on persuasion.
 Foucaultian Perspective: Foucault has given a unique view of power when he
suggests that power does not lie in actors or in discreet structures in which
actors operate. He held that “power is everywhere” diffused and embodied in
discourse, knowledge and regimes of truth.
Foucault is one of the few writers on power, who recognise that power is not
just a negative, coercive or repressive thing that forces us to do things against
our wishes, but can also be necessary, productive and positive force in
society. Power is also a source of social conformity. He was fascinated by
mechanism of prison surveillance, school discipline, system for the
administration and controls of populations, and the promotions of norms of
behaviour or defiance. Physical bodies are subjugated and made to behave in
certain ways, as a microcosm of social control of the wider population,
through what he called bio power. Disciplinary and bio power create a
“discursive practice” or a body of knowledge and behaviour that defines what

https://telegram.me/UpscPdfDrive
 https://telegram.me/UPSC_PDF

is normal and acceptable etc. but it is a discursive practice that is nonetheless

in constant flux.
Power is not a thing or substance. It is not embodied in an institution or a
group of people. power is exercised as a technique. The only way it can be
identified is when it is exercised by some people over others. This is why,
according to Foucault, an important indication of the existence of power is a
display of resistance to it.
In Foucault’s understanding, there are three types of struggles against power.
 Against Ethnic/Social/Religious domination: typical of feudal societies.
 Against Exploitation (which separates individuals from what they produce)-
typical of 19th century capitalist societies.
 Against forms of Subjugation (meaning both to be a subject and to be
subjected to).
A key point about Foucault’s approach to power is that it transcends politics and
sees power as an everyday, socialised and embodied phenomenon. This is why
state-centric power struggle, including revolutions, do not always lead to change in
the social order. For some, Foucault’s concept of power is so elusive and removed
from agency or structure that there seems to be little scope for practical action. But
he has been hugely influential in pointing to the ways that norms can be so
embedded as to be beyond our perception – causing us to discipline ourselves
without any wilful coercion from others.
Contrary to many interpretations, Foucault believed in possibilities for action and
resistance. He was an active social and political commentator who saw a role for the
‘organic intellectuals’. His ideas about action were, like Hayward’s, concerned with
our capacities to recognise and question socialised norms and constraints. To
challenge power is not a matter of seeking some ‘absolute truth’ (which is in any
case a socially produced power), but ‘of detaching the power of truth from the forms
of hegemony, social, economic, and cultural, within which it operates at the present
time’. Discourse can be a site of both power and resistance, with scope to ‘evade,
subvert or contest strategies of power’.
Note : We have given the complete note on Foucault but in answer you can limit to
key ideas and words.
Conclusion: Thus there are different perspectives of powers & it remains a
contested concept.

2C) what is Patriarchy? Discuss in brief the origin, history and development of
feminist ideology.
In words of Gerda Lerner, Patriarchy means manifestation & institutionalisation of
male domination. It implies that men hold power in all the important institutions of
society and women are deprived of access to power.
The concept of Patriarchy was introduced by Kate Millet in her book “sexual Politics”.
She argues that patriarchal power of man over woman is the basic to functioning of

https://telegram.me/UpscPdfDrive
 https://telegram.me/UPSC_PDF

all societies and extends far beyond formal institutions of power, overriding the class
and race division.
Feminism is a political ideology that advocates for social, political and economic
equality of sexes. Its formal recognition goes to French Revolution, when marry
Wollstonecraft wrote” A vindication of right of women” and was characterised as
mother of feminism.
Later on, J.S.Mill in his essay “The Subjection of Women” expressed his concern
about Status of women and advocated for right to vote for women and their
participation in public affairs.
History of Feminism can be divided into three waves:
 The first wave refers to women suffrage movement during late 19 th and early
20th century in USA & UK. It aimed at promotion of equal contract and
property rights for women as well as right to vote for women.
 The second wave was from 1960s to 1980s where feminists saw women’s
cultural and political inequalities as inextricably linked and encouraged women
to understand aspects of their personal lives as deeply politicised and
reflecting gendered structure. One of the prominent thinkers is Simon de
Beauvoir, who held that one is not born woman, but becomes a woman.
“Personal is Political” became synonymous with second wave.
 The third wave began in 1990s as a response to backlash against initiatives
and movements created by second wave. The third wave seeks to challenge
or avoid second wave’s essential definition of feminity which over-
emphasised the experience of upper middle class women. Post Structuralist
interpretation of gender and sexuality is central to third wave which focuses of
micro politics and contains internal debate between different feminists. It also
focuses on ideas like queer theory, abolishing gender role expectations and
stereotypes and issues of non white women.
Linking all the three waves, Imelda whelehan suggests that second wave was
contribution of early phase of feminism and coexists with the third wave.
However feminist ideology has been criticised for too easy comparison and
generalisation. The experience of the modern American “fashion Victim” is
qualitatively different from the sufferings on Chinese women on account of birth
control.
The attempt to universalise women experience may conceal other forms of
oppression based on race or class or belittle their importance as from the
perspective of global and trans historical oppression.
Thus, feminist ideology had played a major role in bringing the concerns and issues
of half of humanity a part of global discourse.
United Nations has taken initiatives like UN Women to address the concerns and has
given a call for Planet 50:50 by 2030: Step it up for gender equality. SDG 5 also calls
for gender equality.

https://telegram.me/UpscPdfDrive
 https://telegram.me/UPSC_PDF

3 a) Comment: “An independent class of intellectuals does not exist, but rather
every social group has its own intellectuals… A human mass does not
distinguish itself and become independent by itself without organising itself
and there is no organisation without intellectuals.” (Gramsci)
Gramsci has analysed the nature and the role of intellectuals. According to him,
Intelligentsia is not a distinct social group, but a part of some other fundamental
social group. He categorises intellectual into two types Organic and traditional.
With each new social group, come into existence class of intellectuals to fulfil the
requirement of productive structure. Their role is to create the ideas that Justify,
rationalise the interests of their own social group and its claim to dominance.
Traditional intellectuals include those who we spontaneously recognize as
intellectuals like philosophers, artists, Journalists etc. They think themselves as
autonomous of the shifting currents of social and economic life but in reality, they are
observed into social groups through activities of the organic intellectuals of that
group. Thus, intellectual class is a fusion of organic and traditional intellectuals. This
class perform the spectrum of intellectual function from routine to advance.
In order to become dominant, a social group requires the services of intellectuals to
enforce its hegemony. They create superstructure appropriate for the dominant
group, which in turn becomes the superstructure of the whole society.
Intellectual activity is the means by which social group becomes hegemonic,
intelligentsia is thus the pivot of historical process.
Gramsci suggest that working classes have to fight at two levels: war of position and
war of manoeuvre. Subaltern class should produce its own intellectuals and must win
over significant number of traditional intellectuals. He emphasises on the necessity
of the fundamental ideological struggle or creation of counter hegemony and
necessity of creating new consciousness.
Gramsci even suggest that “the mode of the being of the new intellectual can no
longer consist in eloquence, but in active participation in practical life as constructor,
organizes and “ permanent not persuader” and just simple orator.

3 b) Differentiate Participatory Democracy from Deliberative Democracy.

Critically examine the relevance of deliberative democracy in contemporary
times.
Democracy is an idea of modern times. In broader context, it refers to people in
power.
The theory of participative democracy also known as associative democracy or
strong democracy is different from the theory of Representative Democracy. It puts
great importance on maximising the participation of citizens in the public decisions
that affect their lives. Active participation is regarded as beneficial both for citizens as
an individual and political system as a whole.

https://telegram.me/UpscPdfDrive
 https://telegram.me/UPSC_PDF

Since active participation is expected, participation should not only be periodically in

elections. It has to be continuous. Citizens formulate and defend their own interests
through various civic organisations like interest groups, Political Parties, NGOs etc.
Participation transforms individuals into citizens, thus popular inclusion in public
sphere is the idea.
Prominent exponents of participatory democracy in our times are Hannah Arendt.
Hannah Arendt looks at modern democracy as deeply unequal in political terms,
since equality for her means participation in civic affairs (on Human Condition).
Similarily According to Lynd, Participatory Democracy is a design of social inclusion
aim at institutionalizing new democratic sovereignty.
Deliberative Democracy : Deliberative Democracy is also called discursive
democracy, has its roots in Habermas ideal of discursive “Public Sphere”.
Process of Deliberation is at heart of deliberative democracy. Deliberation refers to
dialogue, careful consideration reflection. According to the theory, even though
Political decisions are made at Centre, discussion should not be limited to Centre
rather open to civil society actors.
Deliberative Democracy puts civility, dialogue and mutual respect in the process.
prominent theorists of deliberative democracy are Rawls, Habermas etc.
According to Habermas, for a political choice to be legitimate, it must be the outcome
of deliberation among free, equal & rational agents. All these conditions of
communication will lead to communicative action.
According to Scholars, participatory democracy addresses the quantitative where as
deliberative democracy focuses on qualitative dimensions. At times they are seen
incompatible as attempts to realize one, sacrifices the other.
However there are scholars who consider Deliberative Democracy as a variant of
participatory for example Habermas.
Relevance of Deliberative democracy in Contemporary time: Amy Gutman & Dennis
Thompson in their book “Why Deliberative Democracy” has highlighted the
contemporary relevance.
 It makes citizens as well as representatives responsible.
 It provides for most justifiable conception for dealing with moral
disagreements.
 Encourages public spirited perspective on public issues.
 Mutually respectful process.

3 C) “Man is essentially a rational being. His basic urge is not to believe but to
question, to know.” In the light of above statement, critically examine the idea
of Radical Humanism as given by M N Roy.

https://telegram.me/UpscPdfDrive
 https://telegram.me/UPSC_PDF

Radical Humanism is a new philosophy of revolution. According to M.N.Roy, it has

critical & constructive importance in describing the inadequacies of communism as
well as Parliamentary Democracy.
The Constructive aspect gives the highest value to the freedom of individual outlining
a view of radical democracy and the way to achieve it.
According to M.N.Roy, individual is prior to the Society & freedom can be enjoyed
only by individual. Quest for freedom and search for truth constitute the basic urge of
human progress. Man is essential a “Rational Being”.
The purpose of all human endeavours, individual or collective is attainment of
freedom in ever increasing measure. The amount of freedom available to the
individuals is the measure of social progress. Man is essentially rational. Reason is
physiological in origin. Man’s reason is natural result of his struggle for existence.
Foundation of social morality is in the reason of man to live in harmonious and
mutually beneficial social relations.
M.N.Roy held that the crises of modern civilization are due to the lack of integrated
view of human nature. In any revolutionary social philosophy, sovereignty of man
must be recognised. The task of every fighter for new humanistic world would be to
make every individual conscious of his rationality. M.N.Roy held that neither
Capitalism nor parliamentary system can solve the problems of mankind. Radical
Humanism is the only alternative, which reconciles the social organisation and
human freedom.
Radical Humanism based on reason of man is a revolutionary idea for a traditional
society like India. M.N.Roy was much ahead of his time. If radical humanism is
adopted, it can contribute in a major way towards the evolution of India as modern
society.

4 a) “Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the

welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason, justice denies
that the loss of Freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by
others.” (Rawls) Discuss.
Answer: The statement about man having “inviolability founded on justice” was made
by American political philosopher John Rawls, to uphold the sanctity of human
dignity, and criticize utilitarian view of justice. It is his de-ontological principle of
human dignity. Utilitarians pursue utility or the greatest good of the greatest
numbers.
Harvard professor and social-contract philosopher Rawls, in pursuit of social justice,
propounded his ‘A Theory of Justice’ (1971). Here, he quotes that “justice is the first
virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory, however
elegant and economical, must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; like-wise laws and
institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished
if they are unjust. Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that
even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override.” So, justice being the first

https://telegram.me/UpscPdfDrive
 https://telegram.me/UPSC_PDF

virtue of the social institution, must consider human dignity as the ultimate ideal.
Rawls points out that utilitarian principles may well be arbitrary and are independent
of (and thus not governed by) a conception of the right.
Further, Rawlsian justice “does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are
outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many.” Put bluntly, Rawls
rejects utilitarian form of justice. He sees utilitarian distribution as non-fulfilment of
distributive and social justice. And he finishes his argument by saying that: “in a just
society, the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled; the rights secured by
justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests.”
Here, political bargaining refers to the disproportionate weightage attached to the
“greater good”. Utilitarians (such as Bentham) tend to subordinate individual to the
collectivity (teleological or goal-oriented justice). Although some utilitarians like J. S.
Mill accorded primacy to moral worth of a policy (to restore dignity of individual), it is
Rawls, who overwhelmingly reinforced this idea.
Rawls’ thought experiment puts man in the ‘original position’, behind a ‘veil of
ignorance’, to rationally decide unbiased principles of justice. Rawls produced two
principles – liberty and equality. Liberty principle ensures basic liberties of man, while
equality principle consists of ‘equality of opportunity’ and the ‘difference principle’
(favouring the disadvantaged). The ‘difference principle’ can be said to a direct
counter to core utilitarianism, by seeking disproportionate advantage to the worst off
in society.
Rawls attempted to show the inadequacy of the “maximization of the good” in
society. Social justice dictates that society must structure its institutions to provide
the maximum satisfaction for all. Rawls’ theory is an important perspective to the
contested concept of justice.

4 b) “Nationalism is not a mere political program. Nationalism is a religion that

has come from god.” In the context of above statement, to what extent
Aurobindo Ghose can be called as Prophet of Indian Nationalism?
In the context of modern Indian political theory and practice, Aurobindo Ghose has
presented an exalted, purified and sanctified nationalism. He had a clear vision of
achieving absolute Swaraj and interpreted nationalism in broad terms.
After his return to India, Ghose was perturbed by the lamentable prostration of the
country and did not draw satisfaction from the plans of Indian National Congress. He
stated that the aims of Indian National Congress (INC) were faulty. The spirit in
which it proceeded towards accomplishing goals was not with a spirit of sincerity and
wholeheartedness.
In response to Congress view of India as a nation in making, he held that India has
been a nation since beginning and is not dependent on British recognition.
Aurbindo wanted a spiritual reorientation of political life. In 1908, Aurobindo stated
that nationalism was immortal because it was a religion that had come to India from
the God. According to him, Swaraj can be attained only when there is faith in God.

https://telegram.me/UpscPdfDrive
 https://telegram.me/UPSC_PDF

He declared that “If you are going to be nationalist, if you are going to assent to this
religion of nationalism, you must do it in the religious spirit.” Thus, he elevated the
demand for national freedom to a religious faith so that the masses could be
awakened.
Ghose based his theory of Indian nationalism on the theory of neo-vedantism. In an
article in Bande Mataram, Ghose explained that nationalism is simply the passionate
aspiration for the realization of divine unity in the nation. Predicting the future India,
he held that there will be an essential equality between man and man, between
caste and caste, between class and class as all beings are different but equal and
united parts of the Virat Purush as realised in the nation.
Further talking about the underlying unity, he built his idea of nationalism on idea of
Mother India given by Bankim Candra Chaterjee. He held that all Indians are children
of Bharat Mata and appealed to the youth to liberate Bharat Mata from bondage and
slavery.
Aurbindo’s creed of nationalism was not narrow and fanatical, but had a
cosmopolitan character. He proclaimed that India was rising not to become a
powerful and aggressive nation, but to make available her vest spiritual treasures
and thus help mankind towards a life of fullness, equality and unity.
The bedrock of political philosophy of Aurobindo was his concept of spiritual
nationalism and the divinity of the motherland. Because of his call for spiritualisation
of freedom struggle, asserting the underlying unity among Indian masses and
cosmopolitan outlook, Tagore painted him as the 'Messiah of Indian culture and
civilisation' and C.R. Das called Aurobindo as the 'poet of patriotism, and the prophet
of nationalism.
But, Aurbindo has also been accused of communalisation of freedom struggle and
leaders like Nehru and Patel called for a more secular approach because of the
faultiness within Indian society.
However, Aurbindo’s idea had a significant impact on the freedom struggle and his
writings played a key role in rescuing freedom struggle from academic pastime to
giving it a sense of purpose and sacrifice.

4 c) What are the three generations of Human Rights? Examine the relevance
of multicultural perspective on rights.
Human Rights are the rights inherent to all human beings irrespective of their
nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, language or any other status. These rights are
universal, inalienable, interdependent, indivisible, equal and non-discriminatory. The
rights are often expressed and guaranteed by domestic laws, international treaties,
general principles and other sources of international law.
Though the rights were first emphasised in UDHR in 1948, Czech jurist Karel Vesak
proposed its division into three generations at the international institute of human
rights in 1977.

https://telegram.me/UpscPdfDrive
 https://telegram.me/UPSC_PDF

The first generation of rights focuses on civil-political rights like traditional civil and
political liberties, freedom of speech, religion, press etc. It was result of democratic
revolutions in Europe and USA at the end of 18th century. These rights are strongly
individualistic which presupposes a duty of non-interference of government towards
individuals.
The second generation focuses on socio-economic rights like right to work, food,
social security etc. These rights came to the fore during fight for economic and social
rights at the end of 19th century and beginning of 20th century. These rights require
affirmative action on part of the government for their realisation. These are exercised
by all people collectively or set of people and is reflected in Mexican constitution,
German constitution and USSR constitution.
Third generation of rights are “collective developmental rights” of the people like right
to development, right to peace, right to healthy environment etc. These are the most
recent inclusion to the set of rights and its realisation is predicted not only upon
affirmative and negative actions of the state but also upon behaviour of each
individual.
Multicultural perspective of rights came due to increasing globalisation and
movement of communities across the border in search of safety, secure livelihood
and better employment opportunities.
Multicultural perspective revolves around the debate on universalism and
particularism and how to understand and respond to challenges associated with
religious and cultural diversity. Will Kymlicka has developed the most influential
liberal theory of multiculturalism by marrying the liberal values of autonomy and
equality with an argument about the value of cultural membership. He has called for
positive accommodation of minority groups practice through “group differentiated
rights.”
Bhikhu Parekh says that liberal theory cannot provide an impartial framework for
governing relations between different communities and argue for a more open model
of intercultural dialogue.
However, Jermey Waldron opine that preserving and protecting a culture runs the
risk of crippling its abilities to adopt to circumstances in an era where technology,
trade and economics are the deciding factors.
Amartya Sen says that multicultural societal existence does not provide cross-
cultural understanding but leads to ghettoization. Brian Berry is of view that
multiculturalism leads to anti- development tendencies and divides people on various
lines.
Thus, in a globalised world, there needs to be cross-cultural dialogues for better
understanding of each-other’s concerns. However, it also needs to be ensured that
cultural freedom and values do not militate against basic human rights and ensure
equal opportunity for every segment irrespective of nationality, ethnicity, culture,
religion or language.

https://telegram.me/UpscPdfDrive
 https://telegram.me/UPSC_PDF

5 a) Write a short note on over developed state.

Overdeveloped State is a concept given by structural Marxist scholar Hamza Alavi to

understand the nature of state in post-colonial societies. It refers to such post-
colonial states where development of political and socioeconomic structures has not
been in sync, resulting in fully-developed centralised state machinery, while the
socio-economic structure has remained primitive.
Alavi argues that because of historical conditions of post-colonial societies, it would
be wrong to apply the same concept to them, as in western capitalist societies.
In his article on state in post-colonial society, Alavi argues that original base of post-
colonial state lies in the class forces existing in colonial-era metropole. The purpose
of state apparatus was to subordinate indigenous classes i.e. indigenous
bourgeoisie, neo-colonist bourgeoisie and landed masses. The colonial power
established highly developed military and bureaucracy to control these classes.
Thus, state apparatus was overdeveloped.
He further argues that in weak colonies with underdeveloped indigenous
bourgeoisie, it would be difficult for post-colonial state to subordinate highly
developed colonial state apparatus through which metropolitan power exercises
dominance.
As an alternative, a new competing convergence of interest of three competing
propertied class will emerge. Under these circumstances, a bureaucratic-military
oligarchy, with a distinctive relative autonomy would play a role of mediator among
classes and will take a top position in the hierarchy of post-colonial state. As a result,
the state apparatus acquires a relatively autonomous and not simply the instrument
of any class.
Since the party that played prominent role freedom struggle acquired power after
independence and leaders enjoyed legitimacy among people, this helped in
continuation and further consolidation of centralized authority. Economic
development models adopted by these states further made the state powerful.
Alavi terms Pakistan as “military-bureaucratic-oligarchy.” In pre-1991 era, India was
also infamous for inspector-raj and license-quota permit raj system.
Alavi’s essay sparked off considerable debate among Marxists in Africa. This
includes John Saul’s emphasis on ideology which he said, was neglected in Alavi’s
analysis, but was necessary for the state’s function of holding together the capitalist
system.
However, globalisation, media penetration and greater dissemination of information
are changing the overdeveloped character of post-colonial state. In India, we can
see an era of delicensing, deregulation along with acts like right to information
chipping away the centralised nature of state machinery and bringing a greater
balance between political and socio-economic structures.

https://telegram.me/UpscPdfDrive
 https://telegram.me/UPSC_PDF

5 b) Write a brief note on Polyarchy.

Robert Dahl has explained the term ‘polyarchy’ in his book “Polyarchy: Participation
and Opposition” to describe modern western states which identify themselves as
democracies, suggesting that ‘democracy’ itself is an unachievable utopian notion. In
doing so he suggests that polyarchy is the reality and democracy should be the goal.
Polyarchy denotes the acquisition of democratic institutions within a political
system that leads to the participation of a plurality of actors. Dahl’s theory is among
the most formidable, influential and enlightening versions of contemporary
“Revisionist” democratic theory.
Polyarchy, as presented by Dahl, should be understood as a process by which a set
of institutions that comes close to what one could call the ideal type of democracy.
To reach the ideal requires meeting five criteria: Effective participation, voting
equality at the decisive stage, enlightened understanding, Control of the agenda and
Inclusiveness.
Instead, Polyarchies have elected officials, free and fair elections, inclusive suffrage,
right to run for office, freedom of expression, alternative information and
associational autonomy.
The concept is Dahl’s attempt to develop an empirical definition of democratization
as well as to elaborate a set of normative criteria for deciding whether or not a
political system can be counted as a democracy.
In Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition, Dahl has given two general features.
There is relatively high tolerance to opposition that is sufficient to check arbitrary
inclination of the government. Second feature is opportunities for participation in
politics should be sufficiently widespread to guarantee reliable level of popular
responsiveness.
Central to the adequate functioning of polyarchy is not only the existence and
operation of institutions but also the existence of societal groups and adequate
space for them to manoeuvre and organize. The institutionalization of the democratic
process of accountable government is a prerequisite for polyarchy.
Therefore, public power is essential, and authority is effectively controlled by societal
organizations and civil associations (e.g., interest groups and political parties).
Hence, in Dahl’s view, the extent to which those societal actors can and do operate
autonomously, as well as independently from the state, will enhance the democratic
quality of a polity.
Dahl’s focus on “bargaining and negotiation between organised minorities” has led to
the criticism of his theory as elite theory of democracy because organised minorities
have potentially oligarchical tendencies.
Marxists have criticized Dahl’s theory as a thinly veiled apology for elite domination
and mass apathy that suffuse the politics of western liberal democracies. They say
that power does not remain with masses but with people controlling the economic
structure i.e. bourgeoisie.

https://telegram.me/UpscPdfDrive
 https://telegram.me/UPSC_PDF

Acknowledging the Marxist criticism, Dahl accepted US as deformed polyarchy with

big corporate enjoying disproportionate power.
Dahl’s concept of polyarchy is not only a seminal contribution to democratic theory,
but it has also been a powerful incentive for empirical analysis. Polyarchy has
become one of the most widely used concepts in political science, because it
combines prescriptive qualities—enhancing democracy as ideal government—with
empirical options. Both aspects enable the analysis of extant democracies and the
question of how they can be further developed.

5 c) Gandhi’s view on relationship between Rights and Duties.

Rights, Duties and their mutual relationships if any, has remained at the focal point of
political analysis. Rights empower the citizens and limits the state while duties holds
citizen responsible and strengthens state authority.
Indian tradition does not see rights & duties in isolation, but correlates them. Gandhi
reflects the Indian tradition and says that “a duty well performed creates
corresponding right”.
Gandhi considers duty as moral obligations, rather than forced one. He says that
when we make sacrifices for the sake of our duty, there is moral worth in our conduct
much more than the sacrifices we wake to assert our rights.
This correlation is reflected in all the Gandhian concepts like: Swaraj, Sarvodhya,
Ahimsa, etc. For Example: his concept of Swaraj calls for self control. By performing
this duty of self control, Indian will be eligible to enjoy self rule or independence.
This views on rights and duties show the continuity of ends and means theory.
Duties are the means to achieve the ends i.e. Rights. By performing our duty, we
become entitled to our rights.
However, Gandhian view is different for that of Liberal and Marxist view. Liberals
advocate for Rights of Citizen against the state but are silent on duties. Communist
States, on the other hand, talk about duties of the citizens and belief that there is no
need for rights.
Echoing Gandhian sentiments, Philosopher Onora O’ Neil has commented that
“Serious writings on Human Rights acknowledge that any right must entail correlative
obligations.”
In contemporary scenario, the incidents of global warming and environmental
degradation can be said as the result of blind claim on rights without understanding
our duties towards nature.
Thus to handle global challenges the international community need to go back to the
Gandhian Philosophy. Rights and duties are not separate from each other, but are
complementary.

https://telegram.me/UpscPdfDrive
 https://telegram.me/UPSC_PDF

5 d) Discuss the role of B R Ambedkar in the rise of Dalit consciousness in

India.
It is almost impossible to discuss the rise of Dalit consciousness in India without
discussing the role of B R ambedkar. Dhananjay Keer has held that Ambedkar is
among the foremost leader of Dalits in India and played a key role in raising the dalit
consciousness, bringing their issues at fore and making it a part of freedom struggle.
Ambedkar wanted to emancipate the untouchables and liberate them from the
slavery of upper castes. He wanted to achieve equal rights, human, civic and
political, for the untouchables. He wanted them to grow into a third force beside the
Hindus and Muslims in free India and share power with them.
So, in 1920 after his return for USA, he collaborated with Shahu Mharaj of Kolhapur
in forming the Depressed Classes Forum which organized the first All India
Conference of the Depressed Classes in Nagpur, where he argued that the
emancipation of the depressed classes was possible only through their own initiative.
By 1927, Ambedkar launched full-fledged movements for Dalit rights. He demanded
public drinking water sources open to all and right for all castes to enter temples. He
openly condemned Hindu Scriptures advocating discrimination and arranged
symbolic demonstrations to enter the Kalaram Temple in Nashik and led a mass
movement to take water from a public tank at Mahad.
Ambedkar tried to unite the untouchables under one banner in order to fight for
justice and equality. Their wrongs could be righted, he told them, only when they got
a share in the political power and in the administration of the country. In 1936, he
founded the Independent Labour Party, which transformed into the All India
Scheduled Castes Federation.
Ambedkar testified to the Simon Commission that untouchables deserved treatment
as a distinct minority, separate from the Hindu community. During the Round table
conferences, he demanded for separate electorates.
Ambedkar’s motto was “Tell the slave that he is a slave and he will revolt against his
slavery.” He was against Gandhi’s use of Harijan and preferred dalit as it reflected
the real status of depressed class in India. He also started journals like Mooknayak
to discuss the status of dalits and started educational institutions for them.
He also threw a serious challenge to Gandhi and Congress commitment towards
dalits by questioning absence of Satyagrah for removing untouchability and termed
Harijan Sevak Sangh as pootna.
In Annihilation of castes, he called for abolition of castes and function of Brahmans
as priests should be performed by trained presons from any caste under state
supervision.
Ambedkar’s theory of Buddhist origin of untouchables allowed the untouchables a
place of pride in India’s past and a psychological factor that their despised life does
not reflect upon past life or current behaviour. Through anthropological study, his
declaration of mahads as real sons of the soil, gave dalits a sense of confidence.

https://telegram.me/UpscPdfDrive
 https://telegram.me/UPSC_PDF

Through his writings, speeches, mass contacts and meetings with the British
bureaucracy, he supported the cause of the untouchables so that their
socioeconomic life could be improved. Time and again, he threw challenged the
custodians of Hindu society as well as sought the support sympathy of the
enlightened section of society.
In the post-Independence era, as the chairman of drafting committee, Ambedkar
furthered the cause of dalits and ensured their participation in the emerging power
structure through reservations.
Thus, as Dhananjay Keer writes in his biography, Ambedkar focused the world
attention on civic, social and political rights and liberties making it a burning topic of
the day, giving it global publicity and international importance. He awakened them to
a feeling of self-respect and human dignity.

5 e) Salient features of Buddhist political thought.

There has been a debate on the existence of Buddhist political thinking. Bhikhu
Parekh has termed Buddhism as other worldly religion because of the idealism
attached to it. The concepts like non-violence, detachment with material pleasure
etc. are inconsistent with modern politics. However, scholars like Prof. gopal Guru
and Gail Omvedt have asserted Buddha as a political philosopher.
Buddhism links origin of state with emergence of private property, which differs from
the Hindu view of divine origin of state.
At the core of Buddha’s political philosophy is the notion that “human life is precious,
endowed with freedom and opportunity.” The preciousness of life is Kantian
“dignity,” manifest in what Martin Buber calls “I-Thou” relations.
Buddha, like Aristotle, was less concerned with the form of government than its
consequence. Monarchy, aristocracy, democracy, or any combination thereof – its
measure is benevolence: the social virtue it serves.
Buddha undercut Hindu class, caste, and misogynous prejudice by allowing anyone,
including women, into the Sangha. Thus, Buddhist Sanghas reflected egalitarianism.
The discussion in the Sanghas and decision by unanimity reflects the earliest
traditions of deliberative democracy. .
pratitya-samutpadha or “dependent co-origination” is Buddhist quantum insight into
universal brother-sisterhood. Thus, budhist world view is cosmopolitan in nature.
Buddha was first and foremost a pacifist. He held that war brings sufferings to the
defeated and hatred for the victor and thus called for renouncing war and violence.
He advised the kings to be noble gentle, modest, selfless and liberal. He
recommended universal health care, generosity and adjuring violence.

https://telegram.me/UpscPdfDrive
 https://telegram.me/UPSC_PDF

Ashoka further added ideals and duties of the king like serving humanity, promotion
of spirit of toleration among different religions, forbid cruelty towards animals, non-
aggression towards neighbours and sending envoys with message of peace.
India’s doctrine of Panchsheel in its relation with other states is based on Buddhist
teachings and has served India well in a tumultuous International scenario.
It is a fact that realism and realpolitik is the hegemonic ideology today. However, to
establish a harmonious society and peaceful International order, Buddhist political
thinking is the key.

6 A) Comment: “Material well-being alone is supreme. For, spiritual good

and sensual pleasure depends upon material well-being.” (Kautilya)

Hindu Political tradition takes a comprehensive view of human life and gives due
importance to four Purushartha i.e. Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha. Kautilya’s
Arthshastra has recognised the importance of material well-being (Artha) in
realisation of other three purusharthas. Scholars like Boesche term Arthashastra as
‘science of political economy’ while Kosambi calls it as ‘science of material gain’.
Dharmashastra, the main prevalent political text of the time preceding Kautilya,
prioritised dharma as the supreme goal amongst the three life goals: artha, dharma
and kama to attain moksha. Kautilya brought a sense of interdependence of artha
with other goals of socio-political life. He forwarded a theory which made artha and
dharma complementary.
Kautilya has, thus emphasised that artha or material well-being is primary, which
paves the way for dharma or spiritual well-being, and both dharma and kama depend
on the acquisition of artha.
Kautilya did not relegate dharma below artha. He elucidated the primacy of dharma
repeatedly throughout the text: Wealth is like a tree; its roots are dharma and the fruit
is pleasure. Achieving that kind of wealth which further promotes dharma, produces
more wealth and gives more pleasure is the achievement of all gains
(sarvarthasiddhi).
Kautilya discusses the importance of material well-being for the state as well. He
suggests that State has to create the means for material well-being and thus the king
should go for expeditions to acquire land. As a consequence, in his mandal
Siddhanata, he declares neighbour as a natural enemy.
Therefore, in Arthashastra, the supreme ‘ethical’ goal of the ruler of the state is
securing the well-being and economic prosperity of the kingdom and his people. He
assigned the aim of attaining ‘prosperity and well-being of the subject’ as the dharma
of the king, thereby necessitating the king to devote more time to the activities
related to artha.
Kautilyan view of material well-being is in contrast to Buddhist view, which considers
material well being as a reason for greed and a source of sorrow.

https://telegram.me/UpscPdfDrive
 https://telegram.me/UPSC_PDF

However, in modern times, kautilyan prescription is evident in form of nations going

for their economic development for overall well-being of the state. But in personal
life, quest for material well being must not lead to immorality and ethical values
should be adhered to.

6 b) Define Political Theory. Discuss the debates on the nature of political

theory. Also explain the relevance of political theory towards betterment of
human life.
Political Theory as described by David Held is a network of concepts and
generalizations about the political life involving ideas, assumptions and statements
about the nature, purpose and key features of government, State & Society and
about the political capabilities of human beings.
There has been debate around the nature of political enquiry. In the ancient times,
the discussion was philosophical with thinkers discussing concepts like Society, Ideal
State, Ideal Theory of Justice, etc. In modern times, Scholars like Rawls, Leo
Strauss, Dante Gramino advocate for philosophical nature of political enquiry.
According to the Strauss, the nature of political enquiry is no difference between
study of Politics and Study of Philosophy or Ethics.
In the post- world war era, American political scientists under APSA started
advocating the nature of political enquiry should be purely scientific. David Easton in
his lecture at APSA gave eight intellectual foundation stones of Behaviouralism and
called for behavioural revolution.
Behaviouralist like Easton and Dahl held that normative theories are mere
speculations and imaginative theories without any scientific basis and held
normativists responsible for decline of political theories.
However, 1960s, saw the rise of post-behaviouralism, which solved that fact value
dichotomy. It was realised that making political science will compromise the subject
matter and its relevance. David Easton in his “Credo of Relevance” speech called for
“creative Theory and suggested that subject matter should not be compromised for
the sake of technique.
Discussing the need for both normative scientific approach, Andrew Hacker in
“Political Theory: Philosophy, Ideology, Science” has held that every political
scientists plays a double role. He is part scientist and part philosopher. No theorist
can make a lasting contribution to human knowledge unless he works in the realms
of both science & philosophy.
The role of political theory towards the human society and human life can be
assessed from plato’s search for a just society and just state. In the modern times,
the writing of thinkers like Roussoue and Marx have guided people to stand against
the unjust rule and claim their social, political and economic rights.
The writings of Kant, Rawls, Sen etc. has given insight into how a just society can be
established in a globalised world. On the other hand, Post modernists have given a

https://telegram.me/UpscPdfDrive
 https://telegram.me/UPSC_PDF

radical view about the concepts like Power, Ideology etc. Post Colonial thinkers like
Homi Bhabha and Gayatri Spivak have discussed western domination on colonial
society and have advocated a more balanced world.
Thus Sabine has rightly claimed that Political theory is man’s attempt to consciously
understand and solve the problems of his group & organisation. Gramino says that
political theory affirms the possibility of transcending the sphere of immediate
practical concern and viewing man’s social existence from a more critical
perspective.
In today’s era, where globalisation seems to recede and protectionism is on rise,
racial divides and hate crimes are increasing and violence is taking place in name of
religion, race. It is incumbent upon political theorists to guide the world away from
destruction & deactivation on the path of shared progress and prosperity.

6 c) Does Protective Discrimination violate the principle of Justice as

Fairness? Give arguments in support of your view.
Justice as fairness is deontological theory of Justice gives by Rawls. He has held
that Justice is the first virtue of the society just as truth is virtue of system of
thoughts. He attempted for a universal theory of Justice based on rational procedure.
In his theory of Justice, Rawls has given his three principles in lexical order. The first
principle is Equal Liberty Principle, followed by Equality of Opportunity. Here he held
that inequality arising out of certain offices or position should be based on open
competition.
His third principle is security to the least advantaged, which will help in reducing the
disparity.
Protective discrimination is the policy of granting special privileges of the down
trodden and the under privileges section of the society. These are affirmative action
programmes. In India, they are reflected in the reservation policy of the government
of India historically disadvantaged sections of society.
If we look at the different principle of Rawls theory, it concurs with the principle of
protective discrimination. Rawls has also called for security to the least advantaged.
However, Libertarians like Hayek and Nozik criticise such principles. They opine that
state has no role in distributive justice. People are responsible what they are. Nozik
has given entitlement theory of justice and criticised Rawls for compromising Liberty
for the sake of equality or welfare.
But the social liberals like Dworkin and Sen go for more explicit explanation of
Rawl’s difference principle. Dworkin advocates for Resource egalitarianism and Sen
calls for capacity building approach so that a level playing field could be ensured.
Nozik’s call for equality of opportunity must remember Rawl’s view on merit. A
person’s merit is not merely his initiative but a result of circumstances, facilities and
opportunities people cannot be held responsible for moral arbitrariness of nature.

https://telegram.me/UpscPdfDrive
 https://telegram.me/UPSC_PDF

Moreover, If Nozick principle is applied; there will be huge disparity in the society,
which will make the state unbalanced.
He may also lead to revolutions like French Revolution or Russian revolution putting
the state and the business in peril, which Nozick wanted to support.
Thus, Protective discrimination does not violate the principle of Justice as fairness,
but supports it. But state must ensure that protective discrimination does not result
in populism, as it will be equally dangerous for the State.

7 a) What is the difference between Equality of opportunity and Equality of

outcome? Do you think equality of opportunity cannot be implemented unless
one establishes level playing field to a significant extent? Defend your
argument with concrete examples.
Among all the normative ideals equality stands apart because it is linked with human
dignity. The evolution of human society is story of human evolution of equality. We
are trying to understand inequality & Equality in much deeper form.
Types of Equality remain a contested issue. Equaliy of Opportunity is associated with
philosophy of liberalism. Liberals demand equality of opportunity and equality before
law vis-à-vis aristocratic sections of the society. The ground was recognition of moral
equality. Since all are children of god, human beings are equal in moral of
foundational terms. Equality of opportunity was once a revolutionary idea but
appeared status quoits once consciousness of equality went further.
Socialists talk of Equality of outcome. Mere equality of opportunity was not enough to
meet integral value of equality i.e. human dignity. They consider it procedural and
formal. Socialists argued for substantive equality. Equality of opportunity and equality
of outcome are interlinked concepts. Equality fo opportunity establishes meritocratic
society. There is a justification for equality of opportunity considering people differ in
terms of talent and effort.
Libertarians limit the idea of equality to legal equality and equality of welfare.
On the other hand, social liberals like Sen, Dworkin and rawls emphasize on level-
playing field. For Rawls, Justice is fairness. Rawls suggests necessity of difference
principle. For Rawls, merit is a flawed argument overlooking chance factor.
Dworkin suggests resource egalitarianism and sen suggests capability approach to
establish a level playing field.
The constitution of India recognises historical disadvantages and provides for
affirmative action. To quote Rawls “Justice is first virtue of social system and justice
is fairness.”

7 b) Examine the relationship between Power, Legitimacy and Authority.

https://telegram.me/UpscPdfDrive
 https://telegram.me/UPSC_PDF

Analysis of relationship between power, legitimacy and authority is central to political

theory. According to Lasslet, Political theory is the study of shaping and sharing of
power. Above view shows centrality of power in Political science. Though there is
universal agreement that power is a core concept, it remains contested. It is said that
political Science is a democratic discipline as debate is the essence of politics.
Steven Lukas has given three elements of power.
 Power as making
 Power as agenda setting
 Power as thought control process
Power, authority and legitimacy are three different dimensions of power. Scholars
from max Weber to Hannah Arendt have discussed their nature, meaning and
relationship. One of the best exposition s found in the works of Max Weber.
Weber in his theory of Authority defines Authority= Power + Legitimacy. Unlike Marx
who projects state as an instrument of exploitation, Weber has established state as
authority enjoying legitimacy. He has given three bases of legitimacy. a) Traditional
b) Charismatic and c) rational-legal. He has discussed in detail about nature of
authority in state or society. These are three “ideal Types”. He has discussed
dominant nature of authority in modern capitalist society i.e. rational-legal.
Legitimacy implies compliance by willing obedience. No system can continue if it
doesn’t enjoy legitimacy. Rousseau remarks that even the strongest man is not
strong enough to rule until he converts his power into authority. Social contract
scholars establish authority of modern state on the principle of consent. State enjoys
authority because it represents will of the people. Social contract theories also
recognise right to resist and right to revolt if state does not fulfil terms of contract.
The legitimacy enjoyed by modern state has been questioned by Marxixt scholars
like Gramsci who interpret legitimacy as hegemony and Habermas declares
legitimacy of liberal democracies as legitimation crisis. Fouccault expresses it in
terms of governmentality as product of discourses. Hannah Arendt in her theory of
action suggests that when people act in concert with each other, legitimation is
created and no further justification is required.
Thus meaning, relation and nature among three facets of power continue to engage
intellectuals even in present times.

7 c) It has been argued that contemporary global economic processes are

increasingly eroding the territorial as well as institutional sovereignty of the
state. Critically examine.
Jean Bodin defines sovereignty as supreme power of the state over citizens and
subjects. It is an essential feature of modern nation state. In medieval times, there
were multiple centres of authority. In modern times, it is argues that sovereignty lies
with state. Rise of modern state coincides with the rise of the concept of secular
state and doctrine of legal sovereignty.

https://telegram.me/UpscPdfDrive
 https://telegram.me/UPSC_PDF

Modern nation is a territorial entity as per definition of modern nation state. As per
international law, state is an institution with definite territory, population, government
and sovereignty. Thus, sovereign states are like hard shells and nothing can come
inside or go out without the permission of the state.
The origin of globalisation is linked to rise of capitalism especially by Marxist
scholars. However, 1990s is decade when international order is supposed to have
emerged as truly global order. The end of cold war and establishment of WTO marks
highest point in victory of globalisation interpreted by scholars like Chomsky and
wallerstein as expression of capitalism.
If we look at contemporary global economic processes, there is increasing flow of
goods, services, capital and people; the so-called borderless world. Thomas
Friedman in his book “the lexus and the olive tree” defines globalisation as
inexorable integration of market, nation-state and technology to a degree never seen
before.
Growing economic interdependence has led to a rich debate among political
scholars about status of state and westphalian system of sovereignty. Hyperglobalist
Kenichi Ohmae gave concept of borderless world and Marshal Mclluhan suggests
world as global village. Susan Strange suggests that power of state is declining not
only in economic sphere but also in political sphere considering the rise of civil
society.
State centric view by Robert Gilpin and Stephen Kruzner continue to maintain
relevance of geopolitics and do not adhere to notion that we have moved from state-
centric geopolitics.
State is very much in command of globalisation. John Naisbit highlights breakdown
of nation states into smaller units of new tribalism.
David Held and Anthony Mcgrew suggest that globalisation and sovereignty is not a
zero-sum game. Neither side is winning or losing. State is powerful in some aspect
and loser in some. Thus, we can say that it remains a matter of debate and it is too
early to say that we have arrived at movement of end of history. It is premature to
say that westphalian order has given way to new world order.

8
a) Compare majoritarian theory of democracy with deliberative theory.
Which one of these offer a more adequate and normative framework for
democracy in contemporary times?

We are living in the age of democracy, but present age also known as Age of
Democracy Confusion. Democracy and its forms remains a contested concepts.
Most common understanding of Democracy is Majoritarianism. It is simplest & most
practicable. E.g. : US, INDIA, UK. Majoritarian Democracy is in institutional forms.
The value of Major Democracy is Political Equality. In recent times, Jeremy Waldron

https://telegram.me/UpscPdfDrive
 https://telegram.me/UPSC_PDF

in his article “Law & Disagreement” has advanced argument of majoritarian rule on
principle of Political Equality. According to him, final decision is to be made by
majority when equal persons disagree. Majority is fairest way of resolve the disputes.
Majoritarianism has been a cause of concern since publication of Alex de
Tocqueville “Democracy in America”. He mentions the paradox of tyranny of
Democracy. J S Mill in his book “On Representative Government” has suggested
reforms like weighted voting, education and proper qualification, proportional
representation, open ballot as means to address tyranny of majority. Mill’s advocacy
Freedom of speech and expression, where he does not advocate silencing of
minority and says it is not a game of number.
In recent times, there is revival of participative & deliberative democracy. The
essence of democracy is not number but ARGUMENT.
Ronald Dworkin has highlighted that mechanism does not fulfil fundamental idea of
democracy as fairness. According to him, virtues of majority, practical and moral are
exaggerated. Head counting principle lacks legitimacy when majority oppress
minority.
Suhirth parthasarthy in his article ‘democracy vs majoritarian will”, in context of India,
suggest that Democracy is more than free & fair elections. We have to shift the
goalposts to fundamental values of Democracy. Fundamental values are not just
Political Equality but Moral Equality. The concept of human dignity & not coercive
society.
Majoritarian Democracy often results into legitimization of government restricting
rights of individuals in the name of greatest happiness of greatest number.
Above discussion show that Participatory Democracy offers a more adequate
normative framework for democracy in our times and as suggested by Dworkin, if
democracy is truly legitimate form of government, it has to be based on instructive
value of human dignity. Multiculturalists like Will Kymlicka highlight the right of
minority.

8 b) Discuss the salient ideas of Kautilya on interstate relations. What is the

relevance of Kautilya in contemporary scenario.
Kautilya is pioneer in strategic thinking in ancient Indian Political Thought. In kautilya,
we see the beginning of Realist Tradition. His Arthshastra is considered as Science
of Politics intended to teach wise King how to remain in power. Besides discuss On
Domestic Politics & Administration, it contains fascinating discussion on War &
Diplomacy.
Vijigishu of Kautilya aims at conquering the world. Some of the brilliant ideas on
Interstate Relations are:
Mandal Siddhant: It is India’s contribution to the geopolitics. Kautilya has given the
principles that neighbours are natural enemies because land is a cause of conflict.
He explains in 12 mandals.

https://telegram.me/UpscPdfDrive
 https://telegram.me/UPSC_PDF

Shadgunya Siddharth or 6 Fold Policy : He discussed Sandhi, Vigraha, Yana,

Aasanna, Samasharaya amd Dwaydabhava.
He has used four fold policy of diplomacy ie Sama, Dama, Danda, Beda.
He has discussed qualities of ambassador and types of War.
He provides how king can use religion, spies, women in war.
He is pioneer in strategic thinking. Western scholars have compared him with
Machiavelli & geopolitican like Huntington. According to Bruce Rich, many recent
works on geopolitics consciously or unconsciously evokes kautilya’s ideas.
At times there has question mark on realist paradigm of International politics
considering that we have moved away from State Centric world to geocentric world
of interdependence. However it would bewrong to think that there would be
fundamental change in organising principle of global politics. Hence, Kautilya
remains relevant. It is more relevant in context of Indian subcontinent.
It is to be noted that officially Indian Foreign Policy has never adopted Kautilyan
approach as a formal framework. But since end of cold war, Kautilya’s influence is
evident is strategic thinking of New elites. Indians are yet to imbibe wisdom of
Kautilya in its fullest sense.

8 c) Discuss Mill’s view on freedom of speech and expression. To what extent

can we call Mill a ‘Reluctant Democrat’?
Freedom of speech and expression has been considered as one of the most
important right of modern times and a necessity for liberal democracies.
According to mill, it is the most precious gift to man from god, as out of all species,
only men have the ability to speak and communicate. Mill sys that even if a single
[erson has different view, he should be allowed to speak. As tyranny of one over all
is not justified, similarly we cannot justify tyranny of all over one.
In Mills view, “all silencing of opinion is an assumption of infallibility.” He further says
that by exchange of opinion, we get to know out faults and ultimately truth emerges.
He has held that freedom of speech and expression is a necessary pre-condition for
democracy and democracy recognises dissent.
As Mill is champion of Liberty, he is bound to be advocate of democracy. He
considers democracy as best form of government because no other form of
government can give protection to freedom of speech & expression. He is
considered as inconsistent thinker. On one hand he is advocate of Democracy on
other hand he is termed as “Reluctant Democrat”. Because of his fear of tyranny of
majority, he brings Aristocractic element in democracy.
Mill is considered as “Reluctant Democrat” but in recent times, Scholars are working
at Mill’s contribution from a fresh perspective. It is true that he brings Aristocratic

https://telegram.me/UpscPdfDrive
 https://telegram.me/UPSC_PDF

element. He believes that Democracy is not suitable for barbarians yet Mill remains
Radical democracy even by standards of 21st century.
Those who defend Mill focus on Mill advocacy of citizens participation beyond
elections and advocacy for Deliberative Democracy.

https://telegram.me/UpscPdfDrive